What does the fossil record say?

wilsoncole · Feb 16, 2011

Dirty Penguin said:
If he or she is not doing work in the relevant fields than their ability to critique that area of science must be scrutinized.

Only that you never seem to get around to that. You dismiss them completely!
All of this proves that being in the field of biology does notr guarantee a fair hearing ear when it comes to dissent from Darwinist evolution.

So what..? Not only am I "proficient" in plumbing but I'm also "proficient" in electrical as well. Being (Mr. Harry the Home Owner)....I'm "proficient" at HVAC as well...But I'm a "Certified Network Engineer". I'm extremely knowledgeable of Microsoft, Linux and Apple networks.....While I'm "proficient" in the area (plumbing, electrical and HVAC) I'm hardly qualified to be hired to perform work on some ones (Plumbing, Electrical or HVAC).....

That's your problem - I am and have been - state certified, licenses and all!

But I have no problems getting contracts to work on home or office networks. Just because you're proficient in one area hardly qualifies you to do work in a field you have no business being in.

I just proved that your example of inadequate critiqueing is a flop.

Again...It would be like letting a Brain surgeon do open heart surgery...Just because he or she went to MED School, is a doctor, and understands human anatomy does not give that doctor the right to perform such a procedure.
I stated it correctly. That tripe has been around for years and shown to be a dishonest creation piece of work. Look, you keep asking this silly, silly question....Would you let a podiatrist perform dentistry? Would you let a urologist perform an appendectomy? These fields of medicine, like other areas of science, are specialized. This is why we don't allow statisticians or mathematicians to perform biological research unless they are "qualified" to do so. This is why at least 98% of that list fails.

That's just a whole lot of lip. It is not my argument. Your (pl) record speaks for itself.
Then what the dickens do you know about it? - according to your (pl) standards, you and your friends here have no business trying to teach me anything about evolution because you are not biologists, you really know nothing about it, you are not able to understand it nor explain it - period! You just believe in it. That’s your faith.
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
Take a look at his peer-reviewed work. This man is eminently qualified, being an expert geneticist, yet, because he does not say what you want to hear, you dismiss him, too.
How is Lonnig disqualified?
Dr. Stanley Salthe, Biologist.......................................................dismissed
Colin Reeves, Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms)…………………………….....dismissed
Chris Williams, Ph.D. Biochemistry ………………………………................dismissed
Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry.......................................................Dismissed
Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology.......................................................Dismissed
Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology .…....Dismissed
Scott Minnich Professor, Microbiology, Molec. Bio. & Biochem..….....dismissed
Ralph Seelke PhD Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology .........dismissed
Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology ....................................................dismissed
John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology ................dismissed
David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, ..........................dismissed
Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science...................................dismissed
Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry......................................dismissed
Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology..................................dismissed
Noel Funderburk, Ph.D. Microbiology ………………………………...............dismissed.
Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, ………………………………..........................dismissed
*edit*

Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology ………………………………......dismissed
Marc C. Daniels, Associate Professor of Biology ……………………………dismissed
Øyvind A. Voie, Ph.D. Biology ……………………………….......................dismissed
David K. Shortess, Professor of Biology ………………………………...........dismissed
A.D. Harrison* Emeritus Professor of Biology ………………………………....dismissed
David William Jensen Professor of Biology ………………………………........dismissed
Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology ………………………………......................dismissed
Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow, Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry …………….dismissed
Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry ……………………………….............dismissed
C. Steven Murphree Professor of Biology ………………………………...........dismissed

I understand these scientists do not accept Darwinist explanations for the complexety of life. Are you contending that they are not biologists?
They doubt Darwin, you (pl) dismiss 'em.
Get them fired, if you (pl) can. Shut their mouths! They are dangerous.

I have more than one that says otherwise.

We need only one, but YOU”RE appealing to numbers - not me.

This appeal to numbers on your part is ludicrous.

Now you’re denying it.
You have not been paying attention or something.
How can you try to pass that off on me? Who's the one with the list of Steves?

i'll bet it's dwarfed by the list of scientists named Steve who support it.

Who's appealing to numbers?

I can admit that I may have had a post or two where I may have shouted. I may have even dismissed most of the nonsense you and newhope have been peddling but I assure the rest of the items you list I've done no such thing. I know for a fact a few of these are against forum rules so I try my hardest to be mindful of that. I suspect you're generalizing but expect nothing less from you. Again, for the record, shouting is not larger or bold font...it is specifically when one uses all caps.

I say you had no need to shout.

There's no numbers game to be played is what I'm telling you. So you're hardly "right" because it's you who contend that the list of "scientist" must be taken seriously...even though most of them don't do any work in the area of biology.

You must have had something in your drink! I said we only need one biologist to give the lie to the position you take that no biologist doubts Darwin.
YOU came up with these numbers:

But in retrospect it really means little because even if all of them were biologist it would hardly be enough to get ones panties in a bunch over their dissent. For every "scientist" on that list (should they all be classified as "Biologist") who disagree with evolution there's 30+ thousand that accepts the fact of evolution. So the ratio would be something like 35,000 to 1.

Now you’re telling me there’s no numbers game to be played. So - what’s with the numbers?

You were wrong and you have been shown over and over how wrong you are..

Shown? Don’t be ridiculous. I could do the same and say I SHOWED you how wrong you are. You say I’m wrong; I say you’re wrong. I don’t see how that gives you an edge. You have not proved that mutations ever improve any organism. No improvement, no evolution.

It's an epic fail on your part.…

I think my statement above shows who failed.
[/quote] but you still want to claim it as some sort of victory which makes you delusional.[/quote]
Now you’re becoming insulting - again. You can’t get you way, lay ‘em out! I don’t think you can see how very childish this is.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
　
Wilson

Gunfingers · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
How can you try to pass that off on me? Who's the one with the list of Steves?
Who's appealing to numbers?

I linked to Project Steve to show that your appeal to numbers was completely without merit, not to make my own appeal to numbers, although given the overwhelming support it's a damned strong appeal.

David M · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
Let's pull their tails!
I'll go a little further and print them out just in case they don't visit the website:
"Richard Dawkins, the loud-mouthed anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth, “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

Just to give the full context. What Dawkins actually wrote was:
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it."

And he's right, no reputable scientists dispute evolution. The only scientists who dispute this do so without evidence for their position, normally from a religious starting point (and therefore a non-scientific basis) and with denial of the evidence for evolution. Dawkins is correct in likening them to Holocaust deniers.

Dirty Penguin · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
On EVERY forum, there are people like these. Ready to pounce on any dissenter from evolution. They ALL seem to react the very same way: Its like they are programmed to do the same things:
Discredit opposers; dismiss the really tough questions; insist on the "mountains of evidence"; insult; demean; slander - ANYTHING to squash the voice of the opponent.

Only if your sources are incorrect...and it without a doubt they are indeed..incorrect.

wilsoncole said:
Consider A.E. Wilder-Smith (d. 1995), who had a Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry from Reading University, England, a Ph.D. in pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and a Ph.D. in pharmacological sciences from ETH

A. E. Wilder-Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wilder-Smith earned his first doctorate in physical organic chemistry at Reading University in 1941. At Geneva he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zuerich. He went on to have a number of different research and teaching positions before becoming a professor of pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Center.
In 1965 he published a book which promoted discredited claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed together at Paluxy River. The footprints were shown to be not of human origin, and some specimens were shown to be doctored and carved. According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's 1981 work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors. Kenneth Christiansen, Professor of Biology at Grinnell College, reviewed the book stating "the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process."He further noted that Wilder-Smith's work disregarded basic literature in the field discussed. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews (President of the Biblical Creation Society) debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith at the Oxford Union. In 2005 intelligent design advocate William A. Dembski wrote that Wilder-Smith's "intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research."

:facepalm:

wilsoncole · Feb 16, 2011

Dirty Penguin said:
Only if your sources are incorrect...and it without a doubt they are indeed..incorrect.
A. E. Wilder-Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wilder-Smith earned his first doctorate in physical organic chemistry at Reading University in 1941. At Geneva he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zuerich. He went on to have a number of different research and teaching positions before becoming a professor of pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Center.
In 1965 he published a book which promoted discredited claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed together at Paluxy River. The footprints were shown to be not of human origin, and some specimens were shown to be doctored and carved. According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's 1981 work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors. Kenneth Christiansen, Professor of Biology at Grinnell College, reviewed the book stating "the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process."He further noted that Wilder-Smith's work disregarded basic literature in the field discussed. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews (President of the Biblical Creation Society) debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith at the Oxford Union. In 2005 intelligent design advocate William A. Dembski wrote that Wilder-Smith's "intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research."

So, what have you proved? That you can react on cue? I already know that. That you can attempt to darken a man's reputation? Knew that, too. That you can find dirt because you know where to look? Not news.
I have a feeling that even you have dirt that you wish to hide. Most people do. But it is only your anonymity that prevents your dirt from hitting the internet.

Sullying a person's reputation is an evil deed.
Especially when that person has done nothing to harm you personally.
But you wouldn't know about evil - you're an unbeliever!
Now - don't you go into one of your spells of paranoia.

Dawkins wrote:
"No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. Funny - but even YOUR information on Wilder-Smith proves that he is a "reputable scientist." AND HE DOUBTS AND DISPUTES EVOLUTION!
So Dawkins is wrong.

You started with Wilder-Smith. You have a very long way to go.
I will add to your labors by lengthening the list.

Gary L. Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology (Florida State University);
Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics (University of Tennessee);
Eugene C. Ashby, Ph.D. Chemistry (Notre Dame University), Emeritus Regents
Professor and Distinguished Professor, School of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
Georgia Institute of Technology;
Phillip Bishop, Ed.D. Exercise Physiology (University of Georgia), Professor of
Kinesiology, University of Alabama;
John H. Bordelon, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Georgia Institute of Technology),
Senior Research Engineer, School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology;
Noel Ricky Byrn, Ph. D. Nuclear Engineering (Georgia Institute of Technology);
Nancy Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of South Carolina), Assistant
Professor of Chemistry, Kennesaw State University;
A. Eugene Carden, Ph.D. Metallurgy (University of Connecticut), Professor
Emeritus of Engineering Mechanics, University of Alabama;
Russell W. Carlson, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Colorado, Boulder),
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Technical Director of the
Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia;
Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Chemical Physics (Louisiana State University),
Professor and Chair, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Kennesaw State
University;
Michael Covington, Ph.D. Linguistics (Yale University), Associate Director,
Artificial Intelligence Center, University of Georgia;
Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University), Emeritus Professor of Aerospace Engineering,
Auburn University;
Cham E. Dallas, Ph.D. Toxicology (University of Texas, Austin), Professor and
Director, CDC Center for Mass Destruction Defense, University of Georgia and
Medical College of Georgia;
S. Todd Deal, Ph. D. BioOrganic Chemistry (The Ohio State University), Professor
of Chemistry, Georgia Southern University;
Keith S. Delaplane, Ph.D. Entomology (Louisiana State University), Professor of
Entomology, University of Georgia;
Allison J. Dobson, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (The Ohio State University),
Associate Professor of Chemistry, Georgia Southern University;
John M Ford, Ph.D. Physics (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University);
Christian Heiss, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Georgia);
Dewey H. Hodges, Ph.D. Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering (Stanford
University), Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;
Timothy Hoover, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin), Associate
Professor and Associate Head of Microbiology, University of Georgia;
Richard J. Kinch, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (Cornell
University);
Terrie L. Lampe, Ph.D. Chemistry (Wayne State University), Professor of
Chemistry, Georgia Perimeter College;
Joseph M. Lary, Ph.D. Biology (University of Alabama);
George Lebo, Ph.D. Physics (University of Florida), Emeritus Associate Professor
Astronomy, University of Florida;
Roger J. Lien, Ph.D. Physiology (North Carolina State University), Associate
Professor, Poultry Science Department, Auburn University;
Emerson Thomas McMullen, Ph.D. History & Philosophy of Science (Indiana
University), Associate Professor of History, Georgia Southern University;
Henry F. Schaefer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics (Stanford University), Graham Perdue
Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry,
University of Georgia;
Norman E. Schmidt, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of South Carolina), Professor of
Chemistry, Georgia Southern University;
Robert B. Sheldon, Ph.D. Physics (University of Maryland, College Park);
Michael A. Skinner, M.D. (Rush College of Medicine), Associate Professor of
Surgery, Duke University;
William C. Small, M.D., Ph.D., Physical Chemistry (Emory University), Associate
Professor of Radiology, Emory University;
Darwin W. Smith, Ph.D., Chemistry (California Institute of Technology), Emeritus
Professor of Chemistry, University of Georgia;
Daniel W. Tedder, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering (University of Wisconsin),
Associate Professor, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology;
Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (Iowa State University), co-author,
The Mystery of Lifes Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (1984);
James A. Tumlin, M.D. (Emory University), Associate Professor of Medicine,
Emory University;
William E. Wade, Pharm.D., (University of Georgia), Professor of Pharmacy,
College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia;
A. Bruce Webster, Ph.D., Department of Animal and Poultry Science (University
of Guelph, Canada);
Robert Wentworth, Ph.D. Toxicology (University of Georgia), Health and Safety
Coordinator, Office of Human Resources, University of Georgia;
Mark G. White, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering (Rice University), Professor of
Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;
John W. Worley, Ph.D. Agricultural Engineering (Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University), Associate Professor, Department of Biological and

Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia."

Dig into their histories and show the world why they are not "reputable scientists."

Happy hunting!!!!!!

(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson

Dirty Penguin · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
Only that you never seem to get around to that. You dismiss them completely!
All of this proves that being in the field of biology does notr guarantee a fair hearing ear when it comes to dissent from Darwinist evolution.

This is incorrect. I will entertain information from any biologist be he or she for evolution or those who have concerns with certain aspects of the theory. If he or she has actually done scientific research in the field, list their findings that challenge the theory then I'm all ears. Dissenters signing a petition means nothing. Your constant reference to said list is waste of time. Present their findings.

wilsoncole said:
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
Take a look at his peer-reviewed work. This man is eminently qualified, being an expert geneticist, yet, because he does not say what you want to hear, you dismiss him, too.
How is Lonnig disqualified?
Colin Reeves, Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms)…………………………….....dismissed
Chris Williams, Ph.D. Biochemistry ………………………………................dismissed
Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry.......................................................Dismissed
Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology.......................................................Dismissed
Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology .…....Dismissed
Scott Minnich Professor, Microbiology, Molec. Bio. & Biochem..….....dismissed
Ralph Seelke PhD Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology .........dismissed
Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology ....................................................dismissed
John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology ................dismissed
David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, ..........................dismissed
Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science...................................dismissed
Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry......................................dismissed
Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology..................................dismissed
Noel Funderburk, Ph.D. Microbiology ………………………………...............dismissed.
Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, ………………………………..........................dismissed
*edit*

Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology ………………………………......dismissed
Marc C. Daniels, Associate Professor of Biology ……………………………dismissed
Øyvind A. Voie, Ph.D. Biology ……………………………….......................dismissed
David K. Shortess, Professor of Biology ………………………………...........dismissed
A.D. Harrison* Emeritus Professor of Biology ………………………………....dismissed
David William Jensen Professor of Biology ………………………………........dismissed
Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology ………………………………......................dismissed
Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow, Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry …………….dismissed
Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry ……………………………….............dismissed
C. Steven Murphree Professor of Biology ………………………………...........dismissed

You're appealing to numbers again.

wilsoncole said:
Get them fired, if you (pl) can. Shut their mouths! They are dangerous.

You over-exaggerate and generalize way too much. I've given you no reason to believe that I would want these people to not present their opinion nor would I ever want them fired, shut up nor do I feel as though they are dangerous. I've never said this, I don't believe this so I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. I do feel that if they are qualified to address Evolutionary Theory then they should examine the evidence and submit their findings for peer review and we all can go from their. Dissent means nothing if they don't follow the proper process to challenge the theory.

wilsoncole said:
We need only one, but YOU”RE appealing to numbers - not me.

I simply countered your statement. For every 1 who is a dissenter there are tens of thousand that except the fact of evolution. It's not an appeal to numbers....It's a fact. What's more important to me is not the number of those who do or don't except rather what's important is their findings given the current evidence.

wilsoncole said:
Now you’re denying it.
You have not been paying attention or something.
How can you try to pass that off on me? Who's the one with the list of Steves?
Who's appealing to numbers?

Not me. I wasn't the one that posted it.....

wilsoncole said:
I say you had no need to shout.

I'll try not to in the future.

wilsoncole said:
You must have had something in your drink! I said we only need one biologist to give the lie to the position you take that no biologist doubts Darwin.
YOU came up with these numbers:

i'll bet it's dwarfed by the list of scientists named Steve who support it.

Click to expand...

No I didn't The list of dissenters were presented by you. That's where this started between you and I. Presenting "1" biologist that dissents is hardly the same as presenting that biologist's findings. Additionally, the quote you listed above was not by me.

wilsoncole said:
Now you’re telling me there’s no numbers game to be played. So - what’s with the numbers?

Because it's not. It was a counter response and more importantly it's a fact.

tumbleweed41 · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
I will add to your labors by lengthening the list.

Well, since we are discussing evolutionary biology and the fossil record, let's remove those in fields unrelated to the discussion.

Russell W. Carlson, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Colorado, Boulder), Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Technical Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia
Timothy Hoover, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin), Associate Professor and Associate Head of Microbiology, University of Georgia
Joseph M. Lary, Ph.D. Biology (University of Alabama); Associate Professor, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
A. Bruce Webster, Ph.D., Department of Animal and Poultry Science (University of Guelph, Canada);
Mark G. White, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering (Rice University), Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;

There, that's better.

wilsoncole said:
Dig into their histories and show the world why they are not "reputable scientists."

Dirty Penguin · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
So, what have you proved? That you can react on cue? I already know that. That you can attempt to darken a man's reputation? Knew that, too. That you can find dirt because you know where to look? Not news.
I have a feeling that even you have dirt that you wish to hide. Most people do. But it is only your anonymity that prevents your dirt from hitting the internet.

wilsoncole said:
Sullying a person's reputation is an evil deed.
Especially when that person has done nothing to harm you personally.
But you wouldn't know about evil - you're an unbeliever!
Now - don't you go into one of your spells of paranoia.

I was just trying to state the facts. H e had a problem with the list and requested to be removed. Those words in the quote against creationism and ID were his not mine.

wilsoncole said:
Dawkins wrote:
"No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. Funny - but even YOUR information on Wilder-Smith proves that he is a "reputable scientist." AND HE DOUBTS AND DISPUTES EVOLUTION!
So Dawkins is wrong.

Then contact Dawkins and take the matter up with him...

wilsoncole said:
You started with Wilder-Smith. You have a very long way to go.
I will add to your labors by lengthening the list.

Don't bother. I'm interested in their findings and if they presented their findings, based on the current evidences, to be reviewed....

tumbleweed41 · Feb 16, 2011

Russell W. Carlson- member of the ISCID, a group which includes Micheal Behe that supports the thoroughly debunked "irreducible complexity" argument.

Hardly a "reputable" position to take.

tumbleweed41 · Feb 16, 2011

Timothy Hoover- another proponent of Irreducible Complexity.

Again, not a reputable position to take.

wilsoncole · Feb 16, 2011

Gunfingers said:
I linked to Project Steve to show that your appeal to numbers was completely without merit, not to make my own appeal to numbers,

Now you deny it!
What "appeal to numbers?" I mentioned ONE and you came up with a great big list of Steves!
Yes - you did it to "make your own appeal to numbers."

although given the overwhelming support it's a damned strong appeal.

See? Now you admit it!
Do you get paid for this?

(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson

tumbleweed41 · Feb 16, 2011

Joseph M. Lary- Along with the above mentioned PhD's, joined Behe in a lawsuit promoting the thoroughly debunked "Irreducible Complexity".

Dirty Penguin · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
You have not proved that mutations ever improve any organism. No improvement, no evolution.

"Beneficial" Mutations are a fact. Superbug, super-fast evolution

Additionally, we can see a "Beneficial" Mutation occur as we observe those born with 6 working fingers and toes. On my brother's side of the family, this was a trait passed down to him from his father. While my brother was born with 6 working toes and fingers our mother decided to have them removed but their are those who are born with these extra digits and have retained them.

ImmortalFlame · Feb 16, 2011

wilsoncole said:
Now you deny it!
What "appeal to numbers?" I mentioned ONE and you came up with a great big list of Steves!
Yes - you did it to "make your own appeal to numbers."

Actually, the list of Steves was brought up in response to your dissent from Darwinism petition.

By the way, is there a reason you're no longer trying to defend that petition from the criticisms we aimed at it? Do you now admit that it was a misleading and dishonest petition?

outhouse · Feb 16, 2011

and yet the creation myth camp still cannot descibe one word regarding fossils

why is that!!!

how do fossils show that the creation myth could have happened?????

outhouse · Feb 16, 2011

outhouse said:
and yet the creation myth camp still cannot descibe one word regarding fossils

why is that!!!

how do fossils show that the creation myth could have happened?????

it proves there myth will stay a myth

it shows exactly why the creation myth should stay outlawed in public schools.

CREATION CAMP HAS NOTHING

wilsoncole · Feb 16, 2011

Dirty Penguin said:
This is incorrect. I will entertain information from any biologist be he or she for evolution or those who have concerns with certain aspects of the theory. If he or she has actually done scientific research in the field, list their findings that challenge the theory then I'm all ears. Dissenters signing a petition means nothing. Your constant reference to said list is waste of time. Present their findings.

You just lied! You reject information or anything else coming from Biologist Behe! He has presented his findings. That, alone, gives the lie to your claim.
You? Who do you think you are? Why should anyone bring their findings to you? Can you really be unbiased? I dont think so! You bias cuts through everything you write.

You're appealing to numbers again.

You may not have noticed, but they are human beings, ALL biologists, not numbers.
You insist that only biologists, those working in the field, can adequately explain evolution. I present you a long list of biologists who do not agree with it, whose findings refute it adequately, and you reject even them. Talk about hard-headed!

You over-exaggerate and generalize way too much. I've given you no reason to believe that I would want these people to not present their opinion nor would I ever want them fired, shut up nor do I feel as though they are dangerous. I've never said this, I don't believe this so I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.

Are you blind or something? Whos talking to you? Did you not see the (pl) every time the words you or yours is used? What did you think that meant? I had the feeling that you would take it that way and that is why I added the (pl).

I do feel that if they are qualified to address Evolutionary Theory then they should examine the evidence and submit their findings for peer review and we all can go from their.

You? Who do you think you are? You cannot dictate policy for anyone!
At this point, I must repeat this:
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
Take a look at his peer-reviewed work. This man is eminently qualified, being an expert geneticist, yet, because he does not say what you want to hear, you dismiss him, too. How is Loennig disqualified?

Dissent means nothing if they don't follow the proper process to challenge the theory.

I know Loennig did, for sure. Have you seen it? Here it is again:
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

I simply countered your statement. For every 1 who is a dissenter there are tens of thousand that except the fact of evolution. It's not an appeal to numbers....It's a fact. What's more important to me is not the number of those who do or don't except rather what's important is their findings given the current evidence.

It IS an appeal to numbers!

Not me. I wasn't the one that posted it..

I repeat - YOU came up with these numbers:

But in retrospect it really means little because even if all of them were biologist it would hardly be enough to get ones panties in a bunch over their dissent. For every "scientist" on that list (should they all be classified as "Biologist") who disagree with evolution there's 30+ thousand that accepts the fact of evolution. So the ratio would be something like 35,000 to 1.

No I didn't The list of dissenters were presented by you.

I presented Dissent From Darwinism. YOU came up with the numbers as stated above.

Because it's not. It was a counter response and more importantly it's a fact.

ANYTHING stated by you is a FACT! Right?

Not! b

NOT!N
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson

newhope101 · Feb 16, 2011

Dirty Penguin said:
"Beneficial" Mutations are a fact. Superbug, super-fast evolution
This is a silly example. You have shown how bacteria mutates and remains bacteria. Congratulations!This is nonsense evidence much the same as the drosophilia. All this evidence displays is in kind variation. Rather this is excellent evidence that a bacteria will remain a bacteria and won't start morphing into anything else. The bacteria are still bacteria and the fuitfly is still a fruit fly. Creationists do not disagree with the gaining of immunity, This is not evidence of evolution. I have already told you that after 600 generations of fruitfly equivalent to 12,000 human years, these researchers could not get one allele to fix in a population for accelerated development. Do you suppose these researchers were just messing around? I doubt it. They expected and hoped that the allele would fix in that amount of time. This at least would have demonstrated one minor evolutionary mechanisim at work in non asexual organisms. Unfortunately, it didn't. One of the reasons was not enough time. Hence despite any excuses your researchers could not provide evidence of this mechanism of 'fixation' and therefore evidence remains ellusive. Rememeber populations change and require the fixing of new traits and alleles before speciation can occur.

Drosophilia were able to adapt and select for accelerated development while using the same genes, with different expressions. They could all revert back. Hence this shows in-kind variation
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Additionally, we can see a "Beneficial" Mutation occur as we observe those born with 6 working fingers and toes. On my brother side of the family, this was a trait passed down to him from his father. While my brother was born with 6 working toes and fingers our mother decided to have them removed but their are those who are born with these extra digits and have retained them.

How is a genetic deformity any proof of a beneficial mutation? Are you suggesting the human/chimp ancestor had 6 digits? Perhaps people should leave it there as 6 fingers and toes may be the new look homo sapiens sapiens sapiens. It is kinda like the half wing dilemma...ridiculous and incredible.

Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]

Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what you and your researchers are suggesting is that the genomic regions of accelerated evolution eg Y chromosome, underwent a sucessfully fast evolutionary process despite 70% of mutations having damaging effects. What luck!

Luck is also involved in genetic drift.......

The effect of genetic drift is larger in small populations, and smaller in large populations. Vigorous debates wage among scientists over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968 Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

Now Mr Dirty Penguin you are free to believe this and the plethora of theories put up to explain it all. You can believe these algorithims that incorporate the use of probabailities and change like the wind. Much of it is based on population size of which you have no idea whatsoever when it comes to millions of years ago. It is also based on sexual activities such as promiscuity etc. What rot! I am sorry but this is not convincing. This is straw grabbing at best.

It is unfortunate for you that all these supposed intermediate speices or common ancestors have died out. If some were still around you would have your proof of evolution. Unfortunately for you and your researchers not one intermediate species or common ancestor has survived.

Do you not think it is a little far fetched to believe that not one common ancestor or intermediate was fortunate enough to have survived. Bacteria are still here and are still bacteria. There ain't no bacteria around looking as if it is going to morph into anything else except bacteria. This is proof that bacteria and other life just stays within the kind it was created to be...and that is all your link demonstrates.

outhouse · Feb 16, 2011

wow look at all the quote mining and misinformation lol

ImmortalFlame · Feb 16, 2011

newhope101 said:
It is unfortunate for you that all these supposed intermediate speices or common ancestors have died out. If some were still around you would have your proof of evolution. Unfortunately for you and your researchers not one intermediate species or common ancestor has survived.

Do you not think it is a little far fetched to believe that not one common ancestor or intermediate was fortunate enough to have survived. Bacteria are still here and are still bacteria. There ain't no bacteria around looking as if it is going to morph into anything else except bacteria. This is proof that bacteria and other life just stays within the kind it was created to be...and that is all your link demonstrates.

Of for God's sake newhope, are you still this ignorant of basic biology and taxonomy?

All species are transitional, not a single species living today can be classified as "non-transitional" since evolution is an ongoing process. When referring to "transitional forms" in the fossil record, what is being referred to are particular species or fossils which represent the "between stages" of two particular points in the evolutionary tree - it does not mean that the two particular points it was between are "not transitional".

Also, you're moving the goalposts. The claim was that mutations are not beneficial. The link demonstrates, clearly, that mutations can and have been beneficial. The statement that mutations cannot have benefits is nothing short of an astounding lie in the face of observed scientific fact. You are flailing wildly in the face of science.

What does the fossil record say?

Active Member

Happiness Incarnate

Well-Known Member

Master Of Ceremony

Active Member

Master Of Ceremony

Resident Liberal Hippie

Master Of Ceremony

Resident Liberal Hippie

Resident Liberal Hippie

Active Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Master Of Ceremony

Woke gremlin

Atheistically

Atheistically

Active Member

Active Member

Atheistically

Woke gremlin