Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
1 2
Author
Comment
Enough montificating - Where is your evidence?

The following is an example of the ‘evidence’ that evolutionists consistently use for attempting to substantiate their faith:

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726246
akg41470
“I'm pretty darn sure there's a heck of a lot of evidence that supports evolution. Since you seem to not be aware of any of it, let me point you to some:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=62
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, if you're saying there's no evidence at all, then I'm afraid you've got a lot of explaining to do, becuase those links above carry a LOT of material - well researched, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.”



Yes, first PLEASE go to Berkeley’s interesting examples of ‘evidence’:
Horse evolution – This has been disproved decades ago:
‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

Blue mussels:
Thicker shells? Wow, now there’s a big leap in evolution …

Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?

Cricket evolution
Chirpless? So losing features is now evolution at work?

Global warming:
That’s a new one … Why doesn’t this even surprise me?

As far as the talkorigins link, again why is it that you guys are silent when I ask for ONE specific ‘transitional’ fossil?
Here are just two in the last 10 days:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726086/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/724588/3

(Go to next thread for whale evolution.)

Whale evolution folly

From:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726117
Arneson:
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”


1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
From:
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:

"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_foramen

The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.


2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.

Where is the logic?

Please note the lack of logic some evolutionists display on our board:

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726181/
John
"And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened."

Arneson responds:
“NO Evolutionary scientist would propose such a transition. It would not be an example of evolution. It would be an argument disproving evolution. You really should know something about the subject you are talking about before spouting off.”

THEN ...

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726240
Arneson
“Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls. Pakicetids have ears that share specific characteristics only with extant whales. Their ankle bones had the unique astragalus that both later aquatic whales and all artiodactyls share. Read some of Prof. Thewissen's papers and Zimmer's book. They make a solid case.”


*** NOTE ***
Arneson contradicts himself and actually points to a 'wolf-like' creature (Pakicetus) supposedly evolving into a whale (cetacean/dolphin).
Carl Zimmer used the description of ‘wolf-like’ for Pakicetus in his book.

Where Have all the Dinos Gone?

Where have all the dinos gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the dinos gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the dinos gone?
They're in the trees in Central Park!
When will you ever learn?
When will you ever learn?

But let's keep score of all the leaps of serious illogic. We have:

-Dolphins from dogs
-Whales from horses, cows, and camels
-Wolves turning into whales

And don't forget the best:

-Dinosaurs turning into birds!

I have two words:

Booby hatch.

But note Arneson's certitude:

"Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls."

Not "Whales may have" or "it is thought," no, no! It's "Whales DID evolve...."

The self-deception that springs from self-worship is so strong, almost nothing in this world can break it. Why, they are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, don't you see? They understand all of these mysteries that the rest of us mere mortals can barely begin to fathom.

Yeah, right.

Arneson invokes God and said He gave us a brain to use. Well, the Bible also says that, because of the arrogance and pride of man, for this purpose God will send them strong delusion so that they will believe a lie, and be lost forever.

Since you invoked God, don't forget that part too, Arneson.

One last question regarding the generous use of seriously-flawed logic: Do you know why the Dodo bird went extinct?

Because he was so stupid, he could not adapt and live in the real world. He thought he was soooo smart, but as it turned out, not so much, really.

Self-extinction is a terrible waste.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Please note the lack of logic some evolutionists display on our board:

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726181/
John
"And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened."

Arneson responds:
“NO Evolutionary scientist would propose such a transition. It would not be an example of evolution. It would be an argument disproving evolution. You really should know something about the subject you are talking about before spouting off.”

THEN ...

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726240
Arneson
“Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls. Pakicetids have ears that share specific characteristics only with extant whales. Their ankle bones had the unique astragalus that both later aquatic whales and all artiodactyls share. Read some of Prof. Thewissen's papers and Zimmer's book. They make a solid case.”


*** NOTE ***
Arneson contradicts himself and actually points to a 'wolf-like' creature (Pakicetus) supposedly evolving into a whale (cetacean/dolphin).
Carl Zimmer used the description of ‘wolf-like’ for Pakicetus in his book.

Re: Where Have all the Dinos Gone?

====
But let's keep score of all the leaps of serious illogic. We have:
-Dolphins from dogs
-Whales from horses, cows, and camels
-Wolves turning into whales
And don't forget the best:
-Dinosaurs turning into birds!

I have two words:
Booby hatch.
====

Oh really? And WHY is it "booby hatch"? Can you give us a better explanation of why we see what we see in the fossil record?

(not to mention those or GROSS oversimplifications of the ancestors of the modern animals. we would hardly call them 'dogs', 'horses', 'cows', or 'wolves' by today's standards)

Lemme guess - God made everything, Noah rescued 2 of each, worldwide flood, mass migration and extreme evolution more than any scientist would believe. And no proof.

If you're out to get evolution, you'd better have a better explanation, otherwise your argument is very weak.

====
But note Arneson's certitude:

"Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls."

Not "Whales may have" or "it is thought," no, no! It's "Whales DID evolve...."

The self-deception that springs from self-worship is so strong, almost nothing in this world can break it. Why, they are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, don't you see? They understand all of these mysteries that the rest of us mere mortals can barely begin to fathom.
=====

Why yes, they are much more intelligent in the subject because they have DONE THE RESEARCH.

Can you point to a scientific study that YOU have done on the subject? Perhaps a paper and or a presentation at a conference? Why do you think YOU are so much more educated on the subject?

====
Arneson invokes God and said He gave us a brain to use. Well, the Bible also says that, because of the arrogance and pride of man, for this purpose God will send them strong delusion so that they will believe a lie, and be lost forever.
====

And what do you think that delusion might be referring to? Are you given any clue as to what it might be? Is evolution mentioned in the Bible? Could it just as easily be "religious fanaticism" or "Bible literalism"?

Let us know when you know for sure - after you've talked directly to God about it.

====
One last question regarding the generous use of seriously-flawed logic: Do you know why the Dodo bird went extinct?

Because he was so stupid, he could not adapt and live in the real world. He thought he was soooo smart, but as it turned out, not so much, really.

Self-extinction is a terrible waste.
====

The Dodo bird went extinct by being hunted and the introduction of new animals (very quickly) to their environment. It had very little to to with the Dodo bird's intellect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird#Extinction

And your turning the Dodo into a self-aware intellect for dramatic effect is silly at best. There's very little proof that animals think of themselves in that way.

This whole post reads like a sermon. All drama, no logic, no actual argument. Just loud words.

The Answer is Philosophical, Not Scientific

You ask:

"Can you give us a better explanation of why we see what we see in the fossil record?"

Science sees the fossil evidence, and tries to use said to prove that creation self-generated, at which point real science becomes pseudoscience. No one denies that the bones are in the rocks, but as to what they mean, that answer by necessity has to be philosophical, because no living person was there, and recreating what really happened is mere speculation at best. Nothing observed can be recreated in the laboratory, which is what is required for bona fide scientific proof.

Science is not supposed to be about philosophy, but about verifiable cause and effect, with physical results that can be reproduced under the same circumstances. When science assumes to be all-knowing, it becomes dictatorial, as you and Arneson show with your bizarre and arbitrary "quote mining" drivel which you attempt to force on everyone else. The Taliban has nothing on you.

There is such a thing as objective reality and a transcendent moral order, and all of your trampling on the truth will never change that.

Filling in the blanks with one gross assumption after another is NOT science. It is politicizing science and a religious act, which church you humanists belong to. You make fun of the faith of those who believe in the Bible, yet you are the most religious and superstitious of all, and you don't even know it.

As for the concept of self-aware Dodos, is such a thing is possible you ask? Yes, and your screeds prove it beyond all doubt.

And one more thing about the way you sneer at God and His followers. Everything in the Bible that you laugh at and make fun of, becomes closed to you. Think about that the next time you or a loved one needs a miracle.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

====
But let's keep score of all the leaps of serious illogic. We have:
-Dolphins from dogs
-Whales from horses, cows, and camels
-Wolves turning into whales
And don't forget the best:
-Dinosaurs turning into birds!

I have two words:
Booby hatch.
====

Oh really? And WHY is it "booby hatch"? Can you give us a better explanation of why we see what we see in the fossil record?

(not to mention those or GROSS oversimplifications of the ancestors of the modern animals. we would hardly call them 'dogs', 'horses', 'cows', or 'wolves' by today's standards)

Lemme guess - God made everything, Noah rescued 2 of each, worldwide flood, mass migration and extreme evolution more than any scientist would believe. And no proof.

If you're out to get evolution, you'd better have a better explanation, otherwise your argument is very weak.

====
But note Arneson's certitude:

"Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls."

Not "Whales may have" or "it is thought," no, no! It's "Whales DID evolve...."

The self-deception that springs from self-worship is so strong, almost nothing in this world can break it. Why, they are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, don't you see? They understand all of these mysteries that the rest of us mere mortals can barely begin to fathom.
=====

Why yes, they are much more intelligent in the subject because they have DONE THE RESEARCH.

Can you point to a scientific study that YOU have done on the subject? Perhaps a paper and or a presentation at a conference? Why do you think YOU are so much more educated on the subject?

====
Arneson invokes God and said He gave us a brain to use. Well, the Bible also says that, because of the arrogance and pride of man, for this purpose God will send them strong delusion so that they will believe a lie, and be lost forever.
====

And what do you think that delusion might be referring to? Are you given any clue as to what it might be? Is evolution mentioned in the Bible? Could it just as easily be "religious fanaticism" or "Bible literalism"?

Let us know when you know for sure - after you've talked directly to God about it.

====
One last question regarding the generous use of seriously-flawed logic: Do you know why the Dodo bird went extinct?

Because he was so stupid, he could not adapt and live in the real world. He thought he was soooo smart, but as it turned out, not so much, really.

Self-extinction is a terrible waste.
====

The Dodo bird went extinct by being hunted and the introduction of new animals (very quickly) to their environment. It had very little to to with the Dodo bird's intellect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird#Extinction

And your turning the Dodo into a self-aware intellect for dramatic effect is silly at best. There's very little proof that animals think of themselves in that way.

This whole post reads like a sermon. All drama, no logic, no actual argument. Just loud words.

Are you sure you want to discuss the philosophy of science?

====
Science sees the fossil evidence, and tries to use said to prove that creation self-generated, at which point real science becomes pseudoscience.
====

Science does not (and did not) depend solely on the fossil evidence to back up evolution. In fact, Darwin saw a lot of substantiation for the theory by seeing the animals (particularly finches) on his HMS Beagle journey. It was not and is not the only thing Darwin used. Fossil evidence is merely another school of science that supports the theory.

As does geology. As does biology. As does paleontology. As does radiometric dating. As does DNA.

Far from pseudoscience.

====
No one denies that the bones are in the rocks, but as to what they mean, that answer by necessity has to be philosophical
====

Are you SURE that's what you meant?
Philosophical means "of or relating to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence"... are you saying that fossils alone make you ponder where knowledge comes from?

====
because no living person was there, and recreating what really happened is mere speculation at best.
====

AH this is a very interesting point, I'd like to delve into this further with you.

Are you saying that because nobody observed it - or can have observed it - that it's not a valid inference for science?

Please respond to this point, because it's a very interesting one you've brought up.

====
Nothing observed can be recreated in the laboratory, which is what is required for bona fide scientific proof.
====

I believe if you had done your research and reading (to which both Arneson and I have pointed out to you), you would see that BY DEFINITION macroevolution CAN be observed in the laboratory. Why are you ignoring that evidence? Please be specific.

====
Science is not supposed to be about philosophy, but about verifiable cause and effect, with physical results that can be reproduced under the same circumstances.
====

That is partly true. However, science (and THEORIES of science) can postulate what one might see if this set of rules were true - this is still science, albeit a higher level of such. There is also a whole professional field called the "philosophy of science".

====
When science assumes to be all-knowing...
====

When has science assumed to be all-knowing? I don't think any scientist would EVER say that.

Science is about "the best explanation of the world given the facts that are seen". It tends as best it can toward truth - but never pretends to be absolute truth. Only religion pretends to do that.

====
as you and Arneson show with your bizarre and arbitrary "quote mining" drivel which you attempt to force on everyone else. The Taliban has nothing on you.
====

Oh yes, both Arneson and I are of a strict anti-modern ideology which chooses to use a literal interpretation of a holy book to oppress women, have no sort of elective government, and fight against non-believers.

Oh wait, that sounds a lot like someone else.

By the way, you keep attempting to deflect the obvious quote-mining back on us. You're looking rather pitiful - it's plain to see what you've done.

====
There is such a thing as objective reality and a transcendent moral order, and all of your trampling on the truth will never change that.
====

OK then, where did this moral code come from? Hundreds of thousands of years of societal evolution or from some guy on a mountain top with two stone tablets?

Did the Jews actually think that killing, coveting, stealing et al were all pretty much just fine to do until God comes along and says "no, stop that"? Sounds a little backwards to me.

====
As for the concept of self-aware Dodos, is such a thing is possible you ask? Yes, and your screeds prove it beyond all doubt.
====

Really? Do you have a link to some research that has evidence for this? (I'm speaking of self-aware in terms knowing one's self in contrast to other beings, not a simple sentience).

And like i said, if you actually do the research, you'll see why the Dodo REALLY became extinct - not because it thought highly of itself.

====
And one more thing about the way you sneer at God and His followers. Everything in the Bible that you laugh at and make fun of, becomes closed to you. Think about that the next time you or a loved one needs a miracle.
====

I have needed miracles in my past, John. I prayed for some and I worked hard for others. Which ones do YOU think came through?

I'll tell you it's a lot more satisfying when something I wanted came to me after HARD WORK rather than just being given to me after closing my eyes and saying words. Why do you think that is? Why do I feel more satisfied?

Let me rephrase your sentence and see which one makes more sense:
"And one more thing about the way you sneer at evolution and scientists. Everything in science that you laugh at and make fun of becomes closed to you. Think about that the next time you or a loved one needs medical treatment."

Where do you run when you have a serious medical issue, John? To your church? Or to the hospital? Why do you think the field of medicine has improved to greatly in the past, say, 150 years? Does evolutionary biology ring a bell?

----

By the way, you didn't answer my question:
"Can you give us a better explanation of why we see what we see in the fossil record?"

Even if it's philosophical - what is the explanation, John?

Your Homeric Wisdom; Darwin's Acid Test

You bring up some interesting questions and make some good points---some are Homeric, while others are Homeric of the Simpson kind.

But, no matter, we will take them one at a time. First, you speak of evolutionary biology in medicine. I submit to you that what you speak of is smoke and mirrors:

"Using the principles of evolution and natural selection in medicine has not been common practice. Individual physicians have looked at disease through the paradigm of evolution and have seen aspects of illnesses that appear to answer to Darwin's propositions. However, the causes of disease and the consequential treatment modalities have not been routinely determined using evolutionary principles. This Darwinian perspective is bringing some different ideas to medicine which clearly deserve the consideration of practitioners. Let us continue our Quest by examining Darwin's idea of natural selection as it applies specifically to the disease of cancer. Click on the Evolution and Cancer link below:"

This is from www.fastol.com, Johns Hopkins University.

Notice that it says that "Using the principles of evolution and natural selection in medicine HAS NOT been common practice."

And:

"...the causes of diseases and the consequential treatment modalities HAVE NOT been routinely determined using evolutionary practices."

Now, why do you suppose that is? Why after 150 years, have medical practices not incorporated the "vital" principles of evolution and natural selection?

The answer is, because in terms of cause and effect and developing effective medicines and treatments, the so-called principles of evolution and natural selection are absolutely and utterly useless. People are paying good money for competent health care, and they are not about to put up with nonsensical gibberish that has no meaning in the real world.

If and when I were to need medical treatment, I want it based on sound science, which mean drugs and treatments that have been arrived at through rigorous testing in the lab and on volunteers, using observable causes and effects and sound methodologies.

You confuse good medicine and real science with bogus science. Microevolution, where organisms adapt to their environment, is a fact and is no doubt useful in medical science, but evolutionary biology is virtually useless, and even though they give it lip service, it is not now nor will it ever be used in the field of medicine, where real people need real results, and not useless quackery perpetrated by vacuous buffoons.

And I don't sneer at real science. It is valuable and useful, and it makes all of our lives better when used properly. But it is not my god that I fall down and worship, and I do my own thinking. Real science is to be our servant, not our master.

You say that fossil evidence was not the only thing Darwin used. True enough, but he stipulated that verifying the theory by the evidence in the rocks would be the acid test.

And this burning truth, this glaring fact remains: Evolutionists have absolutely no fossil evidence of the kind that Darwin himself said was required, "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the FINEST GRADUATED STEPS."

After 150 years and multiplied millions and millions of fossils, the fact that you still have nothing, nothing, nothing, shows that Darwin was right, his theory did not and cannot pass the acid test, and it is a bust.

Face it and do something valuable with your time here on earth.

That is enough for now, I will answer more later.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

====
Science sees the fossil evidence, and tries to use said to prove that creation self-generated, at which point real science becomes pseudoscience.
====

Science does not (and did not) depend solely on the fossil evidence to back up evolution. In fact, Darwin saw a lot of substantiation for the theory by seeing the animals (particularly finches) on his HMS Beagle journey. It was not and is not the only thing Darwin used. Fossil evidence is merely another school of science that supports the theory.

As does geology. As does biology. As does paleontology. As does radiometric dating. As does DNA.

Far from pseudoscience.

====
No one denies that the bones are in the rocks, but as to what they mean, that answer by necessity has to be philosophical
====

Are you SURE that's what you meant?
Philosophical means "of or relating to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence"... are you saying that fossils alone make you ponder where knowledge comes from?

====
because no living person was there, and recreating what really happened is mere speculation at best.
====

AH this is a very interesting point, I'd like to delve into this further with you.

Are you saying that because nobody observed it - or can have observed it - that it's not a valid inference for science?

Please respond to this point, because it's a very interesting one you've brought up.

====
Nothing observed can be recreated in the laboratory, which is what is required for bona fide scientific proof.
====

I believe if you had done your research and reading (to which both Arneson and I have pointed out to you), you would see that BY DEFINITION macroevolution CAN be observed in the laboratory. Why are you ignoring that evidence? Please be specific.

====
Science is not supposed to be about philosophy, but about verifiable cause and effect, with physical results that can be reproduced under the same circumstances.
====

That is partly true. However, science (and THEORIES of science) can postulate what one might see if this set of rules were true - this is still science, albeit a higher level of such. There is also a whole professional field called the "philosophy of science".

====
When science assumes to be all-knowing...
====

When has science assumed to be all-knowing? I don't think any scientist would EVER say that.

Science is about "the best explanation of the world given the facts that are seen". It tends as best it can toward truth - but never pretends to be absolute truth. Only religion pretends to do that.

====
as you and Arneson show with your bizarre and arbitrary "quote mining" drivel which you attempt to force on everyone else. The Taliban has nothing on you.
====

Oh yes, both Arneson and I are of a strict anti-modern ideology which chooses to use a literal interpretation of a holy book to oppress women, have no sort of elective government, and fight against non-believers.

Oh wait, that sounds a lot like someone else.

By the way, you keep attempting to deflect the obvious quote-mining back on us. You're looking rather pitiful - it's plain to see what you've done.

====
There is such a thing as objective reality and a transcendent moral order, and all of your trampling on the truth will never change that.
====

OK then, where did this moral code come from? Hundreds of thousands of years of societal evolution or from some guy on a mountain top with two stone tablets?

Did the Jews actually think that killing, coveting, stealing et al were all pretty much just fine to do until God comes along and says "no, stop that"? Sounds a little backwards to me.

====
As for the concept of self-aware Dodos, is such a thing is possible you ask? Yes, and your screeds prove it beyond all doubt.
====

Really? Do you have a link to some research that has evidence for this? (I'm speaking of self-aware in terms knowing one's self in contrast to other beings, not a simple sentience).

And like i said, if you actually do the research, you'll see why the Dodo REALLY became extinct - not because it thought highly of itself.

====
And one more thing about the way you sneer at God and His followers. Everything in the Bible that you laugh at and make fun of, becomes closed to you. Think about that the next time you or a loved one needs a miracle.
====

I have needed miracles in my past, John. I prayed for some and I worked hard for others. Which ones do YOU think came through?

I'll tell you it's a lot more satisfying when something I wanted came to me after HARD WORK rather than just being given to me after closing my eyes and saying words. Why do you think that is? Why do I feel more satisfied?

Let me rephrase your sentence and see which one makes more sense:
"And one more thing about the way you sneer at evolution and scientists. Everything in science that you laugh at and make fun of becomes closed to you. Think about that the next time you or a loved one needs medical treatment."

Where do you run when you have a serious medical issue, John? To your church? Or to the hospital? Why do you think the field of medicine has improved to greatly in the past, say, 150 years? Does evolutionary biology ring a bell?

----

By the way, you didn't answer my question:
"Can you give us a better explanation of why we see what we see in the fossil record?"

Even if it's philosophical - what is the explanation, John?

Attacking evolutionary medicine?!?

Wow, of all the points to counter on my previous post, you attacked the one with the most research behind it that supports evolution. Even your quote mine was particularly lame.

====
Notice that it says that "Using the principles of evolution and natural selection in medicine HAS NOT been common practice."
====

That's because it's an emerging field. It has not been common practice in the past because it is relatively new idea.

====
"...the causes of diseases and the consequential treatment modalities HAVE NOT been routinely determined using evolutionary practices."
====

You completely failed to read the next sentence:

" This Darwinian perspective is bringing some different ideas to medicine which clearly deserve the consideration of practitioners."

The rest of your post is simply postulating against these two assertions, and it's the lamest argument I've heard come from you.

This one is particularly shocking:
====
evolutionary biology is virtually useless
====

Wow. Really.

Even the web site you pointed me to:
http://www.fastol.com/~renkwitz/evolutionary_medicine.htm

...was FULL of documents, links to books, information on evolutionary biology classes at universities and new ideas as to how this new science is bringing some really neat ideas to the table.

You attacked the wrong subject, John. The evidence against your point is really overwhelming.

Now how about getting on to the other points in my post?

More Auto-intoxication; No Honor

You are the one who simply does not get it:

"This Darwinian perspective is bringing some different ideas to medicine which clearly deserve the consideration of practitioners."

It is all hot air. To declare that these different ideas "clearly deserve the consideration of practitioners" is NOT the same thing as using ideas that work in the real world. Are you so without any foundation in reality that you can't see that?

I repeat, evolutionary biology is so useless that it is is simply not being applied anywhere in medicine. I don't care about how it "...was FULL of documents, links to books, information on evolutionary biology classes at universities and new ideas as to how this new science is bringing some really neat ideas to the table."

It is ALL talk. Show me where evolution is being applied in medicine. You can't because it isn't.

More:

"That's because it's an emerging field. It has not been common practice in the past because it is relatively new idea."

This is simply weak minded. Evolutionary biology has been around since Darwin, as he was the first in the field (such as it is), and you are seriously telling me that it has never been applied to medicine because no one ever thought about it before? Just absurd!

No one has ever applied it to medicine because it has no practical application, period.

As to your idiotic charge of quote mining, I am insisting that you give me a definition of your moronic charge. I used the quote that pertained to the point I was making, I gave the proper attribution, and I gave the Website so anyone could look it up for themselves. That is as open and aboveboard as anyone can be.

You are attempting to undermine the quality of my argument by suggesting that I somehow engaged in a questionable practice. It is a vile tactic, and you are using it because your arguments are so weak. Debate me on the merits of the subject if you can, or admit that you don't have a leg to stand on.

There is no quote mining going on here, and if you cannot substantiate such a contemptible smear tactic, I will consider you to be a person without any honor or personal decency whatsoever, and I will no longer answer your posts.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Wow, of all the points to counter on my previous post, you attacked the one with the most research behind it that supports evolution. Even your quote mine was particularly lame.

====
Notice that it says that "Using the principles of evolution and natural selection in medicine HAS NOT been common practice."
====

That's because it's an emerging field. It has not been common practice in the past because it is relatively new idea.

====
"...the causes of diseases and the consequential treatment modalities HAVE NOT been routinely determined using evolutionary practices."
====

You completely failed to read the next sentence:

" This Darwinian perspective is bringing some different ideas to medicine which clearly deserve the consideration of practitioners."

The rest of your post is simply postulating against these two assertions, and it's the lamest argument I've heard come from you.

This one is particularly shocking:
====
evolutionary biology is virtually useless
====

Wow. Really.

Even the web site you pointed me to:
http://www.fastol.com/~renkwitz/evolutionary_medicine.htm

...was FULL of documents, links to books, information on evolutionary biology classes at universities and new ideas as to how this new science is bringing some really neat ideas to the table.

You attacked the wrong subject, John. The evidence against your point is really overwhelming.

Now how about getting on to the other points in my post?

Straight up lying

Again, John, with the personal insults. Let them go. They don't scare me and they make you look defensive.

===
I repeat, evolutionary biology is so useless that it is is simply not being applied anywhere in medicine.
===
Show me where evolution is being applied in medicine. You can't because it isn't.
===
No one has ever applied it to medicine because it has no practical application, period.
===

In study:
http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/darwinmed/darwinmed.html

Lectures and programs:
http://science.education.nih.gov/home2.nsf/Featured+Programs/CCA1A19ECF07271C8525716A00597219

A simple explanation (with graphs and charts) showing how/why it's important:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/medicine_01

You are correct in that I cannot find a current application (I don't have access to the latest medical journals), but it's not because it's invalid as a theory, it's because, like I said, it's a NEW FIELD.

Now John, if you have a problem with evolution being used in medicine by claiming that evolution ITSELF doesn't work...since there's no fossil argument for you to argue with...

Which part of evolution is it you don't like? The natural selection part or the mutation part?

...because both of them can be pretty easily demonstrated in smaller organisms, right before your eyes and in the lab.

A clear example of out-of-context quote mining

Let me give you a CRYSTAL CLEAR example of what an out-of-context quote is, so that we BOTH understand what the general populus believe one is. Then perhaps we can cease with the name calling and get to the task at hand.

---

Here is a quote from Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial:

"...evolution is a just-so story about our past, and it has no scientific significance in the world today, it's unimportant."

Looks pretty ****ing, doesn't it? Did Dr. MIller say this? Yes he did. Did he say it under oath? In a court of law? He sure did. In front of a judge, even.

Is that what he meant?...
NO

Here is THE FULL QUOTE, IN CONTEXT:

"...I've often been approached by people who have told me, well, evolution is a just-so story about our past, and it has no scientific significance in the world today, it's unimportant. I can't think of any statement that I would disagree with more."

When you mine a quote, you take something someone said and by paraphrasing or removing it from it's original reference and take it to mean something else. This is a perfect (if not a bit more dramatic) example of what you have done to Darwin and Gould's quotes.

----

NOW do you understand what I mean when I say OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE MINING? Can I be ANY CLEARER?

Souce? Or are you just spouting unfounded assertions?

John said:
"The answer is, because in terms of cause and effect and developing effective medicines and treatments, the so-called principles of evolution and natural selection are absolutely and utterly useless."

Source? Or are you just spouting of unfounded assertions?

John said:
"You confuse good medicine and real science with bogus science. Microevolution, where organisms adapt to their environment, is a fact and is no doubt useful in medical science, but evolutionary biology is virtually useless, and even though they give it lip service, it is not now nor will it ever be used in the field of medicine, where real people need real results, and not useless quackery perpetrated by vacuous buffoons."

Are You Unable to do Your Own Thinking?

You ask me for a source. For what? My assertion stands. Refute it on the merits if you can. Or do you have to have an "authority" for everything, because you are so unable to think for yourself?

Thinking. Try it, you'll like it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John said:
"You confuse good medicine and real science with bogus science. Microevolution, where organisms adapt to their environment, is a fact and is no doubt useful in medical science, but evolutionary biology is virtually useless, and even though they give it lip service, it is not now nor will it ever be used in the field of medicine, where real people need real results, and not useless quackery perpetrated by vacuous buffoons."

Just as I thought...

John said:
"You ask me for a source. For what? My assertion stands. Refute it on the merits if you can. Or do you have to have an "authority" for everything, because you are so unable to think for yourself?

Thinking. Try it, you'll like it."

Okay John. Let me walk you through this. A few years ago, I was working at a major university. My department sent sclolars overseas and brought visiting scholars to the US. At the time of the SARS epidemic, we were hosting about a dozen Chinese scholars. My wife and son also traveled to Toronto (a hot spot for SARS) at the height of the epidemic. I would much rather turn to real science to an idea how to deal with this disease.

You say evolutionary theory doesn't inform medicine. What about the studies of SARS:

"In the middle phase, which began with a so-called super-spreader event in a Guangzhou hospital, a strain missing 29 nucleotides became dominant. The scientists also found changes that caused alterations to amino acids of the virus spike protein, which allows the virus to adhere to host cells. "What we see is the virus fine-tuning itself to enhance its access to a new host: humans," study co-author Chung-I Wu of the University of Chicago explains. 'This is a disturbing process to watch, as the virus improves itself under selective pressure, learning to spread from person to person, then sticking with the version that is most effective.'"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE372-74D5-1019-B4D583414B7F0000

Are you sure that you know what you are talking about when you refer to evolution as junk science?

Thank You--Now We are Getting Somewhere!

What you are describing when you say a virus is "fine-tuning itself," improving itself under selective pressure, is an organism responding to its environment. No thinking person denies that an organism, from the simplest to the most complex, is able to and in fact does, undergo subtle and sometimes dramatic changes to adapt to a threat or as a means of attacking a host. Or as in the case of dogs from wolves, adapting to their new pack of humans. And look how different dogs are from wolves, while still retaining canine characteristics and still being able to interbreed. This is all micro-evolution. But there are no actual examples of one animal completely changing into another, no matter how much time is involved. THAT is the sticking point, and where we disagree.

This information about organism adaptation, btw, is vital to the practice of medicine, as I so stated before. And this holds true from single-celled life all the way up to complex humans.

But note what your quote and you are suggesting, that the virus is fine-tuning and improving itself to better attack its host. Remember one of the stipulations of evolutionary theory, that any changes in an organism cannot be for a purpose. It all has to be based on chance mutations. I agree with your writer, I think it is obvious that even single-celled organisms have a type of intelligence that enables them to adapt, but this is the kind of artificial thought straight-jacket that evolutionist force on others.

Observation and independent thinking are both part of the genuine scientific process, and ought to be encouraged at every opportunity. That is how new things are discovered, and how real progress is made. The rest is brainwashing.

Don't get mad for me saying this, but congratulations on your breakthrough!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John said:
"You ask me for a source. For what? My assertion stands. Refute it on the merits if you can. Or do you have to have an "authority" for everything, because you are so unable to think for yourself?

Thinking. Try it, you'll like it."

Okay John. Let me walk you through this. A few years ago, I was working at a major university. My department sent sclolars overseas and brought visiting scholars to the US. At the time of the SARS epidemic, we were hosting about a dozen Chinese scholars. My wife and son also traveled to Toronto (a hot spot for SARS) at the height of the epidemic. I would much rather turn to real science to an idea how to deal with this disease.

You say evolutionary theory doesn't inform medicine. What about the studies of SARS:

"In the middle phase, which began with a so-called super-spreader event in a Guangzhou hospital, a strain missing 29 nucleotides became dominant. The scientists also found changes that caused alterations to amino acids of the virus spike protein, which allows the virus to adhere to host cells. "What we see is the virus fine-tuning itself to enhance its access to a new host: humans," study co-author Chung-I Wu of the University of Chicago explains. 'This is a disturbing process to watch, as the virus improves itself under selective pressure, learning to spread from person to person, then sticking with the version that is most effective.'"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE372-74D5-1019-B4D583414B7F0000

Are you sure that you know what you are talking about when you refer to evolution as junk science?

Actually, I think that you just lost it completely.

"But note what your quote and you are suggesting, that the virus is fine-tuning and improving itself to better attack its host. Remember one of the stipulations of evolutionary theory, that any changes in an organism cannot be for a purpose. It all has to be based on chance mutations. I agree with your writer, I think it is obvious that even single-celled organisms have a type of intelligence that enables them to adapt, but this is the kind of artificial thought straight-jacket that evolutionist force on others."

It is not intelligence that allowed this virus to more effectively attack its host. It is natural selection acting upon the variation that is there.

Only a matter of time and a greater degree of change follows.

There is no real difference between the changes that you agree to and those you deny. It is the same process that allows the SARS virus to more effectively attack a host that allows for greater evolutionary change. It only requires more time for these greater changes to occur.

The miracle of time

In regard to your comment:

"It only requires more time for these greater changes to occur."

Evolutionists somehow think that, given enough time, anything can occur.

Is this classified as your 'evidence" now?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There is no real difference between the changes that you agree to and those you deny. It is the same process that allows the SARS virus to more effectively attack a host that allows for greater evolutionary change. It only requires more time for these greater changes to occur.

Deep time

The fact that the world is 4.55 billion years old and not 6000 does support the plausibility of the theory of evolution. The fact that the oldest evidence of life on earth is 3.7 billion years old, and the nature of that evidence establishes that life on earth is certainly much old also supports the theory of evolution.

The time it takes...

====
There is no real difference between the changes that you agree to and those you deny. It is the same process that allows the SARS virus to more effectively attack a host that allows for greater evolutionary change. It only requires more time for these greater changes to occur.
====

Arneson is perfectly correct here.

If you agree to the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation, then all that is left for you to truly understand the evolution of species is the time it takes.

SO - now all you have to refute is the length of time of the existence of the planet. Are you ready to debate that? How old do you think the earth really is?

Bullpucky!

John said:
"And this burning truth, this glaring fact remains: Evolutionists have absolutely no fossil evidence of the kind that Darwin himself said was required, 'interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the FINEST GRADUATED STEPS.'"

Darwin assumed such gradualism with a very sparse fossil record. We understand better the geology, the process of fossilization, and the manner in which speciation occurs (from observed instances of speciatin). If you actually read the Gould article you quoted, you would understand that. We shouldn't expect what Darwin did.

Jonn continues:
"After 150 years and multiplied millions and millions of fossils, the fact that you still have nothing, nothing, nothing, shows that Darwin was right, his theory did not and cannot pass the acid test, and it is a bust."

Actually, we have quite a bit to show that Darwin was mostly right. His absolutist stand on gradualism was wrong.

However, speciation occurs in fits and starts. We have observed speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

We also have tremendous evidence for macroevolution from diverse fields.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It seems to me that if we see speciation occurring and we have such a strong scientific concensus about the truth of evolution by means of natural selection, we ought to be able to cut Darwin a little slack about his mistake on the pacing of evolutionary change.

John concluded:
"Face it and do something valuable with your time here on earth.

That is enough for now, I will answer more later."

I think seeking the truth is a pretty valuable use of time. Understanding the development and diversity of life seems rather worthwhile, also. If you want to put it in religious terms, we are unlocking the secrets of God's creation, and using the wonderful brain God gave us.

Your scorecard shows YOUR leaps of serious illogic.

John said:
"But let's keep score of all the leaps of serious illogic. We have:

-Dolphins from dogs
-Whales from horses, cows, and camels
-Wolves turning into whales

And don't forget the best:

-Dinosaurs turning into birds!

I have two words:

Booby hatch."

No one claimed dolphins evoloved from dogs.
No one claimed that whales evolved from horses, cows, and camels.
No one claimed that wolves turned into whales.

It is true that birds are dinosaurs. But it is not true that all dinosaurs turned into birds. Maybe you ought to be a bit more careful in your scorekeeping. You seem to have trouble keeping up.

Dinosaurs Turning into Birds

Like a typical liberal, you want to have it both ways. You make outlandish claims to suck in the gullible, then when you are called on it, you want to pretend to never said it:

"Then, several hundred million years ago, huge and often terrifying new life forms, Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs, took the ascendancy. These massive creatures had wings of skin, stretched between one enormously elongated finger and their flanks. Around 150 million years ago they were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born."

Note the phrase "...they began to TURN INTO...[a bird]. The bird was born."

This from pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution

Get it straight. You people are saying that dinosaurs turned into birds.

Just another leap of illogic in a long line of leaps of illogic.

Just because certain animals share some similarities in morphological structures, it does not necessarily follow that they are related by descent.

But that glaring fact never stops people like you. Why? Because you have utterly no regard for the truth. Truth to you is what you imagine in your mind at any given time. That is the Dodo version, and it won't stand up to real life.

It is going to be a blessed day when people stop listening to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John said:
"But let's keep score of all the leaps of serious illogic. We have:

-Dolphins from dogs
-Whales from horses, cows, and camels
-Wolves turning into whales

And don't forget the best:

-Dinosaurs turning into birds!

I have two words:

Booby hatch."

No one claimed dolphins evoloved from dogs.
No one claimed that whales evolved from horses, cows, and camels.
No one claimed that wolves turned into whales.

It is true that birds are dinosaurs. But it is not true that all dinosaurs turned into birds. Maybe you ought to be a bit more careful in your scorekeeping. You seem to have trouble keeping up.

Imprecise language...

My point was and is that no one HERE said any of those things. You found someone that did say that. However, don't blame me for their poor writing about avian evolution.

I have several problems with the quote. First, the language makes it seem that Pterosaurs were what was "turning into birds". This is flat wrong. A cursory comparason of anatomy would tell you that. Even if the author was talking about dinosaurs "turning into birds", that language is far too imprecise. It implies that all dinosaurs became birds. A truly ridiculous proposition. That is not how birds evolved. If you have been laboring under the impression that is how scientists viewed bird evolution I am sorry you found that article. It is wrong.

I would recommend this book - "Taking Wing: rchaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight" by Pat Shipman. It gives a good summary of the evidence, thinking and battles in the science of bird evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Wing-Archaeopteryx-Evolution-Flight/dp/0684849658

The Lore of Evolutionism

Really, Arneson, you are not the Lord and Arbiter of Evolution. The nonsense of dinosaurs turning into birds is widespread, and many "scientists" ascribe to it. I never heard one peep from any authority deploring the imprecise language when the PBS special came out, no, no, it was greeted with oohs and ahhs all around. And that is so because the lore of evolutionism requires such fantastic statements to keep the masses enthralled. In any case we are not narrowly debating only what you consider evolution to be, but what it is represented as in the world at large.

But this proves my point, that evolutionism is not real science, rather it is an evolving collection of scientificated Just So stories. It is an -ism, a belief system not based in physical reality, but on humanist faith.

It is profoundly anti-reason and irrational at its core.

And THAT is the burning truth.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

My point was and is that no one HERE said any of those things. You found someone that did say that. However, don't blame me for their poor writing about avian evolution.

I have several problems with the quote. First, the language makes it seem that Pterosaurs were what was "turning into birds". This is flat wrong. A cursory comparason of anatomy would tell you that. Even if the author was talking about dinosaurs "turning into birds", that language is far too imprecise. It implies that all dinosaurs became birds. A truly ridiculous proposition. That is not how birds evolved. If you have been laboring under the impression that is how scientists viewed bird evolution I am sorry you found that article. It is wrong.

I would recommend this book - "Taking Wing: rchaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight" by Pat Shipman. It gives a good summary of the evidence, thinking and battles in the science of bird evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Wing-Archaeopteryx-Evolution-Flight/dp/0684849658

Re: The Lore of Evolutionism

This whole "evolutionism" thing cracks me up. You weren't able to convince anyone that creationism is science, so now you're trying to convince people that evolution is religion. Clever, I must admit.

Re: Re: The Lore of Evolutionism

I have never tried to convince anyone that creationism is science. My discussions have been mostly limited to asking your side for proof that evolutionism is valid. Please provide same. Thank you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This whole "evolutionism" thing cracks me up. You weren't able to convince anyone that creationism is science, so now you're trying to convince people that evolution is religion. Clever, I must admit.

There is one point that we can agree on...

However, I completely disagree with your position that evolution is not science.

Your point is not proven.

You have a poorly written blurb on a promotional web page. There are times that people supporting evolution will not express themselves well. I gave you a couple of reasons why that particular example is not well done.

It does not prove your point. It only establishes that one man wrote a bad paragraph. I have a very specific issue with that paragraph.

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

I want to make this point clear. I don't accept your characterization or that author's. Dinosaurs did not 'turn into' birds. That sounds like some sort of magical process. One day we have dinosaurs and the next they all 'turn into' birds. That is simply a very bad way of expressing what actually did happen.

One specific branch of dinosaurs, the theropods, gave rise to birds. This occurred by a process of speciaton. This idea is different from your characterization and is supported by scientific evidence. The similarities in skeletal structure have been known since the time of Darwin. Huxley noted them himself. More recent fossil finds from China have shown many theropods were feathered. Archaeopteryx itself has many reptilian characteristics.

No contradiction if you follow the logic and the evidence.

WiYC said:
"*** NOTE ***
Arneson contradicts himself and actually points to a 'wolf-like' creature (Pakicetus) supposedly evolving into a whale (cetacean/dolphin).
Carl Zimmer used the description of ‘wolf-like’ for Pakicetus in his book."

Any mention of Pakicetus as "wolf-like" is an analogy, and was meant to help the reader understand something of what it might have looked like. I didn't find that term applied to Pakicetus in my copy of "At the Water's Edge". You might want to provide a page citation for that claim. In fact, on page 203, the diagram showing the whale family tree has the following statement.

"A provisional phylogeny of whales. While there are many species not shown, this tree includes the major branches of whale evolution. A few caveats: some reconstructions (such as Pakicetus) are based on very limited fossils. Also, because the mesonychid relationships are so unclear, future research may show that whales actually have a more recent common ancetry with a particular mesonychid species. Finally, this tree is based on morphology: molecular studies don't agree on some of the branchings."

Zimmmer published "At the Water's Edge" in 2001. The post-cranial skeleton was unknown until its discovery by Thewissen in that year. A consensus has developed around an artiodactyl ancestry for whales. Mesonychids were proposed earlier because of a similarity in teeth. Other morphological features (such as the ankles) and DNA and biochemical analysis point to artiodactyls and not mesonychids.

Pakicetus was not related to wolves which are carnivores. Mesonychids and artiodactyls come from a completely different branch of mammals neither Zimmer or the scientists are proposing a wolf to whale evolutionary model.

Pakicetus was terrestrial as expected in the first in the transition from land to sea.

WiYC said:
"1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"

The characteristics that are terrestrial start to change in the whales that followed. Note that Pakicetus is a whale by the nature of the sigmoid process on the ear.

"The pakicetid middle ear was highly specialize and included the pachy-osteoscleotic ossicles, an inbolucrum and a plate-like sigmoid process."
IBID p. 278

Also, it is clear that even though pakicetid hearing was terrestrial, their ear structures are intermediate between modern cetaceans and modern artiodactyls.

"Thewissen and Hussain examined a small ear bone or ossicle called the incus of Pakicetus. They say that in shape and proportions it is intermediate between the equivalent bone in modern cetaceans and that in modern artiodactyls. They also claim that its orientation relative to the malleus - the second of the chain of three ossicles in the middle-ear cavity - is at a similar halfway stage."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718652.900-science-the-amphibious-past-of-whales-.html

Which of Thewissen and Hussain's summary would you go by? 1993 or 2001?

You New Scientist article citing Thewissen and Hussain's review of Pakicetus was written in 1993.

Why don't you contact Thewissen and Hussain and ask them why they changed their mind 8 years later and wrote, "Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"

The most current that shows terrestrial whale and completes the sequence.

Post-cranial bones were found and it was a boon to understanding whale evolution. We had a terrestrial animal that fit nicely into the sequence by having ears that were cetacean, ankles that were artiodactyl, and teeth that were similar to the mesonychids. All of these characteristics established it as part of the series.

What is most important is that it establishes the long predicted walking whale - the animal that was to be the last obligate terrestrial in the sequence. Both Darwing and Flower predicted this and Thewissen and Hussain provided the key fossil evidence.

Thewissen and Hussain explained their 'change of mind'.

It was on the basis of hard evidence. At first, they only had the skull of Pakicetus. The discovery of post-cranial bones opened the door to a better understanding of this transitional series. Pakicetus anchored the start of the series on land. The fossil species that followed showed increasing adaptaton to land.

WiYC carefully trims quotes to avoid the obvious whale evolution conclusion from the evidence.

WiYC picks a sentence here and a sentence there but for gets the most important part:
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

This is after all an evolutionary series that demonstrates this transition. We would expect the early ones to have more terrestrial characteristics. We would expect that there would be significant differences between them and modern whales. We see that and more importantly, we see graduated changes between the two. You had no argument the first time through and you don't have one now.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726117
Arneson:
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”


1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
From:
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:

"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_foramen

The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.


2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.

And your proof is where?

You have one terrestrial animal that is "no more amphilbious than a tapir" and claim it's an "walking whale."

Interesting theory. Where is your proof again?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC picks a sentence here and a sentence there but for gets the most important part:
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

This is after all an evolutionary series that demonstrates this transition. We would expect the early ones to have more terrestrial characteristics. We would expect that there would be significant differences between them and modern whales. We see that and more importantly, we see graduated changes between the two. You had no argument the first time through and you don't have one now.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726117
Arneson:
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”


1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
From:
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:

"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_foramen

The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.


2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.

I think you would find it in the article from which you selectively quoted.

You must have responded without reading my post (or the article you quoted for that matter).

Let me give you the conclusion that talks about the sequence with respect to hips and legs and the movement of whales from land to sea.
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

Pakicetus is the first terrestrial whale. Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Georgiacetus, and Basilosaurus all show increasing adaptations to life at sea. It is clear that they are related and that each member of the series fits into appropriate time and environmental sequence.

Ears and foramen.

WiYC tries to
"The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater."

The measure of the mandibular foramen for these whales is already relative to the size of the animal. We see more than a doubling between pakicetids and ambulocetids. Because it is a relative measurement, it already takes into account the extra nerve and vessel size required. It took multiple posts on my part trying to explain the concept of relative measurement before you finally dropped the discussion. Now you come back months later trying to revive a point long lost by you.

The species following ambulocetids have mandibular foramen at minimum 1.5 times greater than ambulocetids relative to each creatures body size with the other more than doubling the relative measurement. I offered to come over and explain ratios to you. I am still willing to help you with your math.

Give your evidence of fat pad containment and explanation of development

Failing to note that, without fat pads, there is NO hearing via the jaw.

Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.

If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC tries to
"The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater."

The measure of the mandibular foramen for these whales is already relative to the size of the animal. We see more than a doubling between pakicetids and ambulocetids. Because it is a relative measurement, it already takes into account the extra nerve and vessel size required. It took multiple posts on my part trying to explain the concept of relative measurement before you finally dropped the discussion. Now you come back months later trying to revive a point long lost by you.

The species following ambulocetids have mandibular foramen at minimum 1.5 times greater than ambulocetids relative to each creatures body size with the other more than doubling the relative measurement. I offered to come over and explain ratios to you. I am still willing to help you with your math.

Miraculous is your gig not mine.

Fat doesn't fossilize, but they can be infered from the great increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen. There is fat in the faces of mammals. Those whales fortunate enough to have sufficient fat to better hear would have a survival advantage. It is you that claims it all occurs miraculously and counter to the way the evidence pointed it occurred.

But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?

Why is it that evolutionists cannot explain how evolution occurs?

From my previous posting:

"Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.
If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously."


By the way, if you ever do give it a stab, remember that you must also connect all the wiring to the brain so that vibrations can be reacted to. Otherwise, your natural selection hypothesis is null and void.

Why is it WiYC always changes the subject?

I believe you dropped your point on the evolutionary change of the mandibular foramen again. Thanks for giving me that point.

Now for fat. Gee, we have a mammal that is living in a marine environment. What is one very common physiological characteristic of mammals in these environments? Fat. Whale blubber. The creatures have it everywhere in their bodies. It acts as an insulator, energy store, provides boyancy, and even helps dolphins to whip their tales more efficiently and even aids in hearing.

As I said earlier whale that happen to have fat in the right places have a selective advantage. The nerves are already in the location. If they can more effectively pick up vibrations, it is to the advantage of that individual. Even a small improvement is advantageous.

This is not fantasy. It makes sense especially when you note that both the mandibular foramen and the ear bones show dramatic change during the same time period.

So you admit you are unable to articulate how evolution occurs?

Yes, let's just put the fat pads where they belong because, what the heck, fat is all over the body anyway.

And it's no big thing that somehow nerve endings and sensors evolved and miraculously connected to the brain ... and then the brain developed the complex ability to interpret the messages.

No problem for the imagination of the evolutionist.

But a very serious problem for reality.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I believe you dropped your point on the evolutionary change of the mandibular foramen again. Thanks for giving me that point.

Now for fat. Gee, we have a mammal that is living in a marine environment. What is one very common physiological characteristic of mammals in these environments? Fat. Whale blubber. The creatures have it everywhere in their bodies. It acts as an insulator, energy store, provides boyancy, and even helps dolphins to whip their tales more efficiently and even aids in hearing.

As I said earlier whale that happen to have fat in the right places have a selective advantage. The nerves are already in the location. If they can more effectively pick up vibrations, it is to the advantage of that individual. Even a small improvement is advantageous.

This is not fantasy. It makes sense especially when you note that both the mandibular foramen and the ear bones show dramatic change during the same time period.

The scenario was already provided. You chose to ignore it.

There are already nerves and endings there. Remember what the mandibular foramen is for? As I already indicated in the post you were responding to, the nerves are already there. They are connected to the brain and to nerve endings in the area. I also provided an answer to your question here.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726593/

I am not the one appealing to the miraculous. This would be pretty mundane stuff compared with the changes in ear structure which are documented in the fossil record.

Evolution explains the changes in whale hearing.

From WiYC's posting:

"Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.
If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously."

WiYC then said:
"By the way, if you ever do give it a stab, remember that you must also connect all the wiring to the brain so that vibrations can be reacted to. Otherwise, your natural selection hypothesis is null and void."

Nerves are already going to the jaw that is one of the functions of the mandibular foramen. These nerves will sense vibrations. Fat is everywhere in marine mammals. Blubber is found from tip to tail. It provides a couple of advantages in terms of food storage and as insulation. It serves other functions in modern whales. In dolphins, it aid in locomotion by helping the whipping action of the tail. It also is the main constituent of the mellon used in echolocation and is in the mandibular foramen aiding hearing.

The mandibular foramen increased dramatically in relative size at the same time that whale's ear bones were changing and whales were becoming more aquatic. It does not seem far-fetched that a substance so common in a whale might be stored in a space that evolved. Especially when that storage provides an competative advantage. Whales that store more fat there gain even more. At each step, the whale is better off with fat stored than not.

It's your claim that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof is yours.

In regard to your comment:

"But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?"

1. Since your haven't provided the "good explanation" yet, we'll assume you haven't got a clue.

2. You have repeatedly claimed that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof it yours, not for us to prove creation. Provide your evidence.

3. Yes, another admission of "Evolution is true only because there is NO other naturalistic explanation."

Evolution is nothing but your faith in the unseen and unproven, not science.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Fat doesn't fossilize, but they can be infered from the great increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen. There is fat in the faces of mammals. Those whales fortunate enough to have sufficient fat to better hear would have a survival advantage. It is you that claims it all occurs miraculously and counter to the way the evidence pointed it occurred.

But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?

Evolution provides the explanation.

WiYC said:
"1. Since your haven't provided the "good explanation" yet, we'll assume you haven't got a clue."

You make a lot of assumptions. A good explanation is the evolutionary one. The creature gained an advantage from these changes. We see a tremendous increase in the relative size of the mandibular foramen, far beyond anything required for blood supply or nerve function. This animal is storing fat all over its body as a food source, and insulation. Other functions for fat evolved such as the aid in locomotion provided by the specialized blubber of the dolphin. The body is going to put something in this void and fat seems to be the logical solution.

At the same time the foramen increases in relative size to the jaw, the ears are evolving rapidly also. All of these changes are occurring at the same time that whales are becoming obligate aquatic creatures never to return to the land. Any whale that has even a small advantage in hearing will be better suited to effectively survive and reproduce.

WiYC's burden.

WiYC said:
"2. You have repeatedly claimed that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof it yours, not for us to prove creation. Provide your evidence."

Evolution is the accepted scientific theory explaining the development and diversity of life on earth. It is the best explanation of the evidence we have. It has been repeatedly tested and met the test for almost a century and a half. I have no burden to prove anything to you. If you choose to ignore science, more the pity for you. Burying you head in the sand will not make the scientific evidence go away.

The only way for you to defeat evolution is to provide a better scientific theory. If you don't, won't or can't, evolution stands.

1 2