Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Artie]

Evolution is an ancient and unverifiable story that some religionists believe in. It's the 'not god' creation story.

I know what you mean. How long have these religionist scientists been doing this and how do we stop them? I mean, now we have religionist scientist meteorologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for thunder and storms without even considering the possibility that Thor is responsible, we have religionist scientist seismologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for earthquakes without even considering the possibility that Poseidon is responsible. What do you suggest we do to reverse this terrible trend so we can get rid of this terrible "science" and have these scientific "religionists" start believing in gods again?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1295 by Star]

Hi Star
Thanks for your reply. Here are my comments:
1. The Homo Erectus fossil is not an intermediate species.
2. The dinosaur/bird transitional species was debunked at a conference 5 years ago. See Kesterton, M. 2009. “Maybe Chicks Dug Wings?” Globe and Mail, April 7, L6, where he notes that even many evolutionary palaeontologists find no evidence supporting the supposed evolution of dinosaurs from birdlike ancestors.
kenblogton

A newspaper editorial from five-years-ago is all you have? I can't even find it. I used to write for newspapers and I can tell you that while they're good sources of news, they're not good sources of peer-reviewed science.

When faced with photos of undeniable fossil evidence, you shrug them off with reasons of incredulity? Correction: Homo erectus actually is an so-called "intermediate" species. It's our ancestor, which was still very much "ape-like", but with human attributes. I find that your argument is severely lacking in logic and knowledge, and your repeated baseless claims are essentially undebatable.

Unless you present evidence, I'm out.

Hi Star
More on 1. An intermediate or transitional specie is flawed in its viability. Homo Erectus was not so flawed.
More on 2. The article was from a scientific conference. However, at http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... birds.html, it states "The order of the fossils in the geological record actually flies in the face of the theory that birds evolved from theropods. The theropods are found in Cretaceous rocks, while birds are found in Jurassic sediments, which is the opposite of what would be predicted by the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. These fossils only prove the evolution of birds from dinosaurs if one assumes that they are descended from an unknown common ancestor that predates both Archaeopteryx and the Chinese "feathered theropods". If this assumption is made then I agree that the fossils might show how it happened, but they do not prove that it did happen."
kenblogton

[Danmark]

1. An intermediate or transitional specie is flawed in its viability. Homo Erectus was not so flawed.
More on 2. The article was from a scientific conference. However, at http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... birds.html

Another anti science creationist blog. I won't bother reading that nonsense. At least get your facts from reputable sources, even if you don't like the theory for religious reasons.

'Intermediate' species do not have to be 'flawed.' This is just silly. All species have 'flaws' in that they are not 'perfect' and other species may adapt better to similar ecological niches. They only have to survive long enough to be an ancestor of another species, which also does not have to survive indefinitely. A transitional species may survive and live alongside its descendant species indefinitely, as in the example of the many living 'transitional' species extant.

Like Star, unless legitimate sources are offered for substantiation, I'm out.

[Star]

Evolution is an ancient and unverifiable story that some religionists believe in. It's the 'not god' creation story.

I know what you mean. How long have these religionist scientists been doing this and how do we stop them? I mean, now we have religionist scientist meteorologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for thunder and storms without even considering the possibility that Thor is responsible, we have religionist scientist seismologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for earthquakes without even considering the possibility that Poseidon is responsible. What do you suggest we do to reverse this terrible trend so we can get rid of this terrible "science" and have these scientific "religionists" start believing in gods again?

Well, as Wootah points out, evolution (which includes abiogenesis) is an "ancient story," so these religionists (aka modern biologists) must have been practicing evolution for at least 2,000 years.



Seriously though, there's so many common fallacies in that post, it gets tiring having to debunk them repeatedly. Eg., the can of sardines is nothing more than the peanut butter myth re-canned, pun intended.

[Star]

[Replying to post 1305 by kenblogton]

No, theropods appeared in the Triassic, which precedes the Jurassic.

Your "evidence" has been rejected, so your argument is invalid.

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=theropods

[arian]

Here's two more transitional fossils between reptiles and birds. Despite the feathers, these are considered dinosaurs, not birds.

Aurornis xui from China lived 153 to 165 million years ago.

You can read more about this "transitional" species in the journal Nature here...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12168.html



And here's Sciurumimus albersdoerferi. Notice its wonderful bushy feathered tail and sharp teeth.

I just love these Flintstone snap shots. You can barely see the beak-marks of the bird in the camera that chiseled them out. Barney must of got a new camera!

Have fun kids, I love going through the Flintstones albums too.

http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/ ... .04-PM.png

[Zzyzx]

.

I just love these Flintstone snap shots. You can barely see the beak-marks of the bird in the camera that chiseled them out. Barney must of got a new camera!

Have fun kids, I love going through the Flintstones albums too.

Moderator Comment

This post appears to be an attempt at "dismissal by sarcasm." Reference to comic characters is unwarranted (unless it can be documented that images originated in comics).

Kindly debate the issues and contribute something of substance (preferably without sad attempts to make jokes). If you disagree with a post, provide evidence to the contrary -- not comedy.

Please review the Rules.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1304 by Artie]

It's simple Artie. Just recognize the limits of science and you will identify the stories.

My sardines analogy is hardly debunked. It should be the case that circumstances today, with many of the building blocks of life in place, should make abiogenesis easier.

What is fair to say is that abiogenesis might be occuring and we don't see it.

Can you explain why abiogenesis isn't occurring more often under more favorable conditions?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

Several problems

1.a can of sardines is designed to prevent life from growing. If life could grow in a can of sardines it would defeat the purpose of canning them in the first place.

2.your assuming angiogenesis is a quick process. If the first angiogenesis took a billion years to develop what makes you think we would see another in our lifetimes?

It is still possible another angiogenesis could occur. However it would have to be in a place absent of abundant life as the organisms that exist are likely consuming the necessary resources to foster such an event.

[Danmark]

As with many arguments against evolution and abiogenesis, the 'can of sardines' argument is based on ignoring the facts, or worse, making factual assumptions that are false. Life can and does emerge from a can of sardines. New life will start in a can of sardines eventually, even if it is never opened. That is why canned fish have a date stamped on their cans indicating their shelf lives.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/s ... -food.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_fish