oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWatrus_wmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6luYV55QkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCkFLq3uts
Printable View
oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWatrus_wmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6luYV55QkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCkFLq3uts
DeanStar, thanx
I Googled "The Atlas of Creation" talked about in those Youtubes. And Wow! I can read the whole book online for free, here:
★★★
Harun Yahya
★★★
I have just read the Introduction and
chapter1 - What is a fossil
I was taught that if a plant or animal's "niche" is undisturbered then there is no pressure on it to evolve. That's why many plants and animals remain unchanged for millions of years.
The polar bear has black hide. It was once a dark fured bear. But as ice advanced, dark fured bears starved, because prey animals could see them coming. But the "very rare" light fured bear, being more camouflaged, could merge with the white snow and catch something to eat.
Isn't that a living example of an animal evolving?
Oh dear...
I admit to having been deluded concerning my eventual having reached through to you a tiny little bit with my information. Ahm - nope - shame that. Are you going to put your announced rebuttal of my last before last post in kadie's god thread into this one?
http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...god-you-5.html
But good of you to transfer the matter into a thread of it's own - I guess, she is thankful for that!
Concerning that first video: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These are the relevant numbers - not that the Muslim world happily jumps on the Creation bandwagon and not that school children can be deceived with something impressive looking like that Atlas. That's why it's so important to teach them about reality, not phantasms, they're impressionable. Do you really believe that you are more intelligent and informed than 97% of US scientists incl. 72 US Nobel Prize winners? If you'd ask outside of the US - the numbers are even more devastating for Creationism - problem is the uninformed and badly lied to public.Quote:
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41]
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]
Mr. Star, I would advise you to watch this entire video series from start to finish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D
This and plenty more reasons is why I do not even bother engaging in debates with creationists unless if they are genuinely interested in alternative points of view.
The inferential gap is usually too large to bridge without effort from both parties and most people are comfortable with sticking to their beliefs.
Yepp Mr. Thinker - that would be a mighty good idea, if he watched them all!
But lo and behold - one of Thunderf00t's series is a direct rebuttal of video two of the opening post - how practical! :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
The worst is really how Wells says that all of the major animals would have appeared in the form they currently present in the Cambrian explosion and then showing some small critters, who were all water-dwelling and are all of them extinct today.
I mean WTF?? How can he say that with a straight face? Not one land animal was there back then and what he shows has died out!? :facepalm:
Besides - how does he time all this? His version does not even concur with Creationist doctrine of the earth being only 6000 years of age...
StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLwVQ9nU3-o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7wByW3I6oI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxVYiMtrngc
There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread.
I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. America will likely follow suit or be left in the dust in terms of scientific accomplishments by other countries. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them.Quote:
It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
If you want to convince people, rather than calling them fraudsters and cultists (a label that is woefully ironic for a fundamentalist Christian to use), why not debunk us directly. Don't post videos to us. If you are not bothered to view ours, then don't expect us to reciprocate.
Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are and not some vague rhetoric about brainwashing and agendas.
Give us specific points on why creationism is more empirically valid over evolution and please don't use the bible as your only source.
Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God and the bible points towards a creationist world view, is there any empirical pointers towards that in the natural world?
These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned. Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned? The scientific community has intervened by the millions in America alone - and the law decided in their favour. How can 97% of scientists be a cult?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it!Quote:
It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple....
There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread.
Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling. And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid. What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies.
But if you're not willing to consider evidence - you should stop to invoke science. That's completely the wrong playing field for you then. You could instead just say, god or Satan tried to lure people into falling from grace by making it all look and work as if evolution has been and is taking place. One of them buried the fossils, manipulated radioactive decay, made it snow in special divine/evil magic ways etc., but in truth, it's all only façade, you are supposed to witness evolution being actually and really proven, but decide to believe in Creation anyway. Funny how it could have been either one of these trying to test people's faith by Christian logic...
Like this you would be all done with the pesky truth determination and could in peace say goodbye to scientific thinking and logic altogether. It's all about being afraid of hell and wanting to go to heaven in the end right? You're so deeply indoctrinated that you believe a little doubt, a little critical, skeptic thinking directed at your own faith will bring you damnation.
Oh - fine. It wasn't me leaving kadie's thread - I'll transfer what I had already written on that article in here and I'll go on to go through it - as said before - in my own time!Quote:
I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? That's fine because I don't support it either haha. I do support intelligent design in schools because then we might actually get some intelligent education. Just because some laws change, that's not what determines truth. I hope you realize this atleast. I hope you realize that man made laws as the result of culture not science. Science does not deal in morality. Laws deal with morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly.Quote:
Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them.
You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy.Quote:
why not debunk us directly
If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it.Quote:
Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are
So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.Quote:
Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God
I checked. It's still on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I never made any such claim. You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead.Quote:
It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
Hmmm, let's see. StephL showed widespread consensus among scientists of all fields supporting the validity of evolution including nobel prize winners and you decided to nitpick by giving an example of Obama, who won a nobel prize for peace because hey, surely all nobel prize winners have equivilent scientific credibility. It could not be that Ms L was pointing out that most scientists, including the most acclaimed of our times support evolution, which may suggest that there is good reason to believe it once you have been educated to that level. No! It must be that to her, it's the shiny prize that is important. I'm sure that with those "hours of work and research" that you put in, you had unearthed countless examples of nobel laureates with unsavory deeds including Fritz Haber who won one in chemistry and had been instrumental in the development and proliferation of chemical warfare during World War 1. It was only once you were done with all that meticulous research that you decided that the most relevent prize would be that in the field of politics and who would be more deserving of being singled out than that bastard Obama. Henry Kissinger? Meh, he's a small fry!Quote:
Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly.
You are a highly dishonest debator who likes to use emotional manipulation and misdirection. I do not see any evidence of genuine research or response in your posts. You just rattle on and on like a broken recorder. The rare times you have a point that can in fact be falsified (as in a substantial one), it always turns out to be wrong and when we point that out, you seem to ignore it altogether or dismiss the rebuttal as "brainwashed" or fruadulent.
Yeah, the fact that you can beat me at online chess would somehow counteract your demonstrably huge ignorance of biology, physics, geology, maths (yes, I was reading that thread) and total lack of intellectual honesty. I never made a single insinuation about your intellect or lack of in a post before but if you are going to go there, I'm not going to feign humility for the sake of appeasing your huge ego.Quote:
You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy.
Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal.Quote:
If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it.
No, I just said that so we will leave theology out of this and discuss purely what the empirical observations suggest, as in not in a book but rather in nature. We are not discussing God here, just the natural world or rather we were.Quote:
So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.
Now, I'm not so interested. I tried to give you a chance but I don't think you are really interested in a debate. You just want to toot your own horn. Well toot away but don't expect us to move that caravan forward.
Deviant I don't even know where to begin. Your post is so out of this world and ridiculiously wasteful that if I replied to such rhetoric I would become part of the nonsense. I think I'll just go back and consider StephL's post and work through those misconceptions when I get more time.
*facepalm, don't you understand that lobbying is not based on science, it's a financial political practice that should be illegal.Quote:
where such lobbying in fact was successful
This is his modus operandi, it's not going to change. It's literally the only way he can argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Deanstar, seeing as how you posted all videos and actually stated nothing about evolution itself, and you failed to cite any kind of corroborating evidence (read: empirical data, specific examples, etc.) supporting your argument, this debate pretty much isn't even a thing. In order for a debate to work, you must present your side of the argument and give supporting evidence and references for your claims. Then the other side does the same. Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. If you can't even do more than post a few videos of monologues and call evolution a delusion, then you do not have an argument. Simple as.
I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Attachment 7624 Made my day!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Going to do the transferring tomorrow...
Edit upon seeing posts: Yes we do have an ongoing conversation, Deanstar - but how about quoting my last before last post in the above linked through thread as an opening post? Or a compilation from that thread, say. That would have made it crystal clear, where we are coming from.
As announced above - I'll do that in some way or another, so that it can be found by potential wavering Creationists in here.
I watched the first 15 minutes of the DNA video and I've got to say I don't know if I've seen anybody use as many logical fallacies and misinformation to try and prove something ever. This guy truly takes the cake, I seriously couldn't force myself to watch the rest of the video because I felt like I was watching a satire. You're telling me and expecting me to believe, Deanstar, that you truly believe everything this man says? You don't disagree with a single point? If this is the case just go back to church with the rest of your people and get back to circle jerking. Leave the debating to the people who have sensible, rational, and credible arguments. Unless you really are a troll, you're just embarrassing yourself and discrediting the words of creationists capable of real debate everywhere. It's people like you and the DNA video guy that ruin it for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
DeanStar
I'mnearly 55 and from infancy I have yearned ... umm ... well I have searched and researched for truth. NOT just intellectually.
I have several belief systems.
And since I am a fully diagnosed "multiple personality".
(Discociative Disorder with imaginative reconstructive and boarderline personality) is my full diagnosis. I'm on the disability pension because of it.
And, because of my many personalities I can easily believe all my different belief systems without discomfort.
The best arguement for Creationism has not been mentioned in your links.
So
I spect U R saving that one for later (hahaha)
Oh!!! I just caught up with this thread iust now when I came here to post the above.
DeanStare please link your paper in this thread ... Maybe that argumemt I was refering too is in the paper you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That first video is flat out lying propaganda. They are not even misrepresenting facts or misunderstanding the subject, they are flat out lying. There is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and none that supports creationism. No real scientist doubt evolution, and creationism is dropping in popularity all across the world because it is a stupid nonsensical belief.
Believing in creationism instead of evolution is like believing the the earth is flat. You are totally wrong and the only way you could believe such a thing is if you ignore all the evidence all around you.
Call me ignorant for not watching the aforementioned youtube videos, but I've got to side with Alric and other posters in this thread. Basically, science is the best way of testing and observing our world, and that includes evolution. And meaning "science" in a non-theological sense. To believe that evolution is false requires ignorance of the progression of nature.
Animals have changed over time and have adopted traits (consciously and unconsciously) that best suite their adaptability to their environment and their success for reproduction. How can this be debated in a serious, academic setting? It's one thing to say that you believe evolution is some kind of delusion but there is no solid evidence against evolution. Anything that seems like it is again, logical fallacies and talking in circles. Probably brainwashing too, albeit largely unintentional I think, and I say this in the most non-offensive way I can. I don't think the Earth and all its life could get to this point without things like evolution. This is all a huge dynamic system and science is our go-to tool for making sense of it all. And science says evolution is part of the game. I don't know how else clear this can be.
Brilliant (!!!) BLUELINE
I have bookmarked QualiaSoup
There have been brilliant Bible believers even a couple of Saints from 400 years ago who agree (basically) will that Youtube
400 years a go a couple of Saints and hundreds of others said that there is a big gap between creation one and creation two in Genesis.
They said that each created animal could change slightly over many generations. The many cats in the world came from just one originally created cat. The same with wolf, horse, dear, etc.
I might not be able to find those two Saints but l will try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Evolution obviously happens. If animals didn't change over time, we wouldn't have dogs and farm animals like we do today. All dogs would look like wolves. They obviously don't. We know why they don't, because we selectively bred them to look different and for different purposes. Traits are clearly passed down from parents to child. I am not sure how anyone could deny this.
Only fundamentalist ideology can make people so blind.
Great video BLUELINE!!
Here's another one, which does a fine job of explaining matters in some detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
This is the multiply mentioned article:
And this is me transfer-quoting myself - I posted so much today - I'm exhausted and hope I don't need to edit too much - it's a hassle to transfer all the quoting/pics manually:Spoiler for Creationist article:
Here a review of a Nature paper, which was a multi-national effort in order to show, how evolution/natural selection having it's way leads to better adapted micro-organisms Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDailyQuote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
These E. coli gained new features while evolving over 20.000+ generations - this number gives you a hint, why you can't see it happening from your armchair - a lot of reproduction usually has to go down before something significantly changes.
Then I have a really excellent source - bit more to read and preferably with switching on these grey cells: Observed Instances of Speciation
One more: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
By the way - is “micro-evolution” a Creationist term? I only heard it in that context and not in university. Anyway - seems my link on bacteria was convincing - I thought, that's what's meant with the term?Spoiler for Evolution is with us today - it's really happening and under our eyes!:
The problem is one of perspective. As I described before, speciation happens primarily in bottle-neck situations or in other circumstances, where creatures are confronted with novel environments - not out of the blue. And it usually takes a lot of generations, when it happens. But it happens all the time - evolution is not "over" - it's an ongoing process. And I so happen to have something really interesting in terms of dogs and Creationism - Ken Ham had claimed, that the biblical story with Noah's flood would make for trees of biological variation just like science would find them to be the case for dogs. Not so – this video is very enlightening, I would say, for demonstrating, that Ken Ham wasn't shying back from complete quackery in order to make the myths seemingly reconcilable with evidence. But not only that - it explains genetic bottlenecks etc. very nicely - explains what the diagram Ham flashed on the screen actually says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7i-dtMaWk
It has – see above, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Well – this "recently" has meanwhile become the past and evolution is out of “historical science” times today. Besides this mentioned fruit-fly, which I didn't yet look up – there’s more - see spoiler and of course in the fast enough replicating micro-organisms. But even if it were only possible to show it once in multi-cellular organisms - like with that fly - it would be proof of watchability already!Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea - but please re-check the National Geographic link on feather evolution, I provided - you find transitional stages of dinosaurs with "almost-feathers" in that matter as well. Feather Evolution - National Geographic MagazineQuote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Creationists had for ages been clamouring, why we wouldn't find a fish with feet - the "Darwin Fish". Well - we did find dozens of them. And not only that - evolutionary theory lead to scientists predicting, where exactly they might find it - and they did:
Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.
I really recommend giving it due consideration:
Yeah - well - I guess, this does speak for itself, esp. what I fattened. That you need not evolve a new toolkit for making limbs instead of fins is also interesting, you see, it's easier to evolve "new features", when you can build them from pre-existing mechanisms. That such things pre-exist also confines evolution to a degree - it doesn't start all over again from scratch, but further differentiates, what was there already in a more primitive form. Why not as many transitional forms as other fossils? Well - look back to that video which fact-checked Ken Ham. What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger. There simply were not as many of those there, also not "needed", which is logical, if you consider, how it comes to pass. There's development for so and so long, and then stability for much, much longer - equals more fossils - until the next major environmental upheavals.Quote:
We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian ichthys symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs.
But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us.
Sure enough, in 2004, scientists found one of those transitional species: Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues. Tiktaalik, explains Shubin on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, is an "anatomical mix between fish and a land-living animal."
"It has a neck," says Shubin, a professor at the University of Chicago. "No fish has a neck. And you know what? When you look inside the fin, and you take off those fin rays, you find an upper arm bone, a forearm, and a wrist." Tiktaalik, Shubin has observed, was a fish capable of doing a push-up. It had both lungs and gills. In sum, it's quite the transitional form.
Shubin's best-selling book about his discovery, Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, uses the example of Tiktaalik and other evolutionary evidence to trace how our own bodies share similar structures not only with close relatives like chimpanzees or orangutans, but indeed, with far more distant relatives like fish. Think of it as an extensive unpacking of a famous line by Charles Darwin from his book The Descent of Man: "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
"Many of the muscles and nerves and bones I'm using to talk to you with right now, and many of the muscles and nerves and bones you're using to hear me with right now, correspond to gill structures in fish," explained Shubin on Inquiring Minds. Indeed, despite having diverged from fish several hundred million of years ago, we still share more than half of our DNA with them.
"The genetic toolkit that builds their fins is very similar to the genetic toolkit that builds our limbs," Shubin says. "And much of the evolution, we think, from fins to limbs, didn't involve a whole lot of new genes."
Now, of course, none of this sits well with the young-Earth creationist crowd, who are continually trying to undermine science education and U.S. science literacy. What do creationists say about Shubin's research, and especially Tiktaalik? Turns out that creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has his answer ready to go: "There are no transitional forms that support evolution," he confidently declares in a minute-long audio track dedicated to debunking the Tiktaalik finding. Why? Because "the Bible says God made fish and land animals during the same week, not millions of years apart." That's just the beginning of the attempted takedowns that creationists have leveled against Shubin's work.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...l-original.jpg
Pictured near where it was found is a Tiktaalik roseae fossil — one of the most complete of the dozens of specimens discovered to date.
Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues.
Photo courtesy PBS
Creationists snipe, raise doubt, and deny almost everything that we know, but the reason that Tiktaalik is such a momentous find appears to be beyond them: Evolutionary theory (complemented by an extensive knowledge of geology) predicted not only that this fish would have existed, but also that its fossilized remains would probably be found within a specific part of the world, in geological layers of a particular age. Hence, Shubin's many trips with his team to the Canadian Arctic, where those rock layers could be found. "We designed this expedition with the goal of finding this exact fossil," explains Shubin. "And we used the tools of evolution and geology as discovery tools to make a prediction about where to look. And the prediction was confirmed." Tiktaalik isn't just proof of evolution; it's also proof that the scientific process works.
Nevertheless, following the announcement of Tiktaalik's discovery in 2006, the creationists pounced. "My inbox is filled with some interesting emails," says Shubin. Over time, as the idea for Your Inner Fish began to gel, Shubin decided to seek out creationists, or less-than-evolution-friendly audiences, in person to try to explain the fossil and what it means. "I decided at that point, I'm going to go give talks in Alabama, in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and elsewhere, where I'll bring Tiktaalik with me, or the cast of Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "And I've done this every year."
Having the fossil to show, says Shubin, changes the entire nature of the discussion. "It's about the data, it's about the evidence, it's about the discovery," he says. "It's about, 'How do you date those rocks, how do you compare that creature to another creature?' Well, if we do that, we kind of win, because what it means is it changes the conversation in a way where it's now about evidence," he continues. "You're not going to change everybody's mind, but you're going to affect a few, most definitely. And that's kind of my passion. That's what I think I can bring to the table."
Here is a classical misconception. As I said before, the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence. We do have good hypotheses for that as well - but it's a different topic, and it gets always conflated with evolution by Creationists, because abiogenesis is indeed one of the phenomena, we're not able to definitively explain - we don't yet know enough. But seriously - it's just trying to distract people, if you throw that in under evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
I didn't yet look that up - but the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Ah - but now I did look it up - and tadaa - the respective transitional form is called "Pikaia" - not a mystery at all (any more). This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures - so it makes for a fine reply to this segment of the Morris article: 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
So that should suffice to debunk this myth of missing links - they're all out there and abound - and they can all be googled individually.Quote:
10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
As useful as it is, the phrase "missing link" is misleading in at least two ways. First, most of the transitional forms in vertebrate evolution aren't missing, but in fact have been conclusively identified in the fossil record. Second, it's impossible to pick out a single, definitive "missing link" from the broad continuum of evolution; for example, first there were theropod dinosaurs, then a large array of bird-like theropods, and only then what we consider true birds. With that said, here are 10 so-called missing links that help fill in the story of vertebrate evolution.
1. The Vertebrate Missing Link - Pikaia
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/W/J/-/-/pikaiaNT.jpg
One of the most important events in the history of life was when vertebrates--animals with protected nerve cords running down the lengths of their backs--evolved from their invertebrate ancestors. The tiny, translucent, 500-million-year-old Pikaia possessed some crucial vertebrate characteristics: not only that essential spinal cord, but also bilateral symmetry, V-shaped muscles, and a head distinct from its tail, complete with forward-facing eyes. (Two other proto-fish of the Cambrian period, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia, also deserve "missing link" status, but Pikaia is the best-known representative of this group.)
2. The Tetrapod Missing Link - Tiktaalik - see above
The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik is what some paleontologists call a "fishapod," a transitional form perched midway between the prehistoric fish that preceded it and the first true tetrapods of the late Devonian period. Tiktaalik spent most, if not all, of its life in the water, but it boasted a wrist-like structure under its front fins, a flexible neck and primitive lungs, which may have allowed it to climb occasionally onto semi-dry land. Essentially, Tiktaalik blazed the prehistoric trail for its better-known tetrapod descendant of 10 million years later, Acanthostega.
3. The Amphibian Missing Link - Eucritta
Not one of the better-known transitional forms in the fossil record, the full name of this "missing link"--Eucritta melanolimnetes--underlines its special status; it's Greek for "creature from the black lagoon." Eucritta, which lived about 350 million years ago, possessed a weird blend of tetrapod-like, amphibian-like and reptile-like characteristics, especially with regard to its head, eyes and palate. No one has yet identified what the direct successor of Eucritta was, though whatever the identity of this genuine missing link, it probably counted as one of the first true amphibians.
4. The Reptile Missing Link - Hylonomus
About 320 million years ago, give or take a few million years, a population of prehistoric amphibians evolved into the first true reptiles--which, of course, themselves went on to spawn a mighty race of dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs and sleek, marine predators. To date, the North American Hylonomus is the best candidate for the first true reptile on earth, a tiny (about one foot long and one pound), skittering, insect-eating critter that laid its eggs on dry land rather than in the water. (The relative harmlessness of Hylonomus is best summed up by its name, Greek for "forest mouse.").
...
9. The Mammal Missing Link - Megazostrodon
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/C/6...azostrodon.jpg
More so than with other such evolutionary transitions, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the most advanced therapsids, or "mammal-like reptiles," spawned the first true mammals--since the mouse-sized furballs of the late Triassic period are represented mainly by fossilized teeth! Even still, the African Megazostrodon is as good a candidate as any for a missing link: this tiny creature didn't possess a true mammalian placenta, but it still seems to have suckled its young after they hatched, a level of parental care that put it well toward the mammalian end of the evolutionary spectrum.
10. The Bird Missing Link - Archaeopteryx
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/u/C/-/-/archaeoEW.png
Not only does Archaeopteryx count as "a" missing link, but for many years in the 19th century it was "the" missing link, since its spectacularly preserved fossils were discovered only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Even today, paleontologists disagree about whether Archaeopteryx was mostly dinosaur or mostly bird, or whether it represented a "dead end" in evolution (it's possible that prehistoric birds evolved more than once during the Mesozoic Era, and that modern birds descend from the small, feathered dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period rather than the Jurassic Archaeopteryx).
Ah - but there's nothing wrong with what he says, even if it's misleading to quote this snippet and then cut him off midsentence! I'm sure it would be interesting, what the content of the ". . . ." section is. Besides that - I checked my dictionary for "virtually" to be sure, it means "almost" and not "entirely". And I've also checked "biota":Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
So it's important to know, what he actually meant. The way he put it, these biota have a "duration" - so I guess, he meant the term spatially, but it doesn't matter - what he said goes perfectly well with evolution. In stable conditions almost all critters in a geographic region/timescale will remain basically the same over the duration of this environment's stability. Changes up to actual speciation happen, when the environment changes. And if it stays stable - nothing much happens, "almost" nothing. I hope you can see how bringing along this crippled quote, not even bothering to quote the sentence as a whole, looks really weak from Morris. He wants to sell this mangled citation as a leading biologist disagreeing with evolution, which obviously it is not. Biologist Eldredge talks about punctuated equilibrium here - a classical evolutionary concept - and Morris claims it would contradict evolution. Morris must have known, must have, that he is wildly mis-representing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
What does that say about the validity of what he has to say? Nothing good.
Can't you see the dishonesty with which these quotes are made?
Anyway - without bothering to better this stuff - I throw it out, exhaustedly. Again - we could share take on the rest of the article in some organized fashion - or I'll go on in my own time.
I'm all too aware, how I could have done better - but this must suffice now for today.
Ah - but why not throw in this as well - the debate, where Ham brought his fraudulent claims about dogs etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Nye did a great job in my eyes - even Creationists agreed on it not having gone well for Ham (I could search for that - I read them lamenting about it somewhere).
