Icons of Evolution

[2PhiloVoid]

No.

I'll take Wells' word for it.

Those icons had to come from somewhere, and I suspect they were taught in school at one time.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

But I don't think so.

Oh ... they might be wrong today ... but they're examples [icons] of junk science taught as fact.

Wells is a Moonie, and I'm guessing there's only just so much of Wells' word that you're actually going to take.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wells is a Moonie, and I'm guessing there's only just so much of Wells' word that you're actually going to take.

Just kinda wondering what you thought of the icons.

I guess I made a mistake mentioning where they came from, didn't I?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just kinda wondering what you thought of the icons.

... if you want, I can field that inquiry if you like. Do you have a favorite "icon" you want me to evaluate from Wells' book? Who knows? Maybe in the process of going back and reviewing his book, I'll reassess some things in a different light.

I guess I made a mistake mentioning where they came from, didn't I?

Honestly, I think you did the right thing. In fact, I only intellectually respect those who cite their sources, even if those sources are questionable.

 

[AV1611VET]

... if you want, I can field that inquiry if you like. Do you have a favorite "icon" you want me to evaluate from Wells' book? Who knows? Maybe in the process of going back and reviewing his book, I'll reassess some things in a different light.

Thank you! You're a gentleman! :oldthumbs:

If you would, please: archaeopterix?

Thank you!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you! You're a gentleman! :oldthumbs:

If you would, please: archaeopterix?

Thank you!

Ok then. Is there a particular point you think Wells' makes that is significant and you want me to address? Or do you think he has a decisively scathing critique on a certain page in chapter 6 you want me to comment on?

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you! You're a gentleman! :oldthumbs:

If you would, please: archaeopterix?

Thank you!

I'm not a gentleman, so I'll just barge in here and answer as well.

Archaeopteryx is interesting in relation to the evolution of birds primarily as the first sight of a possible early stage in avian evolution. It is one of those missing links you are so fond of declaring don't exist. I think we have thus far found around a dozen examples of it, but our understanding of the emergence of birds from dinosaurs is now based upon many other examples of that transition, both earlier and later than archaeopteryx. It's arguably a good poster child for educating Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average on the topic of evolution in general and birds in particular. The counter argument to that value is that some foolish, ill-informed persons seem to want to call it an icon.

 

[AV1611VET]

The counter argument to that value is that some foolish, ill-informed persons seem to want to call it an icon.

So don't call it a "missing link."

Don't call it an "icon of evolution."

Call it a "transitional," ... right?

It's a dinosaur! It's a bird! No! It's Archaeopteryx!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So don't call it a "missing link."

Don't call it an "icon of evolution."

Call it a "transitional," ... right?

It's a dinosaur! It's a bird! No! It's Archaeopteryx!

We'll call it the German name then: Urvogel - primeval bird.

 

[AV1611VET]

We'll call it the German name then: Urvogel - primeval bird.

Is it a Gweiadur?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is it a Gweiadur?

No. It is an Urvogel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So don't call it a "missing link."

Don't call it an "icon of evolution."

Call it a "transitional," ... right?

It's a dinosaur! It's a bird! No! It's Archaeopteryx!

Whatever it was, it's millions of years old and ... it wasn't on Noah's Ark. That much we know.

 

[Ophiolite]

So don't call it a "missing link."

Don't call it an "icon of evolution."

Call it a "transitional," ... right?

It's a dinosaur! It's a bird! No! It's Archaeopteryx!

Oh dear me. I used the term "missing link" because it is a term so beloved through decades of misused by some creationists. If I was talking with experts in the field I would be saying "I would describe this as a transitional form. Would that currently be the preferred usage?"

That would illustrate two things:

1. I understand when I am talking to people who know more about a subject than I do and seek to learn from them.
2. I don't have a warped notion of the function of classification such as would lead me down a rabbit hole of nonsense wherein the reclassification of Pluto didn't plunge me into a decades long series of tirades about how unjust it was.

 

[dale dorsett]

Amen, brother. At least we both abhor that "Darwin" icon. Yes, science is cool. Yes, I am an Old-Earth Creationist. But that Darwin icon is total blasphemy.

I concur! The earth is of old buy not millions of years old. Gen 1:1 speaks of initial creation to Moses in Gen 1:2 earth is in darkness and chaos, tohu and bohu. God skips over a former earth where the King of Tyre, obviously Lucifer before the fall, is falling - the adorned beautiful angel that walked in the Garden at Eden. Everwhere the 'King of Tyre ' walked precious jewels were formed, not human at all folks. How is it that pride is found in your heart, is definitely speaking of Lucifer before his fall from rebellion. In Isaiah at one point says "do you not know that the earth i s of old" that it was created complete and habitable. Strange language for what is seen in Gen 1:2. God did not get into the former earth with Moses but on God forming the earth to be habitable and full of life and light. God created ALL that is except rebellion and pride which Lucifer formed because of envy and lust to be as God his Creator. "I will exalt my kingdom above that of God". Think about the New World Order's agenda to rul e the world as they follow Lucifer/Satan.

How long did it take for God to reform the earth -probably destroyed by Lucifer's rebellion? Interesting how God told Moses elselwhere, "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years on earth". 7 days or 7 000 years to clean up the mess and make the earth habitable and full of life??? I surmise that the former earth may not have been around over 10K, only can speculate. This I know, fossil-layer round robin thinking is totally errant. Specific fossiuls at x layer with each layer taking y time??? and then stated the date of the layers are based on what fossils are in them is circular logic - totally speculaltive. CHALLENGE - Mt Saint Helen volcano washed away debris in a lake with trees vertical in mud and layering like with the earth layering in WEEKS. Trees started fossilizing. vertically just like fossilized trees found in layers OBVIOUSLY planted there with Noah's flood (even sea salt and fossils found on mountains. Himalayian salt?(Salt Range Mountains close to the Himalayian Mountains.) A tree to fossilize has to be trapped in mud and minerals to all fossilize. Kill a tree and it will be rotted away totally in 100-200 years MAX.


Add DNA being a PROGRAMMED and DESIGNED framing of life. NEVER has man or angel created life but taking life God created and changing or manipulating DNA is done and has been done even to before Noah's flood.

I am 75 and KNOW intelligent design formed all that is. Some want to say ET did it but Who made ET? "In the beginning God" is the only reasonable concept. ET may simply be a product of the angels that lusted after human women and started perversion of God's Creations.

I got carried away but believe me I have seen and studied a lot and God as Creator is the only conclusion I can find. Knowing God intimately through Jesus Salvation, He is as real to me now as anything I can see. AND HE IS GOOD ONLY!. Perversion of His Creations by pride, rebellion with Lucifer/Satan and man deceived or following Lucifer/Satan is where the problems come from. God will eventually create a new Heaven (s) and earth pure as before Lucifers fall and rebellion and man's followin him. All will be perfect complete and habitable as it was originally.

 

[dale dorsett]

Oh dear me. I used the term "missing link" because it is a term so beloved through decades of misused by some creationists. If I was talking with experts in the field I would be saying "I would describe this as a transitional form. Would that currently be the preferred usage?"

That would illustrate two things:

1. I understand when I am talking to people who know more about a subject than I do and seek to learn from them.
2. I don't have a warped notion of the function of classification such as would lead me down a rabbit hole of nonsense wherein the reclassification of Pluto didn't plunge me into a decades long series of tirades about how unjust it was.

Missing link was a term to exclude God and diefy nature. Nature is set up by God and does not Create, God set that into place. The theory of life coming from nature itself as if nature itself is alive of itself has always been absurd to me logically and technically. SOOOOOO many holes in evolution it looks more like molecules barely held together with much space in it. Those joints are built on specualtion not facts. Even Darwin would refute his 'THEORY' of evolution as he saw it and stated so at times in his writings. That is why he called it theory. If he knew of DNA he would have tossed his theory as absurd.

I look at the propagation of Darwin's theory of evolution as I saw Lucy in Chicago, mostly mud and some bones made to look like an cross o f man and monkey. Even cromagnum man had a full human sized brain though his skull was not as vertical. With DNA the prospect of life coming from lesser forms of life forming new species is absurd. Screwed up DNA can alter parts of a person's body, caused by toxins or accidents in birth or aberration within cells malformed. The ONLY true EVOLUTION is the adaptability of human cells to adapt to weather and environmental conditions - Eskimo's with a lot of extra hair and around equator with little extra hair.

Much exercise and nutrients can make a person like Hulk Hogan or little like Peewee Herman. LOL!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Missing link was a term to exclude God and diefy nature. Nature is set up by God and does not Create, God set that into place. The theory of life coming from nature itself as if nature itself is alive of itself has always been absurd to me logically and technically. SOOOOOO many holes in evolution it looks more like molecules barely held together with much space in it. Those joints are built on specualtion not facts. Even Darwin would refute his 'THEORY' of evolution as he saw it and stated so at times in his writings. That is why he called it theory. If he knew of DNA he would have tossed his theory as absurd.

I look at the propagation of Darwin's theory of evolution as I saw Lucy in Chicago, mostly mud and some bones made to look like an cross o f man and monkey. Even cromagnum man had a full human sized brain though his skull was not as vertical. With DNA the prospect of life coming from lesser forms of life forming new species is absurd. Screwed up DNA can alter parts of a person's body, caused by toxins or accidents in birth or aberration within cells malformed. The ONLY true EVOLUTION is the adaptability of human cells to adapt to weather and environmental conditions - Eskimo's with a lot of extra hair and around equator with little extra hair.

Much exercise and nutrients can make a person like Hulk Hogan or little like Peewee Herman. LOL!

You're just all over the place with that and nothing about what you said is correct or even remotely connected to what AV thinks is the point.

 

[Shemjaza]

Missing link was a term to exclude God and diefy nature. Nature is set up by God and does not Create, God set that into place. The theory of life coming from nature itself as if nature itself is alive of itself has always been absurd to me logically and technically. SOOOOOO many holes in evolution it looks more like molecules barely held together with much space in it. Those joints are built on specualtion not facts. Even Darwin would refute his 'THEORY' of evolution as he saw it and stated so at times in his writings. That is why he called it theory. If he knew of DNA he would have tossed his theory as absurd.

I look at the propagation of Darwin's theory of evolution as I saw Lucy in Chicago, mostly mud and some bones made to look like an cross o f man and monkey. Even cromagnum man had a full human sized brain though his skull was not as vertical. With DNA the prospect of life coming from lesser forms of life forming new species is absurd. Screwed up DNA can alter parts of a person's body, caused by toxins or accidents in birth or aberration within cells malformed. The ONLY true EVOLUTION is the adaptability of human cells to adapt to weather and environmental conditions - Eskimo's with a lot of extra hair and around equator with little extra hair.

Much exercise and nutrients can make a person like Hulk Hogan or little like Peewee Herman. LOL!

You've got a number of misunderstandings in your post.

To reference AV's list, the Miller–Urey experiment doesn't demonstrate that life comes from non life,. but it definitely demonstrates that increasing complexity of the organic chemicals necessary for life are possible in an environment without life.

Can you explain why you think this is absurd logically and technically?


Just stating that there are holes isn't particularly convincing, especially when you follow it up with two mistakes in one: not recognising that theory is the highest standard of science and repeating that Darwin refuted his theory, often taken from his tendency to point out seeming flaws before he explained them.


Lucy is on;y one example of her species, but we have found many more. She's an ape, but with structure unlike any non human ape alive. Also, I think you must be confused about cromagnum man as that was a fully upright creature, being just an early example of modern humans (Homo sapiens).


If you look at the bones of Hulk Hogan or Peewee Herman they would both be basically the same as you or I... they will never resemble a Neanderthal, let alone something more distant like a Homo erectus.

 

[AlexB23]

I concur! The earth is of old buy not millions of years old. Gen 1:1 speaks of initial creation to Moses in Gen 1:2 earth is in darkness and chaos, tohu and bohu. God skips over a former earth where the King of Tyre, obviously Lucifer before the fall, is falling - the adorned beautiful angel that walked in the Garden at Eden. Everwhere the 'King of Tyre ' walked precious jewels were formed, not human at all folks. How is it that pride is found in your heart, is definitely speaking of Lucifer before his fall from rebellion. In Isaiah at one point says "do you not know that the earth i s of old" that it was created complete and habitable. Strange language for what is seen in Gen 1:2. God did not get into the former earth with Moses but on God forming the earth to be habitable and full of life and light. God created ALL that is except rebellion and pride which Lucifer formed because of envy and lust to be as God his Creator. "I will exalt my kingdom above that of God". Think about the New World Order's agenda to rul e the world as they follow Lucifer/Satan.

How long did it take for God to reform the earth -probably destroyed by Lucifer's rebellion? Interesting how God told Moses elselwhere, "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years on earth". 7 days or 7 000 years to clean up the mess and make the earth habitable and full of life??? I surmise that the former earth may not have been around over 10K, only can speculate. This I know, fossil-layer round robin thinking is totally errant. Specific fossiuls at x layer with each layer taking y time??? and then stated the date of the layers are based on what fossils are in them is circular logic - totally speculaltive. CHALLENGE - Mt Saint Helen volcano washed away debris in a lake with trees vertical in mud and layering like with the earth layering in WEEKS. Trees started fossilizing. vertically just like fossilized trees found in layers OBVIOUSLY planted there with Noah's flood (even sea salt and fossils found on mountains. Himalayian salt?(Salt Range Mountains close to the Himalayian Mountains.) A tree to fossilize has to be trapped in mud and minerals to all fossilize. Kill a tree and it will be rotted away totally in 100-200 years MAX.


Add DNA being a PROGRAMMED and DESIGNED framing of life. NEVER has man or angel created life but taking life God created and changing or manipulating DNA is done and has been done even to before Noah's flood.

I am 75 and KNOW intelligent design formed all that is. Some want to say ET did it but Who made ET? "In the beginning God" is the only reasonable concept. ET may simply be a product of the angels that lusted after human women and started perversion of God's Creations.

I got carried away but believe me I have seen and studied a lot and God as Creator is the only conclusion I can find. Knowing God intimately through Jesus Salvation, He is as real to me now as anything I can see. AND HE IS GOOD ONLY!. Perversion of His Creations by pride, rebellion with Lucifer/Satan and man deceived or following Lucifer/Satan is where the problems come from. God will eventually create a new Heaven (s) and earth pure as before Lucifers fall and rebellion and man's followin him. All will be perfect complete and habitable as it was originally.

Dang, that is a long post, but I agree that ID is a thing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Missing link was a term to exclude God and diefy nature.

That is incorrect. "Missing link" was an accurate phrase to describe postulated organisms that would lie on the evolutionary path from an ancestor to a remote descendant. The motivation for introducing the term was to facilitate discussion of such evolutionary paths.
Millions of Christians and several Christian denominations not only accept evolution, but see it as a wonderful example of the power and majesty of God. You are missing out on that and inadvertently painting your God as a liar.
Other members have dealt with several other points in your post. I would add that, based on what you have written, your knowledge of evolution is insufficient for your assertions to carry any weight. I recommend studying the subject thoroughly so that your attacks on it are not so easily dismissed. There are many here, myself included, who would be happy to guide you in that study.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's one of the things that convince me that Jonathan Wells isn't just mistaken about the evidence for evolution, he is actually dishonest.

He's one of the "I was an atheist like you and I believed in evolution for X reason." crowd, when X reason isn't an accurate description of why anyone accepts evolution theory.

The "professional class" (the paid "scientists" and related personnel of the various creationist orgainizations) of the creationist movement is filled with demonstrable liars. It would not surprise me at all if Wells was one of them. I haven't looked into his claims and checked for knowing falseness.

 

[RileyG]

May God save his soul during that tour!

Yup. He identifies as a cultural Christian. He's getting old. I've been keeping him in my prayers.