Questions For Darwinists

[Agonaces of Susa]

Evolution =/= the appearance of new genera. Now, please answer my question.

I did answer your question.

Allegedly by whom?

Alleged by Darwinists.

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

***

(1) What does "evolved a single cell" even mean?

Darwinists claim that all life on Earth descended from a single celled organism.

"And the problem in geology is not only [a] problem of annihilation of species but also a problem of origin of species. In fact the very question of evolution: How could so many species that populate the Earth, and many more have populated without leaving a single descendant, how could so many species evolve just by the mere process of competition? From the original simple form, practically unicellular form, just by competition, can you understand how a crocodile and a bird and a worm and a man and an insect with many legs, all could come to be?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

(3) Who on earth said that the tuatara was the fastest-evolving animal on earth?

Darwinists.

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal

***

(4) Living fossils are not called living fossils because they haven't evolved at all

In fact they are.

 

[Naraoia]

Yet dinosaurs are genetically similar to birds, yet not to other species. Curious how such a link obviously cannot mean that they are in any way related.

Wait, what genetic similarity? Has anything been found since the T. rex collagen? Am curious.

As fror non-climbing early birds, they might at first have used their wings for display -- to appear bigger and possibly thereby scare off a would-be predator.

Or to charm the would-be mother of all birds

 

[JGL53]

Has anyone brought up theistic evolution on this thread yet?

If not, then there you are if you believe in god.

Have a nice day.

(And perhaps you should eschew arguing about stuff you know NOTHING about.)

LOL.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

This shows how little you understand about evolution. A dinosaur with a slightly different mutation giving birth to another dinosaur with a slightly different mutation and so on for hundreds of generations, each generation becoming more successful over other dinosaurs until eventually a creature was born that is the ancestor (or possibly even just one of many) of birds as we know them today, is not the same as a dog giving birth to a cat.

Please read up on a subject if you intend to denounce it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM

Ah, so you agree that large scale evolutionary change happens over multiple generations then?

For the record I do not agree. All possible changes over time are already programmed into the DNA by the intelligent designer, namely the LORD God.

 

[FreezBee]

Might of, assuptions and speculation. Just like my story.

No, because you claimed that early birds were trying to fly for no particular reason. What could feathered wings have been good for before flight? That's the question to ponder upon.

- FreezBee

 

[SithDoughnut]

Wait, what genetic similarity? Has anything been found since the T. rex collagen? Am curious.

It was the T.Rex collagen I was referring to, which demonstrated that the DNA closely matched birds. There might be more, but I'd be surprised, considering the difficulty of finding suitable dinosaur genetic material, or any at all.

I'll have a look though - you never know

EDIT:

Not quite genetics, but something I didn't know about.

bbc[dot]co[dot]uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/its_official_birds_are_descend.html

Sorry about the weird link, apparently I need 50 posts before I can do it properly. I presume that's a measure against spam.

 

[rjw]

Might of, assuptions and speculation. Just like my story.

What FB is pointing out is that your story is not the only story. He is showing that there are other possibilities. For example, we do know of birds (and other organisms) that use wings to glide.


So to imply that your story is the only one that is viable, makes no sense, does it.





Regards, Roland

 

[FreezBee]

For the record I do not agree. All possible changes over time are already programmed into the DNA by the intelligent designer, namely the LORD God.

Ok, assuming that, what then controls which changes actually occur?

- FreezBee

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Ok, assuming that, what then controls which changes actually occur?

- FreezBee

Aristotle's four causes.

 

[FreezBee]

Or to charm the would-be mother of all birds

A possibility as well.

- FreezBee

 

[SithDoughnut]

Aristotle's four causes.

Could you explain exactly how that would apply? I'm not quite following.

 

[FreezBee]

Aristotle's four causes.

What would be

the material cause?

the formal cause?

the efficient cause?

the final cause?
​

- FreezBee

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What would be

the material cause?

Chemistry.

the formal cause?

Biochemistry.

the efficient cause?

Physics.

the final cause?

Metaphysics aka God.

 

[Meshach]

No, because you claimed that early birds were trying to fly for no particular reason. What could feathered wings have been good for before flight? That's the question to ponder upon.

- FreezBee

Sure , there are flightless birds whose wings have other purposes than flying, I was trying to paint a picture of how it possibly could have gone down and as I stated my assumptions can be equally right as any of yours. Lets face it, at one time according to ToE those wings and feathers must of been half done. A four legged lizard with scales did not one day in history give birth to a bird with feathers, two legs and two wings did it? And who is teaching those birds now-a-days to make nests? Mindless natural selection is awesome, totaly mind numbingly awesome.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Mindless natural selection is awesome, totaly mind numbingly awesome.

Agreed.

 

[Naraoia]

I did answer your question.

Insofar as baseless insults can be called "answers". Now would you please answer it using only facts that are actually true of evolutionary theory?

Alleged by Darwinists.

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

Cool, thanks! I'd missed that particular discovery.
There are two points to make about this.

(1) Remember where I included the "seemingly" caveat? It seems tuataras are a case in point. Rates of obvious morphological change need not equal rates of molecular evolution.

(2) The comparison only spans a limited time period. It says nothing about molecular evolution during the first 99.996% of tuatara history.

Darwinists claim that all life on Earth descended from a single celled organism.

Then didn't you mistype something?

"And the problem in geology is not only [a] problem of annihilation of species but also a problem of origin of species. In fact the very question of evolution: How could so many species that populate the Earth, and many more have populated without leaving a single descendant, how could so many species evolve just by the mere process of competition? From the original simple form, practically unicellular form, just by competition, can you understand how a crocodile and a bird and a worm and a man and an insect with many legs, all could come to be?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Sorry, is there any special reason why I should take a cosmologist seriously in this matter?

(Or, for that matter, why I should take someone who calls this guy a cosmologist with a straight face seriously...)

(Additionally, can you please provide a citation for your quote? I didn't find it using google, and I also didn't find anything from Velikovsky published in 1966. A clue, please?)

In fact they are.

I'm back to kindergarten, it seems. Do you really expect me to back off with my tail between my legs if you just repeat "yes they are!" ad nauseam?

I have at least one evolutionary biology textbook against your claim. You can check this one on Google Books, it's from page 167 of Ridley's Evolution, third edition (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004). Here, the term "living fossil" is explained thusly:

The Port Jackson shark Heterodontus portusjacksoni is a living fossil -- a species that closely resembles its fossil ancestors [...].

Note that he doesn't say "is identical to".

 

[Freysinn]

For the record I do not agree. All possible changes over time are already programmed into the DNA by the intelligent designer, namely the LORD God.

No, good sir. You're wrong.

Look at wolves for example, some wolves were made pets by humans, and over time they have evolved into the many dog types we know today varing on location. Now wolves and dogs are considered different species. It is known that they shared ancestors with wolves.

This is a textbook example of evolution in progress. Give it a couple of thousands of years and they might not be able to interbreed, and then you could hardly tell they shared ancestors without previous knowlege of evolutionary theory.

 

[Freysinn]

Sure , there are flightless birds whose wings have other purposes than flying, I was trying to paint a picture of how it possibly could have gone down and as I stated my assumptions can be equally right as any of yours. Lets face it, at one time according to ToE those wings and feathers must of been half done. A four legged lizard with scales did not one day in history give birth to a bird with feathers, two legs and two wings did it? And who is teaching those birds now-a-days to make nests? Mindless natural selection is awesome, totaly mind numbingly awesome.

Your assumption was not based on less evidence than him, he took into account that they had claws. And it does actually make sence, since gliding from tree to tree must have some advantages.

 

[Naraoia]

Lets face it, at one time according to ToE those wings and feathers must of been half done.

What you don't seem to understand is that it wasn't a "wing half done", but a fully functional limb used for display/gliding/steering/[insert function of your choice]

A four legged lizard with scales did not one day in history give birth to a bird with feathers, two legs and two wings did it?

Exactly. There's a lot of evolution between four-legged archosauromorphs (NOT lizards) and flying birds - through archosauromorphs that could run on four or two legs (Euparkeria may have been an early example), fully bipedal archosaurs, and fully bipedal archosaurs with increasingly winglike forelimbs. As for feathers, they evolved in stages, all of which can be observed on exquisitely preserved dinosaur fossils.

And who is teaching those birds now-a-days to make nests? Mindless natural selection is awesome, totaly mind numbingly awesome.

I strongly advise you to read the chapter on instinct in The Origin of Species (especially the part where he discusses extant "transitional forms" of cell-making behaviour in bees). Arguments from incredulity were poor arguments against evolution even 150 years ago.

 

[FreezBee]

Metaphysics aka God.

That's not Aristotle's final cause. What purpose would a genetic change fullfil? E.g., if wings came by through a genetic change, what good would the wings do?

- FreezBee