Evolution answers

[Dinwar]

The change from one species to another is pure speculation, conjectures and fabrication.

Except for all those times we've actually seen it in the fossil record and through direct observations.

This is a lie, perpetuated by the Discovery Institute and other Creationists and contradictory to the actual data.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Except for all those times we've actually seen it in the fossil record and through direct observations.

This is a lie, perpetuated by the Discovery Institute and other Creationists and contradictory to the actual data.

And he said "species to species" which has been observed (as you point out), but, as we know, creationists don't seem to know what the various classifications actually mean.

 

[Slowvehicle]

By the way, are we sure he meant Gray's Anatomy and not Grey's Anatomy?

He isn't using either one, which is why I keeop asking about the page number. All the information he has is from one of those incestuous Creationist steal-tanks where the same article gets passed 'round and round...here's one place:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_recurrent_laryngeal_nerve_039201.html

Note that it does not, in fact, "explain" or "describe" the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe.

Note also the typical creationist mambo of equivocation between what the recursive laryngeal nerve does and what it is "for"; not to mention missing that the route of the mammalian recursive laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolution by natural selection, NOT because it is badly designed for its current function, but because it provides evidence of why it was badly designed, and how it came to have the path it does.

Same old, same old.

 

[justintime]

And he said "species to species" which has been observed. But, as we know, creationists don't seem to know what the various classifications actually mean.

Most of the fossil variations have been eventually proven to be variations within the same species either a result of deformities, dwarfism, diseases or wrongly identified bone fragments belonging to other species.

 

[Slowvehicle]

First they looked for answers in fragments of bones. Now they are confronted with the complexities of design in humans and animals which are rather perplexing that evolution cannot account for. So they are back to blaming the master designer. Rather than taking this convoluted path they could just as easily blamed the master designer for everything and accepted the fact that that is the way it is and they cannot do a darn thing about it.

You probably do not even realize that the highlighted bit is not true. Common descent with modification acting on shared derived characteristics explains (not describes) the anti-efficient and super-sub-optimal path of the mammalian RLN with clarity. Ignoring reality is not " 'proof' of 'poof' ".

 

[Slowvehicle]

But Dawkins used the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe to challenge intelligent design. Evolution does not have an answer for this anomalous pathway.

You probably do not even realize that the highlighted bit is not true. Common descent with modification acting on shared derived characteristics explains (not describes) the anti-efficient and super-sub-optimal path of the mammalian RLN elegantly. Ignoring reality is not " 'proof' of 'poof' ".

 

[Slowvehicle]

The only scientific fact about evolution is the variations in species. This is observable, verifiable and quite evident. The change from one species to another is pure speculation, conjectures and fabrication.

You probably do not even realize that the highlighted bit is not true. Common descent with modification acting on shared derived characteristics explains (not describes) speciation in detail, with clarity. Real life provides observed examples. Ignoring reality is not " 'proof' of 'poof' ".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Most of the fossil variations have been eventually proven to be variations within the same species either a result of deformities, dwarfism, diseases or wrongly identified bone fragments belonging to other species.

You probably do not even realize that the highlighted bit is not true.

 

[Corsair 115]

I wonder: Is it just biological organisms that have to have been designed by God/"Intelligent Designer"/what have you? Or do galaxies and solar systems have to have been designed as well? Can galaxies and solar systems develop and evolve entirely based on the laws of physics without the need for God/"Intelligent Designer"/what have you?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Most of the fossil variations have been eventually proven to be variations within the same species either a result of deformities, dwarfism, diseases or wrongly identified bone fragments belonging to other species.

Are you making this up yourself or just parroting what someone else made up for you? Because that is totally nonsense.

 

[dasmiller]

Most of the fossil variations have been eventually proven to be variations within the same species either a result of deformities, dwarfism, diseases or wrongly identified bone fragments belonging to other species.

Odd the way all the fossils with a particular deformity are so often clumped in the same stratum . . .

 

[Reality Check]

But Dawkins used the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe to challenge intelligent design. Evolution does not have an answer for this anomalous pathway.

Sorry, justintime, but if you are going to comment about science, you really need to learn something about science first! Otherwise you will make statements like the above (and the stated ignorance about observed speciation) which are just dumb.
Recurrent laryngeal nerve

The extreme detour of this nerve, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[23]:74–75) is cited as evidence of evolution. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.[24]:360–362

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The only scientific fact about evolution is the variations in species. This is observable, verifiable and quite evident. The change from one species to another is pure speculation, conjectures and fabrication.

Wrong.
http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

 

[John Jones]

The only scientific fact about evolution is the variations in species. This is observable, verifiable and quite evident. The change from one species to another is pure speculation, conjectures and fabrication.

Except when one examines the evidence - then creationists don't have an amputated leg to stand on.

 

[Iamme]

I wonder: Is it just biological organisms that have to have been designed by God/"Intelligent Designer"/what have you? Or do galaxies and solar systems have to have been designed as well? Can galaxies and solar systems develop and evolve entirely based on the laws of physics without the need for God/"Intelligent Designer"/what have you?

What do YOU think? What do you suppose a Creationist would say, and what do you think an evolution believing atheist would say?
I have listened to talk radio shows that featured a guest. And this guest would sound all scholarly explaining how it came into being. A Creationist guest would make you come away feeling like you just couldnt wait to start reading your Bible again.
But if the guest was a scholarly sounding evolution atheist, you`d think then that HE made sense, and you`d come away feeling like you should throw your Bible in the trash can.
What`s much more interesting is when two opposing guests are on at the same time, duking it out, where you can hear points and counter-points.
Speaking of which......that should be quite entertaining that Bill Nye the science guy vs Ken Ham the Creation Museum guy, coming up this February.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Most of the fossil variations have been eventually proven to be variations within the same species either a result of deformities, dwarfism, diseases or wrongly identified bone fragments belonging to other species.

Wow, ambulocetus must have been HORRIBLY deformed. A pig-sized whale with four legs? Some whale mom did some serious drugs during pregnancy.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . a scholarly sounding evolution atheist . . . . .

I want to be one of those when I grow up.

 

[John Jones]

What do YOU think? What do you suppose a Creationist would say, and what do you think an evolution believing atheist would say?
I have listened to talk radio shows that featured a guest. And this guest would sound all scholarly explaining how it came into being. A Creationist guest would make you come away feeling like you just couldnt wait to start reading your Bible again.
But if the guest was a scholarly sounding evolution atheist, you`d think then that HE made sense, and you`d come away feeling like you should throw your Bible in the trash can.
What`s much more interesting is when two opposing guests are on at the same time, duking it out, where you can hear points and counter-points.
Speaking of which......that should be quite entertaining that Bill Nye the science guy vs Ken Ham the Creation Museum guy, coming up this February.

You couldn't follow modern evolution theory, so you felt confident about whatever religious point was made 20 minutes earlier.

Got it.

 

[Brian-M]

no extra brain-power needed to invert the image

It's not necessary for extra brain-power to be required to invert the image, since this could be achieved by the visual cortex having developed the wrong way around as well, so the two inversions would cancel each-other out.

But this is beside the point, as the octopus eye would have to invert the image too. There's no way to focus an image through a single lens without inverting it.

But octopus eyes are pretty damn amazing things anyway. They have solid lenses that focus by moving in and out like a camera or telescope lens instead of flexing like human lenses do, and they're able to see the polarization of light.

ETA:

Again...if life was designed, the evidence suggests there were at least two designers.

And the two designers must have had an intern who got lumbered with designing eyes for insects as practice.

 

[Brian-M]

Now they are confronted with the complexities of design in humans and animals which are rather perplexing that evolution cannot account for.

There's no complexities of design that evolution cannot account for. At least, none that have been discovered so far. And Intelligent Design proponents have been putting a huge amount of effort into finding exactly that kind of thing for years without any success.

So they are back to blaming the master designer.

No, they're saying that there's no way a master designer would have been so incompetent to produce some of the things we see in nature.

For example, the human appendix. What kind of intelligent designer would give people an unnecessary organ that provides little or no benefit, but sometimes ruptures with fatal results (in the absence of modern surgery to remove it).

No intelligent designer would include such an organ as part of the design. So when people point out this design flaw, they're not "blaming the master designer", they're saying that it's too ridiculous a setup to have a designer in the first place.