"Evolution isn't science"

[aggle-rithm]

I have skimmed some of this, but couldn't finish all of it...just wanted to ask a few questions:

Why did God want noah to carry two of each animal. Why didn't he just allow them all to die and just recreate them after the flood? Noah and family wouldn't have to deal will all that poop and stuff.

It's a divine mystery.

Why did God make the universe appear to be 13.7 billion years old?...it seems quite tedious putting all those photons of light in all those places in the universe.

Also a divine mystery.

What's with the dinosaur bones too?

Hey!! Stop thinking so much.

And why did God have to rest on the 7th day when he is omnipotent?

Yet another divine mystery.

I have others, but good answers to these would be nice.

You're very welcome.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Check out the ocean.​

You see single cells floating around. Then you see similar cells forming a chain. http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/PDB/Images/prokaryotes/Rivulariaceae/Homoeothrix_6.jpg​

Then you see a bunch in a sherical shape. Volvox is an example. http://www.btinternet.com/~stephen.durr/volvoxa.jpg​

Then you see things like sponges (a group of similar cells) with other unattached cells aiding them in their own and the sponges' survival. Sponges are animals​

Then you see an organism that has completely incorporated those helpful cells into an organ. Then there are beings with several organs, and an oral cavity, and an end. http://www.infovisual.info/02/img_en/004%20Structure%20of%20a%20paramecium.jpg Note the oral groove on the single celled creature even, or http://www.woodbridge.tased.edu.au/mdc/Species Register/Ocellate Sea Star.jpg Look up how the sea star dumps it's stomach out of its body.​

Then you see a more complex being with organs involved in an entire system (digestive, muscular, nerves).​

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/physiol/c34x2chordates.jpg​

(Now for the eye, some organisms start getting cells that detect whether or not there is light. Then some get eyespots. Then you see even things like lobsters with cool eyes, and bugs. Then fish, and frogs, but not plants. Why not plants? Why not ask yourself that, and try to actually learn something?)​

Then a line of nerves is seen down a certain side of the organsim called a notochord.​

(We are starting to see creatures on land evolve other adaptations, like exoskeletons-bugs, instead of these vertebrate inner bone structures, but that is a different story from this one).​

Then you see others more complex with a backbone. Hello vertebrates! Think of a shark or any bony fish here. They have actual mouths, gills, etc. Look how long it took to get to this point! It took over 3 billion years! Look it up.​

Limbs appear as some fish make forays onto land to get out of a puddle and back into a large body of water.​

http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/japan/kuji-aquarium-fish-w-legs-2-large.jpg We also have lobster, crayfish, etc. with exoskeletons instead of inner skeletons. THEY walk the oceans.​

An organism first makes its way on land after spending the first part of its life in water (ribbit!)​

Then eggs get laid as the being starts out as an air breather-reptile instead of a tadpole. They got bigger and more complex, but cold blooded Reptiles!!​

(dinosaurs/reptiles cannot function when they are cold, and they would warm up slowly with those big bodies, they may starve before they become warm enough, then mobile enough to get food).​

The earth is cooling. The dinosaurs are sluggish, something may have cratered into the earth, and warm blooded creatures take over the environments left uninhabited by dwindling reptiles.​

The first mammals appear, laying egss (monotremes).​

Then marsupials are the first to have their offspring start out inside their bodies.​

Another mechanism is a uterus instead of an egg staying in the reproductive tract, and the placentals are roaming around.​

Along lines of placental mammals you see splits, like into canines, felines, and primates.​

Eventually, the primate line branches with apes evolving on one, and hominids on another. Separate, but with a common ancestor at the base of the branches.​

Now, tell me this all does not make any sense!​

Similar things happen with the botanicals, starting out as things in the water with chlorophyll instead of ingesting each other. Using the sun's energy instead of having to eat.​

Now, along with other posts about the many evolutions of the eye, etc....are we learning ANYthing JF??​

I have this HUGE biology book sitting in front of me as I write this. Did they start out with prokaryotes?? No, they start out with how a single cell, any cell works. Do you even know the difference between meiosis and mitosis? Do you know the difference between bacterium and viruses? Do you CARE??​

Will you ask one single intelligent question by now, please demonstrate you tried to learn SOMETHING, pleeease.​

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Does anyone have a clue how long that post I posted would have been if I'd tried to include any chemistry?

I wish JF would go to school and take actual science courses, in a real school with a real science teacher, not like my grade eight teacher that simply told us that evolution was stupid and ignored that complete section on earth's history. He told us to read it ourselves in case the provincial exam had questions on it, but HE wouldn't go near that section at all. Funny how he had no problems telling us about anatomy though. He would only teach stuff he figured was "right" enough.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Another area of fascinating study is the relationship between biological and geological history. Nothing happens independently. Again, I will give a hint that was completely IGNORED previously.

Why did Australia have soooo many non-placentals explode all over it? You can look at what lived all over the world before Australia broke free and became an isolated continent. Then compare the evolution of non-placentals on Australia to the placentals all over the rest of the earth. Fascinating!!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Did you know that prokaryotes were on the planet for 3 billion years all by themsevles? It took sooooo long to finally "realize" symbiosis and form complex tissues, organs, and systems. Even basic anatomy IS a start to figuring out evolution. Comparing structures in other animals really starts to get the brain hopping.

Can we talk about Mendel a bit. Darwin never knew about Mendel and his genetic eperiments. They were both pieces of the puzzle, that others put together after their demises. Darwin may have wrote about evolution, but he didn't have it all figured out.

JFs refusal to look anywhere but at creationut ravings is robbing himself of actual information, information that Darwin never realized either. Keeping to only what you know keeps you from putting every piece of the puzzle together. Even Darwin knew so very little. Mendel, a monk, would have welcomed Darwin's observations.

Now, we have scientists sharing and learning from each other all the time. We can observe the association between modern communications and the explosion of information that gets us to present day knowledge bases.

To stick your head in the sand and refuse to bite into this free buffet of present day information is to starve your mind like a stubborn anorexic.

 

[flume]

Thanks, Eos.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Don't thank me yet , let's wait to see if two hours of posting has any educational value to JF.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I don't follow this. Are you saying that since there is an increased amount of alkaloid-containing plants in the New World, that the Native Americans have a genetic disposition to be more reactive to those substances.

Alkaloids tend to be quite toxic. So, being more sensitive to them would seem to indicate that the people with that sensitivity would die off easier, and therefore be less and less prevlant in the given population.

My bad - one of the dangers when using a second language is picking a wrong or ambiguous word.

What I meant is that Native Americans can smell and/or taste incredibly minute amounts of alkaloids - reportedly, it's absolutely horrible, so they stay well away from anything containing them. For the exact reasons you listed above, so this is a pretty straightforward evolutionary advantage.

I saw it on the BAUT, but I can't find the thread.

 

[kmortis]

My bad - one of the dangers when using a second language is picking a wrong or ambiguous word.

What I meant is that Native Americans can smell and/or taste incredibly minute amounts of alkaloids - reportedly, it's absolutely horrible, so they stay well away from anything containing them. For the exact reasons you listed above, so this is a pretty straightforward evolutionary advantage.

I saw it on the BAUT, but I can't find the thread.

Ok, then that would fit. If you find it, please post it.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Don't thank me yet , let's wait to see if two hours of posting has any educational value to JF.

I doubt that JF will even read it, so it may not have any effect.

But it does certainly show that real science is much more fascinating than his fairy tales.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

But it does certainly show that real science is much more fascinating than his fairy tales.

Thank you, not only is that true, I'm very happy to have conveyed that to you in my posts (even though you may have already known that ). If JF ever got that much out of it, then I would be ecstatic.

Astralia broke away during the Eocene, so compare that to the K/T exctinction period map. There were non-placentals when Australia broke away... and so they were isolated on Australia when that happened. Also, look further back to the Late Jurrassic. Look how green Australia is then.

We have a chance to see what the world would have been like if no placentals evolved. Humans are placentals, of course, and that seems to be the best model for getting to primates. No primates really evolved from non-placentals, but we got flatter faced tree dwellers like koalas, but they have short tails! Then there's the very successful possoms, with a long tail, more diverse diet, and not such a flat face. In primates, we have a combination of tree dwellers with long tails, apes with short tails, with most tree dwellers having longer tails.

Late Jurassic
K/T extinction
Eocene

Choose any period

Lots of water, very little ice until Eocene/Miocene. Instead of water covering land in the ice ages, we of course have ice.

Anyone want to estimate the amount of floods that wiped people away once they showed up. Millions? Billions? of floods occured in the time of man? Of course every and any group of any human that ever existed experienced floods, as we do now everywhere. In their isolated little areas, they would have no idea how far the flood went, they could very well figure it covered the entire planet, not knowing what the entire planet even looked like.

When did we finally map the entire planet? The 1800s?

 

[Hindmost]

It's a divine mystery.

Also a divine mystery.

Hey!! Stop thinking so much.

Yet another divine mystery.

You're very welcome.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, so what you are saying is the answer is simply divine.

I should have realized, but I have to analyze Kmortis' beer theory too.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

1) Love the new avatar, Glenn
2) I can answer this one. If you read between the lines, you'll notice that according to the creation myth in Gen 1, he creates plants (including barley, yeast would have been on this day too, but they're too small for our Bronzed Aged friends to notice) THEN he makes man. He tells man to be happy (ok, not in that many words, but bear with me), obviously how God man Adam pass out was by the use of beer. He got Adam drunk. How do you get a man drunk? You drink with him. Plus, doesn't a frosty brew taste good at the end of a busy week?

That's right, God didn't rest on the seventh cause he was strung out from working too hard. He was hungover. We can see the reverberations in this in all the time that He doesn't take the pain away from our hangovers. He knows how they feel, and wants to share.

I always thought Saturn looked like swirling mass of beer.

glenn

thanks about the avatar...my wife has all the artsy talent and she made it for me.

 

[dogbite666]

Is it an evolutionary miracle that that give or take a few percentage points humans reproduce at a 50% male to female ratio. How does evolution know to do something like this? Let me guess over a long period of time it figured it out for its self?

Natural Selection. If you're going to critique a theory then you should at least make an attempt to stop yourself from looking like such a fool an do a little reading.

The evolutionary stable system is about 48% males and 52% females. Of course, those figures are changing all the time because evolution is dynamic.

That explains my feathers, I was wondering what that was all about.

Natural selection explains why you require to be told what to believe and that you follow it blindly.

 

[gdtbiker]

I has occurred to me that perhaps JF considers himself a teacher who is convinced up front that he has nothing to learn from those he mistakenly considers his students, and as such, is proceeding blindly with the ignorant arrogance of one who simply cannot conceive of anything other than what he already believes, and cannot even contemplate the possibility of being in error.

JF, it's easier to see the truth once you stop believing you already have it!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by jesus_freak
Is it an evolutionary miracle that that give or take a few percentage points humans reproduce at a 50% male to female ratio. How does evolution know to do something like this? Let me guess over a long period of time it figured it out for its self?

Hmm, I suppose the mixture of x and y chromosomes in most sperm content has no bearing on why we get a mixture of males and females rather than all males or females?

The ratios of X- to Y-bearing sperm were 47.3:46.9 (neat semen) and 48.4:47.1 (swim-up fractions), which were not significantly different from a 1:1 ratio.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8243684&dopt=Abstract

Does JF not know one thing about the human body even? The female supplies the x chromosome in the egg. The male supplies the x or y in their sperm. Females are xx, and males are xy.

Yeesh. Most people know that at least. In the male, meiosis almost certainly causes a close to 1:1 ratio in sperm. It's not that hard to figure out. Evolution doesn't even have to factor into it. You just a need a male and his sex cells just need to undergo normal meiosis to cause an almost 50/50 chance of their sperm reaching the egg being either x or y.
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/meiosis/page3.html

Bivalents, each composed of two chromosomes (four chromatids) align at the metaphase plate. The orientation is random, with either parental homologue on a side. This means that there is a 50-50 chance for the daughter cells to get either the mother's or father's homologue for each chromosome.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I has occurred to me that perhaps JF considers himself a teacher who is convinced up front that he has nothing to learn from those he mistakenly considers his students, and as such, is proceeding blindly with the ignorant arrogance of one who simply cannot conceive of anything other than what he already believes, and cannot even contemplate the possibility of being in error.

JF, it's easier to see the truth once you stop believing you already have it!

I'm beginning to figure that he was home schooled, and was hopelessly kept locked in his room by some controlling fundie parent. Did JF finally move out and buy a computer, with the hopes of educating us evilutionists?

Or worse, has he bypassed the parental controls somehow, and will get flogged if caught?

 

[ChristineR]

Actually I kind of think he might just be a troll who is has no strong opinions on evolution--or indeed, on anything important--and is just trying to see how far he can string out the smart people. But I don't much care, I give him the benefit of the doubt until and unless he crosses the troll line.

 

[switchtech]

I'm beginning to figure that he was home schooled, and was hopelessly kept locked in his room by some controlling fundie parent. Did JF finally move out and buy a computer, with the hopes of educating us evilutionists?

Or worse, has he bypassed the parental controls somehow, and will get flogged if caught?

It's interesting that so many Young Earth Creationists believe that we who acknowledge the fact of evolution have never read or studied the Bible. I get the feeling from the arguments that not only have we studied the Bible, we've studied it better than the YEC. And studied the history of the Bible and the World better, too.

 

[Paul Ganssle]

But you have noticed that people are geting taller and living longer (and don't start the whole noah lived for 600 years stuff - that ain't science

Not that I am defending creationism in way, because it is absurd, but the reason people are getting taller is because our high standard of living allows us to get better nutrition during formative years, allowing us to grow to our full potential heights, whereas in previous generations, we did not have as much food for the individual, and we did not know as much about nutrition.

As for living longer, that's almost directly a result of higher standard of living (clean water means no cholera or typhoid) and better medical care. There are tons of examples of people living into their 70s and 80s back when the average age of death was something like 30. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died at 83 and 91, respectively (on the same day).

That said, the evidence for evolution is absolutely astoundingly thorough. Evolutionary theory was developed from observation before there was a reasonable model for how characteristics were passed on from generation to generation, and when gene theory developed, which we obviously have ample evidence for, as it is reliably used in a variety of applications from forensics to genetic engineering, it fully explained the exact mechanism by which creatures evolve.

The next time "creation science" can be used to accurately make predictions about things which we do not yet know (such as the mechanism by which species develop), or can be used to design a real, scientific tool which can be used to tell us something about our natural world (such as genetic testing), then it can be considered in the running for entry into the category of "science".

[Edit: I can't even find the post I am responding to, on a second look, so I can't really tell why I thought it was the most recent post. Odd.]