Networking guy has proof of ID

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Moo ha ha"? What is that, some kind of evolved version of "Mwahaha"?

Macroevolution in action.

~~ Paul

 

[Hawk one]

"Moo ha ha"? What is that, some kind of evolved version of "Mwahaha"?

Macroevolution in action.

~~ Paul

Actually, the truth is that Beleth is an undercover agent for the cows; who are, as we speak, plotting to take over the world.

Because when you really cut down to it, there is no concious action happening that can't be explained by a plot to take over the world.

 

[CplFerro]

I find it interesting that many of you presume that I’m a creationist. A creationist, per se, holds that the universe is entropic. I hold the opposite, that the universe is negentropic. So in general, evolution is certainly possible, and seems more plausible than perpetual abiogenesis - it’s difficult to imagine millions of species arising spontaneously without the continuity of life described by evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, a mudskipper can do what it can do. That’s like that little species of spider that carries a bubble of air on its back when it goes underwater. Were the mudskipper to develop 1/10 of a pair of lungs, what use would they be? What organs could possibly grow into lunglike shapes and then suddenly switch over to be used as lungs?

::::::::::Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.

In other words, fishes cannot become frogs, and fruit flies cannot become beetles. So, you’re saying that the /real/ evolution comes from the more “generic” life forms. Are there any such generic beings left, or are they extinct? Like a generic vertebrate postulated as the ancestor of both fishes and frogs, for instance? Or just a generic animal or plant, with no descriptor below the kingdom level? Some kind of protean blob?

 

[JamesM]

Were the mudskipper to develop 1/10 of a pair of lungs, what use would they be? What organs could possibly grow into lunglike shapes and then suddenly switch over to be used as lungs?

Is this a wind-up?

Have you even tried to type "evolution of the lung" into Google?

The answer to your question is "the swim bladder", although the process is not quite how you envisage it.

 

[Flatworm]

In other words, fishes cannot become frogs, and fruit flies cannot become beetles. So, you’re saying that the /real/ evolution comes from the more “generic” life forms. Are there any such generic beings left, or are they extinct? Like a generic vertebrate postulated as the ancestor of both fishes and frogs, for instance? Or just a generic animal or plant, with no descriptor below the kingdom level? Some kind of protean blob?

Notice the author said "when a new species evolves" (my italics). It appears to me he is pointing out the obvious fact that evolution doesn't predict whole new phyla will appear in the space of a human lifetime, just as we only see trees sprouting new twigs, not limbs, from one year to the next.

If we're willing to wait long enough, the species that develop can become sufficiently different both from each other and from the original population to be considered separate genera. We would have to wait even longer to see genera sufficiently distinct to be considered separate families, etc.

I should also point out that evolution does not require change to happen by a sequence of mutations. Genetic recombination (through sexual reproduction, for example) is generally recognized as a more important source of genetic diversity. Through this mechanism it is entirely possible for several critical mutations to come together in a single individual.

 

[Beleth]

I find it interesting that many of you presume that I’m a creationist.

It doesn't matter what you label yourself. If your arguments are refuted by counterarguments that just happen to have been developed by the counter-creationist community, your arguments are still refuted whether you are a creationist or not.

Were the mudskipper to develop 1/10 of a pair of lungs, what use would they be?

This is Claim CB921 again, which I have previously quoted.

What organs could possibly grow into lunglike shapes and then suddenly switch over to be used as lungs?

This is Claim CB300, "Complex organs and biological functions could not have evolved." I will spare the reader a synopsis of the two refutations and just suggest that you go click on the link.

Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.

In other words, fishes cannot become frogs, and fruit flies cannot become beetles.

That's right.

So, you’re saying that the /real/ evolution comes from the more “generic” life forms.

Not at all. I am saying that real evolution only happens at the tips of the evolutionary tree, because that's where all the lifeforms actually are.

Are there any such generic beings left, or are they extinct? Like a generic vertebrate postulated as the ancestor of both fishes and frogs, for instance? Or just a generic animal or plant, with no descriptor below the kingdom level? Some kind of protean blob?

I eagerly await the results of your research into these questions, although I honestly don't see the value in it, because I believe the premise is faulty.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A guy named Cliff Lundberg has proposed that the "generic" Chordata quickly evolved many identical segments during the Cambrian Explosion. Since that time, evolution has simply specialized or eliminated the segments.

~~ Paul

 

[Eos of the Eons]

::::::::::Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.

In other words, fishes cannot become frogs, and fruit flies cannot become beetles. So, you’re saying that the /real/ evolution comes from the more “generic” life forms. Are there any such generic beings left, or are they extinct?

No no no. You've totally ignored my post. You've not taken one bit of the advice nor followed the links.

Sigh.

There is nothing said about "generic life forms" anywhere. Aye yi yi yi.

Like a generic vertebrate postulated as the ancestor of both fishes and frogs, for instance? Or just a generic animal or plant, with no descriptor below the kingdom level? Some kind of protean blob?

Read up on the notochord. Please.

 

[CplFerro]

From the talkorigins links, it appears plausible that an eye could progress stepwise. Whether this holds for everything is an assumption - a 1/10 lung is still a dubiously useful thing. It might let something make brief excursions out of water, I suppose; though to be retained those excursions would have to be more profitable than otherwise.

Has any scientist measured how many mutations appear naturally? And how many of those appear beneficial?

 

[Terry]

Has any scientist measured how many mutations appear naturally? And how many of those appear beneficial?

Yes. Yes they have.


--Terry.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Has any scientist measured how many mutations appear naturally? And how many of those appear beneficial?

Last I heard, in humans, the chance of a mutation is 1 out of 10 per gamete.

Mutations don't have to be beneficial right away. A mutation might be useless but harmless by itself, but could be of benefit when one or more different traits show up later.

Tip: Don't refer to fractions of parts. It's meaningless.

A short-duration lung could be very useful for a fish: If you live in ponds, rivers, or so forth, a short gulp of oxygenated water, or a oxygen-absorbing swimbladder could be lifesaving. If your pond dries up, you can make a quick dash to the one next door.

 

[NeilC]

That lifeforms mutate in a beneficial way is beyond doubt.

If you gradually alter the environment of agar whilst growing bacteria you can produce a strain of bacteria capable of dealing with the new parameter. Eg you can create bacterian capable of living in a higher pH than before. This has been done more than once.

The lung argument can be boiled down to this - some people have some difficulty understanding how complex organs can come about through evolution. This proves nothing other than someone's inability to understand - something which can be resolved with a bit of research. The examples and explations of such change are many.

Speciation has been observed, first hand in the Evening Primrose plant where the scientist saw the formation of a new specie with a different number of genes, that could not mate with the old species.

 

[Mongrel]

From the talkorigins links, it appears plausible that an eye could progress stepwise. Whether this holds for everything is an assumption - a 1/10 lung is still a dubiously useful thing. It might let something make brief excursions out of water, I suppose; though to be retained those excursions would have to be more profitable than otherwise.

Other people here that are better educated about this subject have already commented here. All I have to add is that is think it's very foolish to think Evolution is so...Binary. Presuming your 1/10 lung, it wouldn't then flick over to being 100% lung, what's wrong with it gradually getting bigger as more of the "tenth fishies" survive to breed - especially as their brief forays out of the water allow them to evade predators far better than their foolish "gills only" cousins.

Since I like this link try this simplified exercise see how evolution actually works. It was created in response to the Creationist claims of Irreducible Complexity, which seem to be very close to your own arguments, saying that a mousetrap "couldn't have evolved - because it needs everything, if you took one piece away it couldn't work"

 

[SezMe]

Since I like this link try this simplified exercise see how evolution actually works. It was created in response to the Creationist claims of Irreducible Complexity, which seem to be very close to your own arguments, saying that a mousetrap "couldn't have evolved - because it needs everything, if you took one piece away it couldn't work"

Mongrel, your link is broken.

 

[Roadtoad]

I just LOOOOOOOOOOVE it when people question the obvious.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Well- in fairness, the obvious is sometimes the hardest thing to question, because we take it for granted.

Reading this thread, I find myself wondering if I have failed to comprehend the scale of ID advocates' failure to comprehend evolution.

Of course fish don't become frogs. So long as there is a niche for fish, there will be fish.

Fish spun off amphibians at one point. But most fish stayed fish. Some of the amphibians, which now found themselves on land, spun off new forms (reptiles) which had advantages in drier environments. But the main amphibian stock stayed amphibian, because they were just fine where they were.

It's like saying Irishmen don't turn into Americans. Of course they dont, IF THEY STAY IN IRELAND.

But some Irishmen do go to America. And in the next generation, their kids are Americans.

Can ID'ers possibly believe that the continued existence of Irishmen means God must have independently created the NYPD?

 

[Mongrel]

Mongrel, your link is broken.

Bah - Sorry Trying again...
Here