Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Evolution
Crocoduck....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: Evolution
So I'm trying hard not to facepalm here cause I know what hes saying is easily refuted but I don't know enough about it to actually refute it atm.

This is what he said.

But this isn't what we were talking about. The process of a tadpole-an amphibian, to a frog-an amphibian, is just an example of microevolution. Its pretty much the same things as a human embryo becoming an adult. What I was trying to get at was a fish, or amphibian, changing into a mammal or something else completely different. Most fish have gills, scales, and fins in order to survive in the water. If that fish were to become a mammal, it would have to suddenly replace its gills with lungs, replace its scales with skin and hair, and have sturdy limbs in order to survive.

"Invisible pink unicorns" and "Screaming blue ants" Matt Slick
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 11:23 AM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 11:05 AM)ChuckTesta Wrote:  So I'm trying hard not to facepalm here cause I know what hes saying is easily refuted but I don't know enough about it to actually refute it atm.

A stake through the heart? Big Grin

Some people and certain topics... there's just no communicating. If you must, try using scripture.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 11:05 AM)ChuckTesta Wrote:  So I'm trying hard not to facepalm here cause I know what hes saying is easily refuted but I don't know enough about it to actually refute it atm.

Be sure to point out that when you can't refute him it's merely your failure, not science's. The science itself is quite solid. Evolutionary theory has been around for 150 years and is the most tested of all theories. No evidence is ever ignored; science doesn't work that way.

Quote:This is what he said.

But this isn't what we were talking about. The process of a tadpole-an amphibian, to a frog-an amphibian, is just an example of microevolution. Its pretty much the same things as a human embryo becoming an adult. What I was trying to get at was a fish, or amphibian, changing into a mammal or something else completely different. Most fish have gills, scales, and fins in order to survive in the water. If that fish were to become a mammal, it would have to suddenly replace its gills with lungs, replace its scales with skin and hair, and have sturdy limbs in order to survive.

Do a little research on tiktaalik and panderichthys. Though he'll probably still whine about there "not being enough time" for macroevolution. I think that people who believe that living an eternity will be a good thing have trouble with realizing that tens-of-millions of years is not a short span of time.



(My tablet didn't recognize the word "macroevolution" and choose to substitute "masturbation." Big Grin He wouldn't have enough time for masturbation. Classic.)

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeffasaurus's post
28-04-2013, 11:52 AM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 11:05 AM)ChuckTesta Wrote:  So I'm trying hard not to facepalm here cause I know what hes saying is easily refuted but I don't know enough about it to actually refute it atm.

This is what he said.

But this isn't what we were talking about. The process of a tadpole-an amphibian, to a frog-an amphibian, is just an example of microevolution. Its pretty much the same things as a human embryo becoming an adult. What I was trying to get at was a fish, or amphibian, changing into a mammal or something else completely different. Most fish have gills, scales, and fins in order to survive in the water. If that fish were to become a mammal, it would have to suddenly replace its gills with lungs, replace its scales with skin and hair, and have sturdy limbs in order to survive.

His argument shows a very basic non-understanding of evolution.

A fish does not turn into a mammal; it takes generations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 11:46 AM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  (My tablet didn't recognize the word "macroevolution")

Prolly 'cause it ain't a word. Tongue

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 12:20 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 11:46 AM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  (My tablet didn't recognize the word "macroevolution")

Prolly 'cause it ain't a word. Tongue

macroevolution: noun , a word coined by creationists in order to falsely claim that evolution is "a fairy tale for adults" while still conceding to the bleeding obvious evidence that species do, in fact, change over time while still trying to deny speciation. see also: microevolution

See. 'tis a word. Tongue

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Evolution
Hey, Chuck.

First of all, show him what I wrote. The highlight is this.

Chordata Vertebrata --> Tertapods --> Amphibians --> Synapsids --> Therapsida --> Cyondont --> Mammalia

Just that process took 300 million years. So he can put away any notion of "suddenly".

Quote:But this isn't what we were talking about. The process of a tadpole-an amphibian, to a frog-an amphibian, is just an example of microevolution. Its pretty much the same things as a human embryo becoming an adult. What I was trying to get at was a fish, or amphibian, changing into a mammal or something else completely different. Most fish have gills, scales, and fins in order to survive in the water. If that fish were to become a mammal, it would have to suddenly replace its gills with lungs, replace its scales with skin and hair, and have sturdy limbs in order to survive.

First of all, lifespan development and evolution are NOT the same thing. Tadpole to frog, or embryo to human is NOT an evolutionary process. It is a process that RESULTS from the evolutionary process, but there is no variation, heredity, or selection in the biological development of an organism. So throw out this micro-evolution BS.

So let's look at his argument.

First off, scales.

Skin is an organ. Like the heart. Fish have skin. So do birds, mammals and reptiles. So mammals didn't pull skin out of the sky. They inherited it. Furthermore, scales are simply a protector that grow OUT of the skin. One of the defining characteristics of mammals is hair. ALL mammals have hair; a protector that grows OUT of the skin. So, simply put, it probably went from scaly skin on fish, to naked skin on amphibians, to hairy skin on mammals. Skin is the constant.

Secondly, fins.

Fish are tetrapods. Obviously, this person has no idea what this means. A tetrapod is an organism with four limbs; four pods. That includes fish, mammals, reptiles and birds. Two feet and two wings? Tetrapod. Fish tail and two fins? Tetrapod (the fish tail, whale tail and manatee tail is two legs fused together). Crocodile? Tetrapod. Rat? Tetrapod. Human? Tetrapod. The genes for tetrapodism have remained THE SAME since the DEVONIAN. The tetrapod gene is IDENTICAL in all tetrapods. What causes different shapes of limbs (fins, arms, wings, whatever) is how long the gene is ACTIVE DURING DEVELOPMENT.

Third up, gills.

Fish, at the end of the day, are oxygen breathers or aerobes. Gills are an organ that allow fish to extract oxygen from water. Lungs are an organ that allow organisms to extract the SAME oxygen from atmospheric gasses. The first amphibians could do BOTH using VARIOUS techniques. The transition is obvious. Exclusive gill breathers became capable of extracting oxygen from BOTH water and atmospheric gas, then became specialised in extracting it from atmospheric gas. Lastly, we arrive at ears. Your sense of hearing is made possible by vibrating bones. Where are they located? About the same place that gills were. See where this is going? Gills evolved into ears. Ears are simply a re-purposed use of an existing assembly that we no longer needed because we began to specialise in breathing air.

So, they did NOT have to suddenly replace gills with lungs, they transitioned between the two by first becoming capable of extracting oxygen from BOTH water and air. They did NOT have to replace scales with skin because they already HAD skin. They simply lost their scales and eventually grew hair from their skin. They didn't have to develop sturdy limbs because, as tetrapods, they already HAD sturdy limbs. The shape and purpose of those limbs simply evolved over time.

So your friend seems like a nice person, but they need to admit to themselves that they have NO FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGY, GENETICS, CLADISTICS or EVOLUTION. There is a lot they can learn. So instead of saying, "It can't be X because [b]I[/u] don't know about it," they should understand that there are answers to their questions if they merely choose to educate themselves.

Suggest to this person that they begin here:





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
29-04-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: Evolution
(28-04-2013 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chuck.

First of all, show him what I wrote. The highlight is this.

Chordata Vertebrata --> Tertapods --> Amphibians --> Synapsids --> Therapsida --> Cyondont --> Mammalia

Just that process took 300 million years. So he can put away any notion of "suddenly".

Quote:But this isn't what we were talking about. The process of a tadpole-an amphibian, to a frog-an amphibian, is just an example of microevolution. Its pretty much the same things as a human embryo becoming an adult. What I was trying to get at was a fish, or amphibian, changing into a mammal or something else completely different. Most fish have gills, scales, and fins in order to survive in the water. If that fish were to become a mammal, it would have to suddenly replace its gills with lungs, replace its scales with skin and hair, and have sturdy limbs in order to survive.

First of all, lifespan development and evolution are NOT the same thing. Tadpole to frog, or embryo to human is NOT an evolutionary process. It is a process that RESULTS from the evolutionary process, but there is no variation, heredity, or selection in the biological development of an organism. So throw out this micro-evolution BS.

So let's look at his argument.

First off, scales.

Skin is an organ. Like the heart. Fish have skin. So do birds, mammals and reptiles. So mammals didn't pull skin out of the sky. They inherited it. Furthermore, scales are simply a protector that grow OUT of the skin. One of the defining characteristics of mammals is hair. ALL mammals have hair; a protector that grows OUT of the skin. So, simply put, it probably went from scaly skin on fish, to naked skin on amphibians, to hairy skin on mammals. Skin is the constant.

Secondly, fins.

Fish are tetrapods. Obviously, this person has no idea what this means. A tetrapod is an organism with four limbs; four pods. That includes fish, mammals, reptiles and birds. Two feet and two wings? Tetrapod. Fish tail and two fins? Tetrapod (the fish tail, whale tail and manatee tail is two legs fused together). Crocodile? Tetrapod. Rat? Tetrapod. Human? Tetrapod. The genes for tetrapodism have remained THE SAME since the DEVONIAN. The tetrapod gene is IDENTICAL in all tetrapods. What causes different shapes of limbs (fins, arms, wings, whatever) is how long the gene is ACTIVE DURING DEVELOPMENT.

Third up, gills.

Fish, at the end of the day, are oxygen breathers or aerobes. Gills are an organ that allow fish to extract oxygen from water. Lungs are an organ that allow organisms to extract the SAME oxygen from atmospheric gasses. The first amphibians could do BOTH using VARIOUS techniques. The transition is obvious. Exclusive gill breathers became capable of extracting oxygen from BOTH water and atmospheric gas, then became specialised in extracting it from atmospheric gas. Lastly, we arrive at ears. Your sense of hearing is made possible by vibrating bones. Where are they located? About the same place that gills were. See where this is going? Gills evolved into ears. Ears are simply a re-purposed use of an existing assembly that we no longer needed because we began to specialise in breathing air.

So, they did NOT have to suddenly replace gills with lungs, they transitioned between the two by first becoming capable of extracting oxygen from BOTH water and air. They did NOT have to replace scales with skin because they already HAD skin. They simply lost their scales and eventually grew hair from their skin. They didn't have to develop sturdy limbs because, as tetrapods, they already HAD sturdy limbs. The shape and purpose of those limbs simply evolved over time.

So your friend seems like a nice person, but they need to admit to themselves that they have NO FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGY, GENETICS, CLADISTICS or EVOLUTION. There is a lot they can learn. So instead of saying, "It can't be X because [b]I[/u] don't know about it," they should understand that there are answers to their questions if they merely choose to educate themselves.

Suggest to this person that they begin here:





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Watched it cool stuff Smile.

"Invisible pink unicorns" and "Screaming blue ants" Matt Slick
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Evolution
(26-04-2013 01:26 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  He has that effect on people. I think we should name a new symptom on it.

I'll call it KCenitis.>>> The effect of confusing people by causing them to not know whether a certain individual is of religious orientation or not.

Science calls it cognitive dissonance.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: