|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 12:13:25 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Darwin did not predict "a smooth transition throughout the fossil record" as you said he did.
I admit to that mistake.
quote:
Gould did not 'explicitly say' the things you think he said.
I never said he did.
quote:
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. The Science journal even admits they don't publish anything that may support creationism. IOW: anything that may contradict naturalism gets censored.
quote:
Not writing a paper is not the same as writing one and having it dishonestly censored by an editor.
Many don't write papers because the atmosphere is such that it would be censored and many papers (ie: the example given) do get censored. Also, many are probably afraid of facing negative consequences (ie: being denied tenure like Gonzalez). The fact that the secular community does brainwash students with naturalistic philosophies and dishonestly censor all opposing views and criticisms supports the notion that they would dishonestly punish those who oppose them.
quote:
Paleontological journals are filled with papers that describe fossils. Fossils newly discovered and research examining fossils already collected. You can't write a paper describing something you don't have. Archeologists don't write papers about the nothing they found when they dug a hole.
They should have wrote papers describing the shortcomings of darwinism, which was, for a long time, the consensus (that is, darwinism was the consensus by the secular community and committed naturalists for a long time). Finally Gould did, but his point was such criticisms weren't made because they didn't meet the desired results (gradualism, which is consistent with naturalism) and this censorship supports the dishonest atmosphere within the secular community.
quote:
Where is the censorship here?
Public schools brainwash students with naturalistic nonsense (ie: UCD) while censoring criticisms and opposing views at the expense of tax dollars.
quote:
Is this a definition?
Correct.
quote:
Because public schools receive tax dollars, they are part of the secular community?
Correct.
quote:
In your view, who makes up the secular community? Are they the teachers in the public schools? 100% of them? The members of the boards of education? 100% of them? The scientists in their laboratories? 100% of them? The grant authorizers in the NSF? 100% of them? The Congress that provides the budgets for these things? 100% of them? The employees of the IRS? 100% of them? The bankers?
I don't believe all teachers, members of the boards of education, etc... are dishonest. Just the ones that influence the system to brainwash students with naturalistic philosophies while censoring all opposing critiques and views (which is dishonest). The fact is that public schools censor anything that may threaten naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) including criticisms and opposing views and they do this at the expense of taxpayers. This is dishonest. Someone (or some people) is behind this dishonesty and they need to be stopped. I believe it's just a small group of people (special interest groups that promote naturalism even at the expense of science) and those few use dishonest tactics to censor anything that opposes their naturalistic presuppositions and they make the secular (and scientific) community as a whole look bad by giving it this dishonest atmosphere. Unless you have any better suggestions. Why do you suppose public schools brainwash students with naturalistic philosophies at taxpayer expense while dishonestly censoring all opposing criticisms and views (like ID and creationism)? Who do you suppose is behind this dishonesty? Or do you believe that the people that are perpetrating this nonsense are too stupid/ignorant to realize that what they're doing is wrong. If so, how could we correct this? Could we inform them that science welcomes academic freedom and open inquiry into criticisms and opposing views and that the scientific thing to do would be to allow criticisms and opposing views of naturalism? How could we get them to understand that what they are doing is not scientific and is wrong? Perhaps the perpetrators of this nonsense don't know what they're doing is wrong, in which case we have to either teach them or find some other way to stop them.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/16/2008 1:12:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 2:46:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
*Guiding prompt*
This thread is about stasis and what it says about evolution, not schools, the presumed dishonest of others, or taxes.
Kindly refrain from non-topical subjects.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 3:01:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Although America has a secular government, this does not mean that it is run by 'the secular community'. I see your knowledge of civics is as faulty as your knowledge of biology 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 4:44:24 PM
|
|
|
Mountaineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
And that observation seems to be holding up pretty well so far.
Tell me, where did you conclusively prove that evolution ceased for the horseshoe crab? I believe we've been over this. You haven't concluded anything one way or another, nor can you.
quote:
Actually, I think the fact that there is no morphological evolution is very pertinent, as the primary concern we have when we consider evolution historically is morphological evolution.
You're cherry-picking instances (the horseshoe crab) and then pigeon-holing (phenotypical evolution) what just simply must be important.
I'll break this down and then be done with you.
1. The horseshoe crab has little to no noticable changes to its outer-body.
2. This has no bearing on whether or not it continued to evolve in other ways.
3. The concept of natural selection keeping one organism very much the same over lengthy periods of time is very well within the theoretical bounds of evolution.
4. A lack of change over a relatively large period of time is unexpected; it is, at the very least, unusual. Of the perhaps 2 billion species that have ever existed, upwards of 100 million are still in existence. That a relatively few would do the unexpected (this particular 'unexpected') is well within the range of plausibility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 9:36:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They should have wrote papers describing the shortcomings of darwinism, which was, for a long time, the consensus (that is, darwinism was the consensus by the secular community and committed naturalists for a long time). Finally Gould did, but his point was such criticisms weren't made because they didn't meet the desired results (gradualism, which is consistent with naturalism) and this censorship supports the dishonest atmosphere within the secular community.
Papa Jhud's gonna pull the car over if we keep bickering off-topically in the backseat like this, so I'll try to keep this brief and closer to the topic.
The fact that a palaeontologist doesn't find a transitional fossil every time he or she looks for one has not caused them to question the theory of evolution. From the time of Darwin, the paucity of the fossil record was known, recognized and admitted. Nevertheless, the theory has triumphed in scientific circles. Many transitional forms are known, and they have the right properties and ages to lend support to evolution.
For instance (trying to rein things back in) the fossil horseshoe crabs in the OP (the earliest known horseshoe crab fossils) were 1.5 inches long (though it can't be said whether they were adult or not). Modern adults are 20 inches long. A horseshoe crab from the Cretaceous (described as of "unusually large size for prehistoric horseshoe crab") is 10 inches long.
Putting these in time-order, we seem to have stasis in general shape, but not size, which has increased from the earliest forms to the present day. For all I know, the average size may have fluctuated up and down over the eons, but the important point is that there is demonstrated change-over-time.
Evolution is the best scientific theory that explains the manifold change-over-time that appears in the fossil record. As such, it is taught in science classes worldwide. In private schools, public schools, universities and colleges. Whether these classes are funded by tax dollars or not, they are teaching science in science class, as should be the case. Few people complain that geocentrism or the luminiferous aether are not discussed alongside heliocentrism and relativity theory. I find discarded theories in science interesting for historical reasons, but there is no reason for them to be taught as serious possibilities in high school curricula. This is not brainwashing, censorship or dishonesty. This is science. This is education.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 11:38:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Tell me, where did you conclusively prove that evolution ceased for the horseshoe crab? I believe we've been over this. You haven't concluded anything one way or another, nor can you.
The fact that there has been no evolutionary change to the horseshoe crab (and other organisms I detailed) is evident - that any occurred is your speculation.
quote:
You're cherry-picking instances (the horseshoe crab) and then pigeon-holing (phenotypical evolution) what just simply must be important.
First, off I am not cherry picking - I mentioned a wide range of organisms. You are the one stuck on the horseshoe crab.
quote:
I'll break this down and then be done with you.
1. The horseshoe crab has little to no noticable changes to its outer-body.
And no noticable changes to it's genetics - unless you have really good eyes.
quote:
2. This has no bearing on whether or not it continued to evolve in other ways.
No bearing because there is no evidence that it did.
quote:
3. The concept of natural selection keeping one organism very much the same over lengthy periods of time is very well within the theoretical bounds of evolution.
You act as if natural selection is a single thing. It’s not.
quote:
4. A lack of change over a relatively large period of time is unexpected; it is, at the very least, unusual. Of the perhaps 2 billion species that have ever existed, upwards of 100 million are still in existence. That a relatively few would do the unexpected (this particular 'unexpected') is well within the range of plausibility.
And which group are you thinking of that doesn’t exhibit this sort of stasis?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 11:55:53 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
For instance (trying to rein things back in) the fossil horseshoe crabs in the OP (the earliest known horseshoe crab fossils) were 1.5 inches long (though it can't be said whether they were adult or not). Modern adults are 20 inches long. A horseshoe crab from the Cretaceous (described as of "unusually large size for prehistoric horseshoe crab") is 10 inches long.
Putting these in time-order, we seem to have stasis in general shape, but not size, which has increased from the earliest forms to the present day. For all I know, the average size may have fluctuated up and down over the eons, but the important point is that there is demonstrated change-over-time.
Horseshoe crabs are about a quarter of an inch across when they begin life, and take twenty years to grow to full size 20 inches. I hardly think the fact that most of the ones found historically are smaller than this is evidence of 'evolution'. In fact, it's only the presumption of evolution that would require this.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/17/2008 11:44:22 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Horseshoe crabs are about a quarter of an inch across when they begin life, and take twenty years to grow to full size 20 inches. I hardly think the fact that most of the ones found historically are smaller than this is evidence of 'evolution'. In fact, it's only the presumption of evolution that would require this.
Most? Can you find evidence of a Paleozoic 'horseshoe crab' fossil that is 20 inches in length?
The University of Bristol website states that "Palaeozoic forms were roughly 2-3cm whereas the modern horseshoe crab reaches a size of 60 cm." And though they all look like bugs to me, the experts have noticed differences in anatomy, giving rise to definitions of different families, genera and species. This review shows more of the anatomical differences between fossil species, and when sizes are mentioned, they are 4-5 cm. Sure, the crabs never sprouted wings or anything, but there are identifiable changes in the fossil record.
On another page on the Bristol site, it says that "Comparatively, xiphosuran body fossils are rare in comparison to their trace fossil occurence. Trace fossils have been used to study population data and to identify sexual dimorphism and maturity." If there exists a sufficient body of trace fossils to make statistical determinations of sexual dimorphism and maturity, then they must have a large enough sample to be fairly certain they know a 'mature' one when they see it. Why then is there more than an order of magnitude of difference in size between then and now?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/17/2008 2:57:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Most? Can you find evidence of a Paleozoic 'horseshoe crab' fossil that is 20 inches in length?
The University of Bristol website states that "Palaeozoic forms were roughly 2-3cm whereas the modern horseshoe crab reaches a size of 60 cm." And though they all look like bugs to me, the experts have noticed differences in anatomy, giving rise to definitions of different families, genera and species. This review shows more of the anatomical differences between fossil species, and when sizes are mentioned, they are 4-5 cm. Sure, the crabs never sprouted wings or anything, but there are identifiable changes in the fossil record.
On another page on the Bristol site, it says that "Comparatively, xiphosuran body fossils are rare in comparison to their trace fossil occurence. Trace fossils have been used to study population data and to identify sexual dimorphism and maturity." If there exists a sufficient body of trace fossils to make statistical determinations of sexual dimorphism and maturity, then they must have a large enough sample to be fairly certain they know a 'mature' one when they see it. Why then is there more than an order of magnitude of difference in size between then and now?
The point, which you seem to be attempting to obscure now, is that most modern horseshoe crabs alive today aren't 20 inches long, they are much smaller - because most are much younger than the years it takes to reach that full size. So we would expect that when we find fossils, they could easily represent any of those sizes. Of course, because you are an evolutionist, you immediately assume the smaller size represents a difference in genetics - as evolutionists hypocritically claim to derive genetic differences out of a single fossil, while denying the obvious morphological similarities. In short, they want it both ways.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/17/2008 5:45:24 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The point, which you seem to be attempting to obscure now, is that most modern horseshoe crabs alive today aren't 20 inches long, they are much smaller - because most are much younger than the years it takes to reach that full size. So we would expect that when we find fossils, they could easily represent any of those sizes.
If they could easily represent any of those sizes, why are the older fossils all roughly ten times smaller than the largest ones that you apparently expect to find?
Horseshoe crabs were recently featured in a Nature program. There was a fascinating section discussing the peculiarities of their blood, which is harvested for use by mankind, with 250,000 crabs being bled per year and released back to the wild (apart from the 13% that die, of course).
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/18/2008 11:48:19 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If they could easily represent any of those sizes, why are the older fossils all roughly ten times smaller than the largest ones that you apparently expect to find?
Well, as this is the only fossil found in that time period, and as fossils of later time periods are fairly sparse, one would not expect to find 20 in. horseshoe crabs because most horseshoe crabs today aren’t that big – only those that have surived to grow to that size.
You would expect in general to find much smaller specimens, because then, like now, most of them are much smaller than 20 inches. Indeed, horseshoe crabs are notable for growing throughout theirs lives, so there is little reason not to think that the fossil forms, which are by all appearances exactly like the modern ones, would grow at the same rate.
All of which continues to beg the question as to why they have the same bodies, big or small as they presumably have for 500 million years.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/19/2008 7:33:49 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 72
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
You cannot show that the horseshoe crabs did not mutate.
You cannot show that they did not evolve.
You cannot show that their genes did not change.
You cannot show that their environments did not change.
You cannot show that their environments stayed the same.
What exactly can you show us Juhd?
I find it interesting that ID can only manuevre when evidence is scarce.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/19/2008 8:42:56 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
You cannot show that the horseshoe crabs did not mutate.
You cannot show that they did not evolve.
You cannot show that their genes did not change.
You cannot show that their environments did not change.
You cannot show that their environments stayed the same.
What exactly can you show us Juhd?
I find it interesting that ID can only manuevre when evidence is scarce.
You cannot show that the horseshoe crabs did mutate.
You cannot show that they did evolve.
You cannot show that their genes did change.
You cannot show that their environments did change.
You cannot show that their environments did not stay the same.
What exactly can you show us, BVZ?
I find it interesting that evolutionists always manuever when evidence is non-existent!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/19/2008 7:19:19 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
More evolutionary stasis (just so we are clear we aren't just talking about horseshoe crabs)
The Oldest Fossil Bee: Apoid History, Evolutionary Stasis, and Antiquity of Social Behavior
Trigona prisca, a stingless honey bee (Apidae; Meliponinae), is reported from Cretaceous New Jersey amber (96-74 million years before present). This is about twice the age of the oldest previously known fossil bee, although Trigona is one of the most derived bee genera. T. prisca is closely similar to modern neotropical species. Most of bee evolution probably occurred during the 50 million years between the beginning of the Cretaceous when flowering plants (on which bees depend) appeared and the time of T. prisca. Since then, in this phyletic line of Meliponinae, there has been almost no morphological evolution. Since the fossil is a worker, social organization had arisen by its time.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/20/2008 2:32:00 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
More stasis (Ostracode, a kind of crustacean)
Scientists have identified the oldest male fossil animal yet discovered. It is an ocean-dwelling creature from 425-million-year-old rocks in the UK.
Unusually, its soft parts are well preserved as well as its hard shell. It has limbs for swimming and feeding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers are puzzled as to why the ancient creature appears so similar to its modern relatives. Their research is to be found in the journal Science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientists say that the five-millimetre-long fossil is remarkably similar to some modern ostracodes, suggesting an extremely low rate of evolutionary change over the last 425 million years.
"This is a demonstration of unbelievable stability," said Dr Tom Cronin, of the US Geological Survey.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/20/2008 7:55:31 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
"This is a demonstration of unbelievable stability," Indeed, any evidence that fails to provide robust support for evolutionists is deemed "unbelievable" by its adherents. Such a faith-based religion!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/23/2008 10:05:48 AM
|
|
|
chiplee
Posts: 47
Joined: 2/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
*Guiding prompt*
This thread is about stasis and what it says about evolution, not schools, the presumed dishonest of others, or taxes.
Kindly refrain from non-topical subjects.
ok, then on the topic of stasis, it is the rule. Stasis is the rule, as evidenced by the longevity of bacteria throughout the entire history of life on this planet. there has always been bacteria. there will always be bacteria. Variation, and increased complexity, is by far, the statistical exception to the rule of stasis in life on this planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Jhud... - 2/23/2008 10:28:12 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 65
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
We discussed once how predators can influence the demise of some species. How would you relate that to the horseshoe crab over billions of years?
Also, what proof do we have that the soft inner parts of the horseshoe crab have not evolved through many changes effected by microevolution, changes in diet, changes in predators, or climates even though the modern shell of the horseshoe crab looks similar to the ancient one?
< Message edited by Aristocrat -- 2/23/2008 10:34:24 AM >
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Jhud... - 2/23/2008 12:15:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
We discussed once how predators can influence the demise of some species. How would you relate that to the horseshoe crab over billions of years?
Also, what proof do we have that the soft inner parts of the horseshoe crab have not evolved through many changes effected by microevolution, changes in diet, changes in predators, or climates even though the modern shell of the horseshoe crab looks similar to the ancient one?
Well, it might be that the 'soft inner parts' of the horshoe crab completely re-arranged themselves repeatedly. But there is no evidence of that.
And for the case of other animals equally old (like the ostrcode above) the organs seem to be equally static.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Jhud... - 2/23/2008 12:17:02 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
ok, then on the topic of stasis, it is the rule. Stasis is the rule, as evidenced by the longevity of bacteria throughout the entire history of life on this planet. there has always been bacteria. there will always be bacteria. Variation, and increased complexity, is by far, the statistical exception to the rule of stasis in life on this planet.
Actually, the complexity is quite ancient, indeed we are finding it to be more ancient than ever imagined by evolutionists in the past. But you are right, increased complexity definitely seems to be a rare exception.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Jhud... - 2/23/2008 3:50:45 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 65
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
We discussed once how predators can influence the demise of some species. How would you relate that to the horseshoe crab over billions of years?
Also, what proof do we have that the soft inner parts of the horseshoe crab have not evolved through many changes effected by microevolution, changes in diet, changes in predators, or climates even though the modern shell of the horseshoe crab looks similar to the ancient one?
Well, it might be that the 'soft inner parts' of the horshoe crab completely re-arranged themselves repeatedly. But there is no evidence of that.
And for the case of other animals equally old (like the ostrcode above) the organs seem to be equally static.
How about my first question about predators.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Jhud... - 2/23/2008 7:30:30 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
How about my first question about predators.
I am not sure how predators might take a role as horseshoe crabs seem to have endured a number of potential ones. Indeed, what would be surprising is that no predator seems to have evolved to take particular advantage of them; perhaps they simply don't taste that good? Couldn't say.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Jhud... - 2/24/2008 9:25:53 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 65
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
How about my first question about predators.
I am not sure how predators might take a role as horseshoe crabs seem to have endured a number of potential ones. Indeed, what would be surprising is that no predator seems to have evolved to take particular advantage of them; perhaps they simply don't taste that good? Couldn't say.
Do you find it equally significant that horseshoe crabs have not gone extinct over millions of year?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/26/2008 2:09:21 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 72
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You cannot show that the horseshoe crabs did not mutate.
You cannot show that they did not evolve.
You cannot show that their genes did not change.
You cannot show that their environments did not change.
You cannot show that their environments stayed the same.
What exactly can you show us Juhd?
I find it interesting that ID can only manuevre when evidence is scarce.
You cannot show that the horseshoe crabs did mutate.
You cannot show that they did evolve.
You cannot show that their genes did change.
You cannot show that their environments did change.
You cannot show that their environments did not stay the same.
What exactly can you show us, BVZ?
Perhaps you would have less trouble following the discussion if you actually knew what we were talking about.
We are discussing stasis, and how (according to Juhd) it is a problem for evolution.
Remember, YOU made the claim that stasis is a problem for evolution.
For this claim to hold you need to support the following:
* Horseshoe crabs did not evolve. (you cannot do this)
* Horseshoe crabs did not change genetically. (you cannot show this)
* Horseshoe crabs environment has changed. (you cannot show this)
To do any of this, you need EVIDENCE.
If you cannot provide us with EVIDENCE, you have no case.
quote:
I find it interesting that evolutionists always manuever when evidence is non-existent!
Examples please.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
