CHYUII on 06 July 2009
1 I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here to be honest. Are you saying that the fossil record does not have a complete history of evolution? Because if you are - we already know this. Fossils are rare and the fossil record is incomplete. It does however show in multiple cases a fairly long and complete set for certain animals, for example we can trace the modern horse back about 52 million years fairly completely.
Thank you for your honesty. The horse is not one of the best examples but is in fact. THE best and only good example, I need to study it out further as many findings may have changed in recent years on both sides.
Denton had no clear answer for the horse, he only made reference to another scientist who talked about modern horses giving birth to Pigmy horses that resembled the first horse on that chain.
If it is true, then breeding and/or nutrition may have something to do with the way horses look today. While my idea may sound absurd, I say LOOK TO THE DOG. Great Dane, Bull Dog, Chow, Golden Retriever, the new mini-dogs…etc. They look very dissimilar almost like different animals.
2 Bwahaha. That is the most hysterical definition of the Cambrian Explosion I have ever heard. For one things the short period of time was only short on the timescale that is the history of life. We're talking a period of millions of years here. Multi-Cellular organisms existed pre-cambrian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota
When I was a child I heard everyone quoting Sagan, “Millions and millions and millions.” Well, it is true million but only 10 million. The time scale shrinks the longer I live. So, I guess it is relative- 100 million years to 10 million years (conservatively estimated) is a huge change. Ecologically speaking, it is not much time- which is why they call it the Biological Big Bang.
3 Also you make it sound as if everything appeared the way it is during the Cambrian, the Cambrian explosion was an important event that caused several branches far down the evolutionary tree but the Cambrian period had nowhere near the disparity of life seen today.
True. But all of the major classes of animals were created during that time. What I mean is all of the significant body plans of animals were already laid out. Beyond that, in responding earlier to a post about reptiles to mammals, I said that the mammal like reptiles were contemporaries with fully formed early mammals.
This is what you will find with the birds and its missing links. There is no missing links; the animal kingdom is a family full of cousins.
4 Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't punctuated equilibrium merely an exaggeration of the fact that evolution occurs when population sizes shrink or new ecological niches open up? The cause of most periods of accelerated evolution seems to be mass extinction events.
I forgive you. No, it was a theory that was created to explain the lack of fossil evidence and transitional phases. Though it says that sudden changes happen in small groups or niches, this arose because there are no transitional forms to back Darwin’s Hypothesis.
5 There are connecting points along the way. Ida for example is one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae). In fact its believed that we know what the first form of life on the planet was (and it still exists!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite.
I have yet to look these things up.
6 A series of quotes arguing evolution does not make an argument. Especially when half of them are taken terribly out of context.
Do you mean by “out of context” that, all of the people who are being quoted did not intend by their quotes to support Intelligent Design. Is that what you mean?
In court, that is what is called a hostile witness. If the Scientist where being tortured by a small village of I.D.s the quotes would not have weight, but the men spoke these things with out duress.
In research, one man’s theory is another mans breakthrough. One man may reach a result and his peer may find that he reached that result falsely. Researchers are encouraged all of the time to add notes to their work that list details as to why things failed or why there positive outcome maybe flawed.
String Theory is the result of an Equation created and passed up in the time of the author, it took some many people to come along and get the theory noticed by the scientific community. With that said Darwin’s Theory came from other people’s work too.
7 Err. Wrong. The human eye could have evolved and extensive amounts of study have been done on it. Nothing you posted even argued against the evolution of the eye, it just said that the evolution of the eye would take a complex dance of chemicals. There is no reason why this complex dance of chemicals could not have evolved.
The studies that you talk about were computer models based on shape and function. The computer models did in no way account for the fact that the eye was not formed in a “closed system”. The model did not account for the molecular-machines found in the eye that make seeing possible. All that I have seen are all based on the pre-microbiology assumptions of Darwin (Cupped eye to Human eye).
8 Actually none of them are irreducibly complex. Care to prove otherwise?
As you have criticized me about the eye, you can say anything but I won’t believe it till you show me the money. Google Behe and his explanation of the human eye, then type blood clotting, and then tell me how each molecular machine evolved from species to species and then direct me to a book that talks about it.
DO NOT be afraid to look at his work even if it is listed on a Pro-God sight (Do not hate the scientist for the company he keeps). Every pro-evolution book after Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box has tried to knock Behe down.
At the time of his 1st books release all that anyone could say about his findings was that they did not believe in GOD. Which, is a bias.
The problem is that all scientists have a worldview. Atheist are not necessarily impartial- Atheism is considered a RELIGION.
You know I could list all of this stuff for you but you seem to have a grasp on it. So, why don’t you tell me why it is not irreducibly complexed. IF I gave you a long explanation of the blood cascade and a long explanation of cilium (and the test that they have run on them) you may already know this, so please tell me what new information you have that you can with a sentence say that they aren’t irreducibly complexed. You were so talkative about everything else why have you given me just a sentence for that? Please, give me some meat to your argument.
