Large Scale Central

13,000 year old tools found in Boulder,Co

General Discussion
#61

Evolution IS adaptation–the idea that the finch study Merely" shows adaptation and not evolution is preposterous. Evolution IS adaptation. If it continues dry on that island then there will only be finches with longer beak. AND there will soon be other, different species on that island which do’nt now appear. and if it continues dry for millennia, there will be entirely new animals, some unrelated to the finch, some descended from the finch and possibly quite different, or possibly not, depending on how well the finch suits its environment. You just don’t get it–“adaptation” IS evolution.

Yes, I know, you will now ask me about the hybrid “rat-bat” again. I already responded to this twice, I posted a set of links that directly answer that question AND posted a link to an ancestor of the bat which is bat like and also not a modern bat. Did you read them?

#62

Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are DEVO !

Wiki on the band “Devo”:

The name “Devo” comes “from their concept of ‘de-evolution’ - the idea that instead of evolving, mankind has actually regressed, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devo

#63

Dr. John Morris does not understanding the theory–he has a Ph.D in geological engineering (i.e. mining). he does not understand the biological side.

David, if you think that there is really a difference between adaptation and evolution then you simply don’t understand the theory–you not getting it. Here’s my earlier post on “transitional animals”:

http://www.largescalecentral.com/LSCForums/viewtopic.php?pid=91562#p91562

But why not–here’s the whole text of the post.

On Transitional animals

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

Here’s another link, with this quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould:

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy. "

Here’s the link–if you read it you will see it explains perfectly why there are many examples of transitional animals but not the ones you want to see.

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

You asked before about why there is no fossil record of a “rat-bat:” Here is your transitional bat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7243502.stm

And again:

http://vyoma108.blogspot.com/2008/02/ba … diate.html

and here, with what could be the money quote:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showth … amp;page=8

"Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History, and lead author of the Feb. 14 Nature article in which it is described explains:

“When we first saw it, we knew it was special. It’s clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors.”"

#64

“de-evolution” is not a term an evolutionist would use, because evolution does not have a direction–it’s not about animals getting better or progressing towards one final state, it’s just about favorable adaptations. There is no “de-evoluton,” there is just change.

This is the part that most bothers religious critics of Darwin, at least those who have gotten past believing in the literal truth of the Bible–evolution has no “telos.” It’s not moving towards the fulfillment of prophecy or towards things getting better, it’s just a record of random change. The theory of evolution describes change as essentially amoral, neither good nor evil, nether progress nor regress, just change

#65

Deleted

#66

Deleted

#67
mike omalley said:
Yes, I know, you will now ask me about the hybrid "rat-bat" again. I already responded to this twice, I posted a set of links that directly answer that question AND posted a link to an ancestor of the bat which is bat like and also not a modern bat. Did you read them?
The link to the bat was not an intermediate form. It was a bat without the ability to hear echos. An intermediate for would have to be rat with longer fore legs and longer toes with webbing. What purpose a rat would develop in that manner is ridiculous. But the rat-bat hybrid, of which there should be tens of thousands of examples, would be an animal that is not well adapted to running, didn't have any grasping ability for gathering food or climbing with mis-formed forelegs, YET it still could not fly without the fully developed leather wings.

This animal would become prey instead of it’s initial and final predator nature. Just THINK about that. The rat to bat wouldn’t have been possible to happen in one gestation period. By your theory, it would have happened over a million years or so, so all the evidence I ask for should be all over the place, and the transitional form between the two completed forms would be venerable.

Why did evolution suddenly stop? We see no transitional forms today, and by the evolutionary theory, anmost ALL life should be in a state of progressing to the next higher level. None exists.

#68

Punctuated evolution is a canard to explain away the lack of scientific evidence for transitional forms.

There are also many extinct species and variety of animals. That does not exhibit proof of evolution either.

#69
TonyWalsham said:
Dear David.

How about this?

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/evolutionary-th.html#previouspost

At last, a rational “believer”.
I make you this offer.

Would you be prepared to concede he might be right?
If you would, I would concede he might be right as well.

What could be fairer than that? A middle way.


“Evolutionary theology offers a third way. Rightly understood, evolution is as sacred and meaningful as any of the creation myths,” said Dowd, who quoted biology titan E.O. Wilson, sometimes called Darwin’s heir: “The evolutionary epic is prolably the best myth we’ll ever have.”

I wouldn’t use the word myth to describe either model, rather I’d say theory. The theory of “millions of years” is illogical, but it is a theory.

I’ll accept this, if you can prove to me where everything initially came from, something from nothing.

#70

Deleted

#71

You already set conditions, I countered with my conditions. That’s how negotiations are accomplished.

Let’s go back to trains for now.

#72

Deleted

#73

By conceding “he might be right” I am conceding to all the parameters set by you and Mr. Keim. Not much of a compromise. Still “all you all the time”.

#74

Deleted

#75

What are you willing to give in compromise? I haven’t read any compromise yet.

#76
Ralph Berg said:
TonyWalsham said:
So, if you can prove there is a GOD, I will believe that Creationism is possible.
Tony, If science one day proves evolution all the way to the begining, how are you going to prove the big "accident" of nature isn't a miracle of God? Funny how they use the word "accident". I always thought an accident was a bad thing. Learn something new everyday. Just a thought. Ralph
Tony..........your answer to the above question:Ralph. Prove that God exists and you prove Creationist theories might be right.

See I do keep an open mind.

So are you now saying the “accident” of nature could be a “miracle” of God?
Many people believe Creationism and Evolution can go hand in hand.
Ralph

#77

Deleted

#78

Deleted

#79
TonyWalsham said:
David, You can read? Can't you? The following are equal compromises. [b]"Would you be prepared to concede he might be right? If you would, I would concede he might be right as well."[/b]

In order for a compromise to be agreed upon, the two people arguing from the extreme opposing pints of view, MUST be prepared to give up their extreme opposing points of view.
That is what I am suggesting above.
However, unlike me, it seems you are not prepared to compromise your opinions at all.
Just as I thought.
You are dishonest.
I would expect nothing less from a dogmatic Creationist. :wink:


What is the compromise? That we both agree that Mr. Keim’s parameters are in line with what you have been saying?

Okay, you have my 100% full agreement. Yours and Mr. Keim’s views are nearly identical.

Now let’s please move on.

#80

Deleted