[where_i'm_calling_from]

yeah i know...but once i added that crucial evidence it started to undermine my point, you see. my question is, though, why don't humans now start evolving to look like seaweed? i think that a slightly green human, or one with fins, is just as likely to survive in the modern world as anyone else (progressive evolution for man has stopped, ever since healthcare, IVF, looking after the disabled etc), and so why don't some people start evolving to look totally awesome?

[Forgone Conclusion]

UCL is hosting a lecture called 'Why intelligent design is stupid' in (fittingly) the Darwin building this Thursday if anyone wants to go

[misterj]

The Phlegmy One!111, on Oct 7 2006, 04:42 AM, said:

Misterj, that didn't happen in one amazing mutation. Firstly maybe the mutation was a slightly more green one, which was more likely to survive, and then another mutation was a another more seaweed like one which was more likely to survive, etc, etc. There were also probably loads of mutations that weren't beneficial like a slightly more red mutation, but only the useful mutations survive. A more red or yellow, etc, etc seahorse isn't gonna live. Extremely badly worded, so wait for Bradley to come along and say what I want to say except well.

And Ed, it was more like 200 years. Also, dark coloured moths actually existed before, in small numbers. The thing is they became dominant as they were better suited to the new environment. The amount of dark moths in ratio = 0.01% before, and now 98%. The important thing is they pre-existed. So take that and shove it up Lamarck's ass. :-)

Phlegmy. As far as I am aware mutations are very rare and, as you say quite subtle, so if the slightly greener seahorse was to breed and pass on its genes,which is by no means certain, what do you think the chances are of another mutation happening among the greener seahorses, lets raise the probability to just "rare". We also need to take into account the likelyhood that the one mutant seahorse , if it survives to breeding age, which the vast majority do not, may breed with a seahorse whose colour genes are dominant. Please also explain to me what the next mutation should be, perhaps an appendage that looks a little bit like a piece of seaweed, what are the chances of that" just happening". How many absollutely random mutations would it take to arrive at the finished seahorse, The statistical probability is slim in the extreme, and yet we are expected to believe that there are examples of evolution everywhere. I remain for the moment unconvinced.

[Forgone Conclusion]

It doesn't have to be a mutation through which evolution takes place - being taller, stronger or having a longer beak is not a mutation - it's just a slight difference and one that happens all the time

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Not to mention we literally have an almost incredible amount of tinme. So this 'rare' occurance will happen in the kagillions. The underlying point is that this is FAR more likely than a mystical being with omnipitent power creating a reality. Yes we could saw that everything has string attached to it, that you can't see or feel and that's why we eventually come back to the ground, but it's more reasonable to believe in gravity.

[misterj]

Forgone Conclusion, on Oct 7 2006, 04:05 PM, said:

It doesn't have to be a mutation through which evolution takes place - being taller, stronger or having a longer beak is not a mutation - it's just a slight difference and one that happens all the time

Yes Forgone, but slight differences is not really the issue.Yes life forms can vary within the existing gene pool, but it takes mutations to make any actual real changes. Evolutioists would have us believe that we all evolved from the same single celled organisms, but when asked to explain why the likes of crocodiles, which have allegedly been on the planet for many millions of years, have not changed one iota from their fossilized ancesters, they can't come up with a convincing answer. We would more than likely agree that they were perfect to start with, but surely they should have "evolved" over the past 100,000000 years, but no.
Phlegmy himself says about mutations, [we literally have an almost incredible amount of tinme. So this 'rare' occurance will happen in the kagillions.] explainations please.

[paddys wink]

paddys wink, on Oct 6 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

MISTERJ WINS YOU HAVE BEEN BEATEN(i throw back my head and laugh loud and heartily with my hands on my hips)

read the sig weener wanter

[Echoes]

The Aristocat, on Oct 6 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

mmmm. there was also a big thing that in the 19th century there were a load of moths who used to be white (to camouflage themselves with the fungus on trees) turning black, in order to fit in with the soot residue left on everything by smoke in industrial towns. this happened in the space of 10 years. that's pretty speedy evolution considering its a random mutation.

for that to be a valid point you would have to show that genes for white moths had a rate of mutation to black colour that is significantly greater than could be explained by normal, random fluctuation.

also, think about what the hell you're saying if Lamarck is right. Moths knew they would be better camouflaged by being black now that there was more soot in the air? Most chavs aren't that clever, let alone moths. Or do you really think moths (who will happily flit around a flame until they burn to death) are that clever?

misterj, on Oct 7 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

Forgone Conclusion, on Oct 7 2006, 04:05 PM, said:

It doesn't have to be a mutation through which evolution takes place - being taller, stronger or having a longer beak is not a mutation - it's just a slight difference and one that happens all the time

Yes Forgone, but slight differences is not really the issue.Yes life forms can vary within the existing gene pool, but it takes mutations to make any actual real changes. Evolutioists would have us believe that we all evolved from the same single celled organisms, but when asked to explain why the likes of crocodiles, which have allegedly been on the planet for many millions of years, have not changed one iota from their fossilized ancesters, they can't come up with a convincing answer. We would more than likely agree that they were perfect to start with, but surely they should have "evolved" over the past 100,000000 years, but no.
Phlegmy himself says about mutations, [we literally have an almost incredible amount of tinme. So this 'rare' occurance will happen in the kagillions.] explainations please.

Well, has the environment of the crocodiles changed significantly since they were first around?

Plus, how the hell are crocodiles 'unchanged in 100 million years'? a) where's the evidence of that, and the crocodiles must have come from something, no?

Even if you were right, you still have 99.99% of examples against you... you're happy to just ignore that fact?
Fuck it. I suppose the emergence of MRSA is hospitals is just ;intelligent design' by God, right?

Forgone Conclusion, on Oct 7 2006, 04:05 PM, said:

It doesn't have to be a mutation through which evolution takes place - being taller, stronger or having a longer beak is not a mutation - it's just a slight difference and one that happens all the time

Right. Mutations just create diversity in the gene pool, natural selection then 'hones' that gene pool by shaving off the weaker extremes.

Quote

As far as I am aware mutations are very rare and, as you say quite subtle,

Tell that to the millions of cancer sufferers around the world, just for starters. Then you can move on to the Downs Syndrome sufferers, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, the obese, people that have blue eyes, people that have green eyes, people that have brown eyes, people that have every shade in between, tall people, short people, people with medium height... point made?

Quote

How many absollutely random mutations would it take to arrive at the finished seahorse, The statistical probability is slim in the extreme,

Actually, the probability of mutation is constant (more or less - polluted environments or regions of high radiation can lead to increased mutation rates), and it's a lot higher than you think. Secondly, the mutant doesn't have to mate with a similar animal, any would do; one would assume some of their kids would express the gene, others wouldn't (but might be carrying it and pass it on to their kids anyway). Over time, more animals would have the gene. Their families would typically be stronger than normal ones. Over time, the others would be picked off and these would be everywhere. In the meantime, who's to say how many existing mutants have mutated some other characteristic that's on its way to becoming population-dominant? Fuck it, that mutation could have arised in some totally different family, and they came together during breeding between the two!

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i appreciate the number of swear-words you used in that post. but i'd like to raise a question. you said moths aren't intelligent enough to know they'd be better off black:

1) what evidence do you have that they can't actually think this? - the fact that they're attracted to light hardly shows it. some humans accidently decapitate themselves with chainsaws, i don't think it proves that, for example, humans are incapable of doing basic maths.

2) does lamarck really claim that there has to be concious desire for a mutation, and then it will occur? if so, that seems bizarre. i thought it was more 'subconcious recognition in the species as a whole' rather than one moth thinking 'wouldn't it be ace to be black'. - it would be ace, by the way.

3) has human evolution effectively stopped as we not only do not have survival of the fittest, but we actively encourage the not-fittest to prosper?

[Echoes]

The Aristocat, on Oct 9 2006, 08:30 AM, said:

1) what evidence do you have that they can't actually think this? - the fact that they're attracted to light hardly shows it. some humans accidently decapitate themselves with chainsaws, i don't think it proves that, for example, humans are incapable of doing basic maths.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that they do. The burden of proof is on you. As for humans and chainsaws, im not sure why you chose that example because it's completely irrelevant. Not just because it nearly never happens, whereas flying into fire is a demonstrable behaviour of moths; but also because if it was accidental then there was no inbuilt urge to do it.

Quote

2) does lamarck really claim that there has to be concious desire for a mutation, and then it will occur? if so, that seems bizarre. i thought it was more 'subconcious recognition in the species as a whole' rather than one moth thinking 'wouldn't it be ace to be black'. - it would be ace, by the way.

now you're just getting REALLY fuzzy - "subconcious recognition in the species as a whole"??? You're psychoanalysing an entire population... OF MOTHS!
And are you quite sure animals have a developed subconscious? Even ones who like to fly into fires without a subconcious telling that that might not be such a good thing to do? And of course, the key question: asides from epigenetics, how do the desires of an organism get translated into genetic mutation?

Quote

3) has human evolution effectively stopped as we not only do not have survival of the fittest, but we actively encourage the not-fittest to prosper?

That's a great question, which I'm not sure anyone has a definite answer to. It's definitely true that medicine is removing the evolutionary pressures that are related to disease (mind you, tell that to people that aren't as fortunate as you, to live in a Western country). Likewise, you could say that plastic surgery and makeup are making sex-based selection factors less relevant; mind you, plastic surgery is still relatively uncommon, so at a guess I'd say those factors are still relevant. I think that despite technological advances, the human population is still somewhat subject to evolutionary and mate-selection pressures that are going to take the gene pool in a certain direction; but those pressures are reduced, so you could expect diveristy in the gene pool to be bigger, which will allow for faster, more efficient evolution if ever natural selection becomes serious again.

[misterj]

Narrator, says "Well, has the environment of the crocodiles changed significantly since they were first around?"

No, of course not everthing is just the same as it was 100, 000000 years ago,

Plus, how the hell are crocodiles 'unchanged in 100 million years'? a) where's the evidence of that, and the crocodiles must have come from something, no?

Have you ever heard of fossile records?

The crocodiles were either created, or evolved from inorganic particals sparked into life by electricity, take your pick.

[misterj]

Tell that to the millions of cancer sufferers around the world, just for starters. Then you can move on to the Downs Syndrome sufferers, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, the obese, people that have blue eyes, people that have green eyes, people that have brown eyes, people that have every shade in between, tall people, short people, people with medium height... point made?

Not at all, cell is still a cell, a Downs Syndrome sufferer or obese person is still a human being, and MRSA is still a microbe. For arguments sake I am saying that everything was created as it is now and things only change within that particular organism. One thing will not change into another, in fact allmost 100% of fossile records bare this out

[Echoes]

Quote

No, of course not everthing is just the same as it was 100, 000000 years ago,

I said significantly.

Quote

Have you ever heard of fossile records?

indeed I have, and I'm asking which ones you're referring to that show crocodiles 100 million years were identical to the ones around today. You seem very keen to tell me it's true, now I'm askig for evidence. Likewise with 'One thing will not change into another, in fact allmost 100% of fossile records bare this out' which is absolute gobshite.

Quote

everything was created as it is now and things only change within that particular organism

So species only die out, they can't arise? If that were true then the biodiveristy on the planet today would be less than it was 2 billion years ago. Something that the fossil record definitely does NOT bear out.

[misterj]

Narrator, The worlds greatest scientists have tried to find so called "missing links" for many years to no avail , because as you know there aren't any, apart from Piltdown Man of course.

Which new species have arisen then? Give me examples, and I don't want any which are just variations of existing species.

As you probably know, not all organisms are able to become fossilized therefore it's impossible to say whether there are more or less species around now or not.

[Echoes]

you're still ignoring my questions.

as fer the missing link, you're again completely mistaken. There are several transitional fossils out there, take 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) for example. This despite the fact that the fossil record is notoriously unreliable because of the special conditions needed before an organism fossilises.

Quote

As you probably know, not all organisms are able to become fossilized

That's just a perversion of the point I just made, that the fossil record is incomplete. Anything made of chemicals can leave a chemical fossil; anything that has volume can leave a trace fossil. Ironically, you earlier said 'One thing will not change into another, in fact allmost 100% of fossile records bare this out' - then turn around and say that it's gappy. Which it is, of course, but it still reveals species have significantly evolved over time, and typically had less complexity than they do today.

Quote

Which new species have arisen then? Give me examples, and I don't want any which are just variations of existing species.

Well, without even going into botany, i can point you at the obvious choice: Birds.

Quote

it's impossible to say whether there are more or less species around now or not.

It's entirely possible to say which is more likely, though, given that you don't have a shred of proof of your theory being correct, and that it makes no logical sense given yours requires God creating loads of species and then them not 'changing significantly'. Why is that, by the way? You acknowledge microevolution (e.g. staphilococcus aureus in hospitals evolving resistance to multiple antibiotics, to create new strains (MRSA), but not macroevolution. You haven't yet said why, apart from you just don't believe it's likely (but obviously god waving his magic wand is)

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Dude, you completely do not understand evolution so you can't argue against it well. There are scientists who do understand it and point it's flaws out, but even they cannot give a better solution to the problem. You seem to think that a brand new species will just spring up over one random mutation. What happens is that there ARE just variations of a species, then those variations become greater and greater over time until that species of ape, becomes as varied as humans/chimps/gorillas/etc. And a simple google search will show you millions of examples of transitionary fossils. You're Christian, you want to believe in god and therefore are willing to stretch your mind a bit and ignore blatant evidence. Ed is just stupid.

Mildly humorous evolution myths. Although, I'm pretty sure 38 is not a myth and is in fact true. :-/

1) Evolution gives you what you need

2) We popped out of monkeys one day

3) The theory of evolution is tied to the big bang theory

4) The theory of evolution says random chemicals mysteriously made the first cell

5) Darwin took back his theory of evolution on his death bed (that's an urban myth created by Christians)

6) They eye accidentally formed itself somehow.

7.) That things evolve 'magically' without selection involved. It's just some slow process...At least this is what I believed as a kid!8.) That evolution equals eugenics.

9.) That it has a GOAL.

10.) That it can happen to anything, even watches and pottery.

11.) That it's a scientific conspiracy theory we believe in to battle Christianity.

12.) That evolution equals atheism.

13.) That there is an actual difference between micro and macro-evolution

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.

15.) That there are no transition fossils

16.) That humans evolved from the Apes that are around today.

17.) The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.

18) If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

19) Evolution requires faith.

20) Survival of the fittest means organisms should go kill off weaker members of its species to make survival easier for the stronger members.

21) Physical changes that occur during the lifetime of an organism will be passed on the offspring.

22) Survival of the fittest is circular logic.

23) Only the fittest survive. (In actuality, if an organism can barely get by then it classified into the "fit" category).

24) Kent Hovind is an expert in the fields of evolution, biology, and other sciences.

25) Organisms evolve/mutate during their lifetime if a new selection pressure exerts itself.

26) Evolution caused slavery.

27) Many scientists are now casting doubt on Darwin's theory.

28) Charles Darwin is Satan.

29) Evolution can't exist because of irreducible complexity.

30) Evolution is JUST a theory.

31) God made evolution so he could trick as many scientists as he could into believing it, instead of him, just so he could light them on fire for all eternity. But he still loves them.

32) Man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. T-Rex used to be a vegetarian

33) 'Darwinists' claim that any criticism of the theory of evolution is unscientific

34) Evolution is effectively refuted by 'the Cambrian Explosion'

35) Scientists "believe" in evolution.

36) There is great strife in the scientific community over evolution.

37) Kent Hovind is a brilliant man!

38) Evolution can't explain love.

39) If evolution is true, why are there homosexuals?

40) There are no transitional forms: One species gives birth to another! Through magic!

41) If you believe in evolution, then that means you think it's okay to kill, rape, and steal

42) Evolution is not testable or empirical, therefore it is not science.

43) No Darwin, then no Hitler

44) The perfect match between bees and flowers must be a designer because it can't be evolution.Evolution has to do with survival from predators, not how well you can carry pollen.

45) Mutations are never beneficial

46) There is limits to biological change: new kinds never arise

47) Vertebrate embryos never resemble each other

48) Evolution must be wrong because gravity pulls things down right, but that clearly doesn't happen because birds can stay up in the air.

49) Oh you evolutionists make me laugh, it was God who created the world. It says so in the bible and the bible says its true, so IT IS TRUE!!!

50) Evolution was responsible for the Columbine high school shooting

51. Evolution can never be proven because we didn't see it occur.

By the way, #13 is not a myth. There is a recognized difference between micro- and macro-evolution. The myth creationists use is that macroevolutionary events are somehow less well supported than microevolution—they're wrong.

[misterj]

Narrator, which questions am I ignoring. You are great at side stepping my points when it suites you,

Which new species of birds have arisen lately then specifically, names please.

Evolutionists are quick to describe fossilized remains as the so called "missing link," first Piltdown man, ha ha, now "Lucy", is that it, is that the evidence?

Evolution IS just a flawed theory, you pick and choose what you want to believe, and ignore what doesn't suit you and your theory.

When, I quote examples like the crocodile fossile remains that are identicle to existing croc's, I'm told that their environment can't have changed in 100,000000 years, unbelievable.

Saying that evolution is flawed but it's the best we can come up with is just not good enough and unscientific.

Phlegmy No I am not a Christian or a member of any other man made religion but I am cynical and can recognise bollocks when I see it, perhaps the theory of extrapolation would be more apt.

[Echoes]

Quote

Which new species of birds have arisen lately then specifically, names please.

Does it really need to be spelled out? Birds came after dinosaurs; they didn't coexist. Hence EVERY SINGLE SPECIES OF BIRD ever is evidence that not all species of animal was created at the same time and then die off one by one.

Quote

Evolutionists are quick to describe fossilized remains as the so called "missing link," first Piltdown man, ha ha, now "Lucy", is that it, is that the evidence?

I'm sorry, what's the point you're making? that the Lucy skeleton is a fake because the Piltsdown skeleton was a fake? I'd love to see evidence of your claim that Australopithecus afarensis has never existed and the Lucy skeleton is fake.

Quote

Evolution IS just a flawed theory, you pick and choose what you want to believe, and ignore what doesn't suit you and your theory.

what's the flaw? every claim you've made so far as to evolution's falsehood, I've refuted, only for you to ignore. For example, 'I quote examples like the crocodile fossile remains that are identicle to existing croc's' - I have repeatedly asked for evidence of that claim, which you haven't provided. Because it is QUITE CLEARLY BOLLOCKS. On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge EVERY SINGLE transitional fossil that exists! Even when pointed to one, you claim that it's fake - what's your evidence/logic for thinking that... it can't be true because it doesn't fit your worldview, hence it is not true?

Quote

Saying that evolution is flawed but it's the best we can come up with is just not good enough and unscientific.

I'll tell you what bad science is. It's claiming that all species were put on this planet simultaneously and what's more haven't evolved into new species since. Even worse is ignoring all requests for evidence of all current species having been here when life first appeared on this planet!

So, what stuff have you missed so far? I'll work backwards (make sure you don't miss out this post as well though!):

1) "you don't have a shred of proof of your theory being correct, and that it makes no logical sense given yours requires God creating loads of species and then them not 'changing significantly'.

1.5"You acknowledge microevolution (e.g. staphilococcus aureus in hospitals evolving resistance to multiple antibiotics, to create new strains (MRSA), but not macroevolution. You haven't yet said why, apart from you just don't believe it's likely (but obviously god waving his magic wand is)"

2) "Anything made of chemicals can leave a chemical fossil; anything that has volume can leave a trace fossil. Ironically, you earlier said 'One thing will not change into another, in fact allmost 100% of fossile records bare this out' - then turn around and say that it's gappy. Which it is, of course, but it still reveals species have significantly evolved over time, and typically had less complexity than they do today." Do you concede this refutes your point, or continue to support your original view?

3) which [fossiles] you're referring to that show crocodiles 100 million years were identical to the ones around today.

4) "You seem very keen to tell me it's true, now I'm askig for evidence. Likewise with 'One thing will not change into another, in fact allmost 100% of fossile records bare this out' which is absolute gobshite." do you concede that it is untrue to say that 'one thing will not change into another' given the existence of transitional fossils, and the absence of any evidence suggesting species do not give rise to new species over time?

5) "So species only die out, they can't arise? If that were true then the biodiveristy on the planet today would be less than it was 2 billion years ago." Do you maintain that species only die out and cannot arise, and that biodiversity on the plnet is less than it was when life first arose on this planet?

6) "Well, has the environment of the crocodiles changed significantly since they were first around?" Has the environment of species that were present a long time ago, and are still present, changed significantly in that time as to place such natural selection pressures on them that they could not feasibly have survived? If not, then they wouldn't have experienced any pressure to evolve and cannot be said to be a counterexample to evolutionary theory.

7) "Tell that to the millions of cancer sufferers around the world, just for starters. Then you can move on to the Downs Syndrome sufferers, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, the obese, people that have blue eyes, people that have green eyes, people that have brown eyes, people that have every shade in between, tall people, short people, people with medium height... point made?" Was the point made? (the point was that significant mutations happen all the time, whereas you said they were both rare and subtle). Also, what about the point below - do you concede that the conditions you impose on evolution (having to keep mating with similarly mutated organisms, all the kids surviving, etc etc) are misinformed?

enough for now, but there are un/insufficiently-answered points on the previous few pages too.

[misterj]

Narrator, here's your best missing link "evidence" shot down in flames, According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Anatomist agrees
Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”
Oxnard's firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.” They are so different from humans and from African apes that they could not be intermediate between them.

Thank you gentlemen.

[misterj]

And as for the birds.......But if the new find, known as Vegavis iaai, really is a relative of the duck, it would lend considerable weight to the idea that modern birds lived with dinosaurs and survived whatever catastrophe killed the "terrible lizards".

A team of scientists led by Dr Julia Clarke, from North Carolina State University, US, said Vegavis belonged to the waterfowl family and was "most closely related to Anatidae, which includes true ducks".