Gallileo was dismissed as a crank too. Not saying that Gallileo and Milton are comparable but dismissing someone as a crank because four (or more) pro-evolution web pages have said so, without looking at what he has to say.
Everything he says on the page I gave the link to is perfectly valid.
We can discount any "Species difference because of observed morphological difference" rubbish. That's the exact reason there were originally two species of Coelacanth when they were rediscovered.
Here's a link for you to read. Feel free to point out the obvious flaws in the arguments.
You've reverted to the insults again. And you didn't answer the question.
But you're the one saying that if a rabbit developed gills it would disprove evolution.
Why?
What is it about gills (or wings or standing upright) that would make it disprove evolution? And you seem to have honed in the the seeming punctuism of my statement.
How about, when do the rabbits develop traits that make them more (or less - essentially other) than rabbits?
When has ANY organism been observed developing from one species to another? And don't give me that "we've only been watching a couple of hundred years" crap. We've been able to observer millions of species with varying levels of detail, we've been deliberately messing with the genes of all manner of organisms using some of the most advanced genetic techniques known. And drosophola is still drosophola. Single celled amoeba are still single celled amoeba.
Are you picturing a Centaur/Minotaur type of animal? Front half lizard, back half a bird?
And if gills in a rabbit are evidence against evolution (presumably because gills came before lungs - never mind the fact that gills may give the rabbits an advantage - say there might be a dam in the paddock) what is a plesiosaur?. Are we to believe co-evolution developed the amphibian, with only fins (so it could barely leave the water, if at all). Then lungs developed, and it stopped exiting the water. From there it probably developed a neck.
So you've read the blind watchmaker and still think that transitional traits are evidence that evolution does not exist. Punctualism does not argue that transitionals don't exist, it argues that the rate of evolution is not constant. So a rabbit with small, largely useless wings would NOT be evidence that evolution does not exist. In actual fact it looks like you do not understand the differences between gradualism and punctualism, the basics of each and their relationship.
And biomorph is a wonderful toy. Did Dawkins get a hand full of random bytes, stick them in a file and wait for Biomorph to appear? Hmmm, no he created it and the mechanism by which the application "evolves" it's pretty pictures.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education
So I should go off and do my own experimentation because actual results are not being made available. Or haven't you found any?
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.
So the development of new traits/species is evidence against evolution? So it'd only be evidence of evolution if the rabbits suddenly became horses right. Or do they have to develop a certain number of new traits for them to become evidence of evolution?
Or do they stay as rabbits, only ever micro evolving, until one day biologist notice that there are also sheep in the paddock! They must have evolved from the rabbits!
According to your argument (which I have seen you use before) a transitional species is evidence against evolution.
But lets take the good old Rhipidistian and our friend the Coelacanth. Both of these came from the Cretaceous period and both are lobed fish. The Coelacanth was originally thought to be the link between fish and land animals - until they found it alive and well in 1939.
Now in the article above I really like the first sentence. I personally don't subscribe to this view. Think/accept there are transitionals in the fossil record - because the record has been put together using the "Hey this kinda looks like that" technique - so of course you will end up with transitionals. And again, how much change to you accept before something is not a transitional?
Nevertheless, we know that the Crossopterygians became more and more specialized for a deep-sea life because in 1939 a living Crossopterygian, the ceolacanth Lattimeria, was dredged up from a deep sea trench off the coast of Africa
Absolute brilliance. "We know they adapted because we found them, apparently unchanged, in deeper water than we expected. We've found fossils of this species on land before. Because the fossils were on land and these fish were in deep water, they must have evolved."
Ignores basic geology, natural selection and changes in climate.
This article must be wrong in any case because it goes on to discuss the transitional nature of the Rhipidistian fossils etc. Or if it isn't wrong, and the fossils are considered transitional, and evolution does exist, then the Rhipidistian can't be the ancestor of the land animals. So we'd have to simply remove the Rhipidistian from the fossil record and/or look for an alternative. Not that that's ever happened before.
You're right, Deakin doesn't offer this degree any more. Shortly after I left the Uni (in fact I think it occurred in 95 after my wife graduated) they changed the Aquatic Science course list to include S318, S337 and S338. And it looks like they are shuffling the courses again.
When I did my degree we had a choice of doing Aqu Biol, Aqu Chem, Aqu Biol/Chem (double minor), Aqu Biol/Comp Sci or Aqu Chem/Comp Sci. If you elected to do a double minor (as I did) you did first year (standard for everyone no matter which path you took) and then the remainder of your units were split 50:50 between the two minors.
The year behind my level they stopped offering the Comp Sci portion because there were only two of us doing it at my level. To accomodate this the Comp Sci was done in conjunction with the Faculty of Business and Management.
I don't remember what the various units were that I did but I do remember Aqu. Ecology, Aqu Zoology, Aquaculture, Fisheries Management and Project (IBT). I haven't looked at my degree/results for almost 10 years. I have no need to.
I really don't care if you don't believe me. It's completely irrelevant to the entire thread of this discussion. Attacking the person, or their credentials, is a pretty weak way of supporting your argument. You continually tell me to "educate" myself but the best I have seen from you, with respect to research of any kind, is some links to extremely weak articles (Evolution is a fact because most biologist accept it as so) and of course there's your looking for information on a 10 year old course matter on a current web site.
You are obviously an extremely biased (and rude) person so I won't be able to sway you in any way. But I will make a few comments none-the-less.
Firstly. B. Sc Aqu. Sci. (Aqu Biol/Comp Sci). Graduated 1994 - Deakin University (Warrnambool Campus). You can call them if you like.
Can't say they mentioned DNA Hybridization - it was probably discussed in detail in the 2nd year/3rd year BioChem classes that I didn't take. Certainly wasn't mentioned at the time the comparison between Chimp DNA and Human DNA was made.
Still, I would like to read some of the papers which discuss the measured results where they have used this technique on mapped Genomes (eg. Where they know the exact variation between the DNA). So I can educate myself and see how accurate the technique really is.
Perhaps what I should have said was not that Evolution was a theory but a hypotheses (in fact that would be more accurate as I'm still waiting for any form of credible evidence as to the existence of evolution).
[talkorigins.org]
Great article, states (correctly) that a theory is an "Imperfect fact" - which means evolution has to be fact because it's a theory. Doesn't actually provide any actual evidence (See later...)
Also says that it's a fact because most Biologist accept it as so. So therefore the existence of God/Christ/Allah/Krishna/Aliens is a fact because most Jews/Christians/Muslems/Haris/Freaks accept is as so.
[austarnet.com.au]
Fact because the geologists/bioligists say that everything is really old. They measured the ages using methods for which there is no base for comparison to prove the results (which is bad science in itself) but they readily accept as fact (not saying they are absolutely wrong but there is room for scepticism).
[actionbioscience.org]
Seems to ignore the fundamental element that makes evolution what it is. The "creation" of new species through these mutations etc. The development of antibiotic resistent strains of bacteria is not evolution, it's (Natural) selection.
Selection is not evolution. Claims that examples of selection prove evolution are similar to claims that JFK being shot are evidence of the extinction of the human race.
If anyone has an example of where the mutation/breeding of any organism to create a new species has occurred I would be interested to read about it (a "mule" is not a new species - it has to be able to reproduce, produce viable offspring and not produce viable offspring with the species it "evolved" from)
[demon.co.uk]
"Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time."
The article then goes on to talk about rabbits freezing to death and the dominance of long haired rabbits increasing over time... Natural Selection Theres that phrase again...
At what point do these rabbits grow wings/stand upright/develop gills/cease to be able to breed with ordinary rabbits?
Of course to overcome this problem we rename "Natural Selection" and call it "Micro Evolution". And then you make the argument that because we've given it a name with the word "Evolution" in it, "Macro Evolution" must be going to occur at some point in time. I mean it's obvious isn't it?
[origins.tv]
Is just a definition of the word theory ("Imperfect fact"). Bit of a waste of time really. But I do correct my statement, not a fact, a hypotheses...
Obviously not a scientist - nothing is a fact - it's all just a theory.
"with several real-world examples"
Name one!?!
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God
Except for the fact that the very basis of evolution is contradictory to the teachings of the bible. (Each reproduces after it's own kind)
When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.
Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?
But ultimately the "Science" of Evolution can be described by a single sentence...
Slashdot Mirror
Too lazy to read it eh?
Gallileo was dismissed as a crank too. Not saying that Gallileo and Milton are comparable but dismissing someone as a crank because four (or more) pro-evolution web pages have said so, without looking at what he has to say.
Everything he says on the page I gave the link to is perfectly valid.
We can discount any "Species difference because of observed morphological difference" rubbish. That's the exact reason there were originally two species of Coelacanth when they were rediscovered.
Here's a link for you to read. Feel free to point out the obvious flaws in the arguments.
You've reverted to the insults again. And you didn't answer the question.
But you're the one saying that if a rabbit developed gills it would disprove evolution.
Why?
What is it about gills (or wings or standing upright) that would make it disprove evolution? And you seem to have honed in the the seeming punctuism of my statement.
How about, when do the rabbits develop traits that make them more (or less - essentially other) than rabbits?
When has ANY organism been observed developing from one species to another? And don't give me that "we've only been watching a couple of hundred years" crap. We've been able to observer millions of species with varying levels of detail, we've been deliberately messing with the genes of all manner of organisms using some of the most advanced genetic techniques known. And drosophola is still drosophola. Single celled amoeba are still single celled amoeba.
Where are the examples?
What, evolution exists because the Steves say it's so.
You're back to gradualism again. How can you progress from a lizard to a bird with out a half bird/half lizard?
What the?
Are you picturing a Centaur/Minotaur type of animal? Front half lizard, back half a bird?
And if gills in a rabbit are evidence against evolution (presumably because gills came before lungs - never mind the fact that gills may give the rabbits an advantage - say there might be a dam in the paddock) what is a plesiosaur?. Are we to believe co-evolution developed the amphibian, with only fins (so it could barely leave the water, if at all). Then lungs developed, and it stopped exiting the water. From there it probably developed a neck.
So you've read the blind watchmaker and still think that transitional traits are evidence that evolution does not exist. Punctualism does not argue that transitionals don't exist, it argues that the rate of evolution is not constant. So a rabbit with small, largely useless wings would NOT be evidence that evolution does not exist. In actual fact it looks like you do not understand the differences between gradualism and punctualism, the basics of each and their relationship.
And biomorph is a wonderful toy. Did Dawkins get a hand full of random bytes, stick them in a file and wait for Biomorph to appear? Hmmm, no he created it and the mechanism by which the application "evolves" it's pretty pictures.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education
So I should go off and do my own experimentation because actual results are not being made available. Or haven't you found any?
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.
So the development of new traits/species is evidence against evolution? So it'd only be evidence of evolution if the rabbits suddenly became horses right. Or do they have to develop a certain number of new traits for them to become evidence of evolution?
Or do they stay as rabbits, only ever micro evolving, until one day biologist notice that there are also sheep in the paddock! They must have evolved from the rabbits!
According to your argument (which I have seen you use before) a transitional species is evidence against evolution.
ICHTYOSTEGA AS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL
But lets take the good old Rhipidistian and our friend the Coelacanth. Both of these came from the Cretaceous period and both are lobed fish. The Coelacanth was originally thought to be the link between fish and land animals - until they found it alive and well in 1939.
Now in the article above I really like the first sentence. I personally don't subscribe to this view. Think/accept there are transitionals in the fossil record - because the record has been put together using the "Hey this kinda looks like that" technique - so of course you will end up with transitionals. And again, how much change to you accept before something is not a transitional?
Nevertheless, we know that the Crossopterygians became more and more specialized for a deep-sea life because in 1939 a living Crossopterygian, the ceolacanth Lattimeria, was dredged up from a deep sea trench off the coast of Africa
Absolute brilliance. "We know they adapted because we found them, apparently unchanged, in deeper water than we expected. We've found fossils of this species on land before. Because the fossils were on land and these fish were in deep water, they must have evolved."
Ignores basic geology, natural selection and changes in climate.
This article must be wrong in any case because it goes on to discuss the transitional nature of the Rhipidistian fossils etc. Or if it isn't wrong, and the fossils are considered transitional, and evolution does exist, then the Rhipidistian can't be the ancestor of the land animals. So we'd have to simply remove the Rhipidistian from the fossil record and/or look for an alternative. Not that that's ever happened before.
You're right, Deakin doesn't offer this degree any more. Shortly after I left the Uni (in fact I think it occurred in 95 after my wife graduated) they changed the Aquatic Science course list to include S318, S337 and S338. And it looks like they are shuffling the courses again.
When I did my degree we had a choice of doing Aqu Biol, Aqu Chem, Aqu Biol/Chem (double minor), Aqu Biol/Comp Sci or Aqu Chem/Comp Sci. If you elected to do a double minor (as I did) you did first year (standard for everyone no matter which path you took) and then the remainder of your units were split 50:50 between the two minors.
The year behind my level they stopped offering the Comp Sci portion because there were only two of us doing it at my level. To accomodate this the Comp Sci was done in conjunction with the Faculty of Business and Management.
I don't remember what the various units were that I did but I do remember Aqu. Ecology, Aqu Zoology, Aquaculture, Fisheries Management and Project (IBT). I haven't looked at my degree/results for almost 10 years. I have no need to.
I really don't care if you don't believe me. It's completely irrelevant to the entire thread of this discussion. Attacking the person, or their credentials, is a pretty weak way of supporting your argument. You continually tell me to "educate" myself but the best I have seen from you, with respect to research of any kind, is some links to extremely weak articles (Evolution is a fact because most biologist accept it as so) and of course there's your looking for information on a 10 year old course matter on a current web site.
You are obviously an extremely biased (and rude) person so I won't be able to sway you in any way. But I will make a few comments none-the-less.
Firstly. B. Sc Aqu. Sci. (Aqu Biol/Comp Sci). Graduated 1994 - Deakin University (Warrnambool Campus). You can call them if you like.
Can't say they mentioned DNA Hybridization - it was probably discussed in detail in the 2nd year/3rd year BioChem classes that I didn't take. Certainly wasn't mentioned at the time the comparison between Chimp DNA and Human DNA was made.
Still, I would like to read some of the papers which discuss the measured results where they have used this technique on mapped Genomes (eg. Where they know the exact variation between the DNA). So I can educate myself and see how accurate the technique really is.
Perhaps what I should have said was not that Evolution was a theory but a hypotheses (in fact that would be more accurate as I'm still waiting for any form of credible evidence as to the existence of evolution).
[talkorigins.org]
Great article, states (correctly) that a theory is an "Imperfect fact" - which means evolution has to be fact because it's a theory. Doesn't actually provide any actual evidence (See later...)
Also says that it's a fact because most Biologist accept it as so. So therefore the existence of God/Christ/Allah/Krishna/Aliens is a fact because most Jews/Christians/Muslems/Haris/Freaks accept is as so.
[austarnet.com.au]
Fact because the geologists/bioligists say that everything is really old. They measured the ages using methods for which there is no base for comparison to prove the results (which is bad science in itself) but they readily accept as fact (not saying they are absolutely wrong but there is room for scepticism).
[actionbioscience.org]
Seems to ignore the fundamental element that makes evolution what it is. The "creation" of new species through these mutations etc. The development of antibiotic resistent strains of bacteria is not evolution, it's (Natural) selection.
Selection is not evolution. Claims that examples of selection prove evolution are similar to claims that JFK being shot are evidence of the extinction of the human race.
If anyone has an example of where the mutation/breeding of any organism to create a new species has occurred I would be interested to read about it (a "mule" is not a new species - it has to be able to reproduce, produce viable offspring and not produce viable offspring with the species it "evolved" from)
[demon.co.uk]
"Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time."
The article then goes on to talk about rabbits freezing to death and the dominance of long haired rabbits increasing over time... Natural Selection Theres that phrase again...
At what point do these rabbits grow wings/stand upright/develop gills/cease to be able to breed with ordinary rabbits?
Of course to overcome this problem we rename "Natural Selection" and call it "Micro Evolution". And then you make the argument that because we've given it a name with the word "Evolution" in it, "Macro Evolution" must be going to occur at some point in time. I mean it's obvious isn't it?
[origins.tv]
Is just a definition of the word theory ("Imperfect fact"). Bit of a waste of time really. But I do correct my statement, not a fact, a hypotheses...
"Evolution is a fact"
Obviously not a scientist - nothing is a fact - it's all just a theory.
"with several real-world examples"
Name one!?!
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God
Except for the fact that the very basis of evolution is contradictory to the teachings of the bible. (Each reproduces after it's own kind)
When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.
Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?
But ultimately the "Science" of Evolution can be described by a single sentence...
"Hey! This kinda looks like that!"