Evolutionists and Wrapped-up Lies

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *

if i'm not mistaken, there are atleast 4-5 kinds of intermediary fossils known already (almost all of them coming from india and pakistan). i agree, 4-5 is in all likelihood not a complete evolutionary pathway, but since they show a gradation from legs to flippers, shrinking and disappearance of hind limbs, and gradual appearance of other whale-like features, it would be hard to not argue that almost all the unearthed fossil evidence seem to suggest evolvution.
[/quote]

i don't see how u can base your conclusion only on 4-5 fossils and to state that 'it would be hard not to argue...' I think there are many equally valid other explanations, but because of wishfull thinking we 'fit' in the fossils into the theory we want them to prove. for the same matter, these 4-5 fossils might be of animals that came after each other but weren't each others descendents. Another guess could be that those fossils are so much degraded that they shrink and show malformation which we interpret as evolution. I mean the older the bone gets, it could be possible that the bone shortens, and we see that as a proof of regression due to evolution.

[quote]
evolution can only help battle environmental changes that are slower than survivable mutation rates. even before humans were on the scene, changes in the environment have driven millions, if not billions of species to extinction. and humans hunting whales has been a very very very recent phenomenon in evolutionary time spans. hardly 100 years. my guess is, if humans are the biggest deciders of their fate, a clearly inedible whale would probably be the evolutionary survivor, and his mutants would be in contention to take over niches left by the other whales that were wiped out.
[/quote]

taking your first sentenc you agree that evolution is NOT the final decider of species development. My question to you would be how come evolution has decided the course of many species for million of years, but when the human appears it falters. If you turn it around you might as well argue that the fossils are of species that were extinct due to actions of an other superior animal in the time and not due to the slow progression of evolution.

[quote]
i see what you are saying. i have problems with that though. how often do animals get put in their niches? niches so clearly undergo changes in a few thousand years. new ones are created, old ones destroyed.
[/quote]

niches change slowly over time, i agree. But we don't see the rainforest change into the northpole (agreed the ice age might do that, but then all animals die as well and with them evolution). I said above already I agree with the notion of intra-species development and adaption to the environment, but i clearly cannot see a cheetah transform into a shark or vice versa. Similarly no experiment or research has shown that e.g. TBC-bacterium deveoped from a precursor.

[quote]
why are the animals in geographically close niches having similar conditions show a lot more similarity than idential niches that are separated spatially onto different continents? different kinds of fish would make an excellent example of this. you will find the continents split away into various almost "feudal" families that have their subfamilies occupying almost all niches on their continent, while the other continent has the very same niches occupied by another family.
[/QUOTE]

i actually think that this supports the contra-evolution view. Because if evolution chose THE 'optimal' mutation to carry on, then the fish in different continents with similar conditions would have been the same, because THAT one mutaiton would have meant the best survival chances - and this latter is independent of geographical location, but dependent on environment, which is the same for both!

[queer]

i suspect palaeontologists would know about shrinkages in bone dimensions with time, and would account for it. even with fossils of 4-5 species spread out over time, we clearly see a gradation in characteristics with time. the older a fossil is, the more it is like a land animal, and the more recent it is, the more it resemble a whale - clearly, progression in characteristics with time. your only viable contention could be, where did these changes come from? were they evolutionary or were they due to other forces? correct me if i am wrong.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
taking your first sentenc you agree that evolution is NOT the final decider of species development. My question to you would be how come evolution has decided the course of many species for million of years, but when the human appears it falters. If you turn it around you might as well argue that the fossils are of species that were extinct due to actions of an other superior animal in the time and not due to the slow progression of evolution.
[/quote]

evolution is a means by which life forms end up being best suited to their environment. evolution does not dictate the environment, and you could say factors which shape the environment play a big role in species development too.

evolution isnt faltering around humans. humans have been creating changes in the environment from a relatively short period of time now. eventually evolution will strike a balance with the environment humans create on the planet.

and yes, it is ironic that humans, a product of evolution, would actually dictate terms to the way it progresses from here. i would attribute this to the capacity of humans to learn and modify his own behavior. one could even say humans arent the same animals they were a 1000 years ago, ecologically speaking. the way we interact with the rest of the life forms have changed drastically. no other organisms have possibly ever done this before - they have had stagnant behavior with their environment - and hence, humans are in all likelihood "special". loosely speaking, one could call humans as rapidly self evolving due to our ability to learn and adapt our behavior in very short spans.

[quote]
niches change slowly over time, i agree. But we don't see the rainforest change into the northpole (agreed the ice age might do that, but then all animals die as well and with them evolution). I said above already I agree with the notion of intra-species development and adaption to the environment, but i clearly cannot see a cheetah transform into a shark or vice versa. Similarly no experiment or research has shown that e.g. TBC-bacterium deveoped from a precursor.
[/quote]

you would be surprised. the sahara was a lush grassland less than 10,000 years ago. the thar desert was a verdant rainforest less than 5000 years ago.

a cheetah and a shark are extremely specialized animals, with evolutionary paths that branched away a hundred million years ago, if not more. no evolutionist would claim that a cheetah could turn into a shark or vice versa.

evolution of microbes, and for that matter, invertebrates, is tough to reconstruct for the reason that they leave no fossil records behind once they die.

[quote]
i actually think that this supports the contra-evolution view. Because if evolution chose THE 'optimal' mutation to carry on, then the fish in different continents with similar conditions would have been the same, because THAT one mutaiton would have meant the best survival chances - and this latter is independent of geographical location, but dependent on environment, which is the same for both!
[/QUOTE]

ah.. but you see, all these identical niches on different continents developed indepedently over distinct time frames. by the time a freshwater niche in the river Indus turned into conditions identical to those in rio negro in south america, all ready for new inhabitants, the available candidates for mutation were all vastly distinct from the candidates in south america. this would be courtesy of the difference in the ways the two niches took to finally converge to the same conditions. hence, the indus is occupied by folks of the cyprinid family, while rio negro was taken over by the carachins. the fish occupying the two niches have the exact same adaptations to fit in the niche, eg. reduced or absent swim bladder for swift flowing water conditions. BUT, they have differences in characteristics that put them in vastly different families.

now if it was all about placing organisms in their niches, identical niches should have gotten identical organisms irrespective of how they are geographically separated, or the history of formation of the niche.

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *
i suspect palaeontologists would know about shrinkages in bone dimensions with time, and would account for it. even with fossils of 4-5 species spread out over time, we clearly see a gradation in characteristics with time. the older a fossil is, the more it is like a land animal, and the more recent it is, the more it resemble a whale - clearly, progression in characteristics with time. your only viable contention could be, where did these changes come from? were they evolutionary or were they due to other forces? correct me if i am wrong.
[/quote]

another thing that comes to mind is the following:
1 of 2 scenrarios is possible:
animal evolution lags behind environmental evolution: in this case how come we find animals NOW that are optimal adapted to their environment. This shud not be the case. Cus of the lag every animal in every niche shud be sub-optimal to its environment. Clearly, by the time the animal has adapted to its niche, the niche itself has changed.

animal evolution occurs at least at the same speed as environmental evolution:
if this is true then one of my previous arguments comes into contention: how come we NOW don't see any intermediary forms alive? How come we often see the 'end-product', namely the species that is best suited to that environment? For example the elephants. why aren't there intermediaries from e.g. cows to elephants?

[quote]
evolution is a means by which life forms end up being best suited to their environment. evolution does not dictate the environment, and you could say factors which shape the environment play a big role in species development too.
[/quote]

refer to my arguments above

[quote]
evolution isnt faltering around humans. humans have been creating changes in the environment from a relatively short period of time now. eventually evolution will strike a balance with the environment humans create on the planet.
[/quote]

speaking of balance, where is evolution to 'save' the pox virus. A virus that tormented whole populations of humans is now restricted to only two laboratoria in the world, captured in a test tube without any evolution to help it.

[quote]

a cheetah and a shark are extremely specialized animals, with evolutionary paths that branched away a hundred million years ago, if not more. no evolutionist would claim that a cheetah could turn into a shark or vice versa.
[/quote]

so where is the animal connecting these two? when going from the deep waters of the ocean to the mountaneous regions, why isn't there an intermediary form that remained on the wastelands? why have the shark and cheetah evolved, but the intermediary who didn't need to go to the water or mountains dies?

[quote]
ah.. but you see, all these identical niches on different continents developed indepedently over distinct time frames. by the time a freshwater niche in the river Indus turned into conditions identical to those in rio negro in south america, all ready for new inhabitants, the available candidates for mutation were all vastly distinct from the candidates in south america. this would be courtesy of the difference in the ways the two niches took to finally converge to the same conditions. hence, the indus is occupied by folks of the cyprinid family, while rio negro was taken over by the carachins. the fish occupying the two niches have the exact same adaptations to fit in the niche, eg. reduced or absent swim bladder for swift flowing water conditions. BUT, they have differences in characteristics that put them in vastly different families.

now if it was all about placing organisms in their niches, identical niches should have gotten identical organisms irrespective of how they are geographically separated, or the history of formation of the niche.
[/QUOTE]

the ideal experiment wud be to take an animal from its niche and place it in an identical but geographically different niche (a niche where his 'cousin' lives) and see if that animal lasts for long. My gut-feeling says it won't

[hiccup]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
however, MS, in the examples you describe above bacterian will remain bacteria and dogs will remain dogs. I don't see them evolve into a new species. Even after 1000000 generations the meningitisbacterium doesn't transform into the tuberculosis bacterium
[/QUOTE]

There are many examples of things changing species, le t me dig up an example from a text book.

i.e.there is a bird that can be found on american coastal lines, differing only very slightly from one to the next, as the conditions vary, so that by the time you get around the other side of the americas, the first and the last birds are of a different specie all togeather.

There are other examples of marsupials that are thought to have been seperated at the lysis of Panacea, and although there is fossilic evidence in both Africa and Austraila .. the marsupials now present in the respective continenets now have diviated so far from their origins that they too are different species.

It is extremely concieveable, I prescribe to the belief of guided evolution.

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *

i.e.there is a bird that can be found on american coastal lines, differing only very slightly from one to the next, as the conditions vary, so that by the time you get around the other side of the americas, the first and the last birds are of a different specie all togeather.
[/quote]

so which bird is it? and what is the pre-supposed time line? and how hard is the evidence?
conversely, I can say there are two species that have changed hardly over millions of yrs: turtles and crocodiles

[quote]
There are other examples of marsupials that are thought to have been seperated at the lysis of Panacea, and although there is fossilic evidence in both Africa and Austraila .. the marsupials now present in the respective continenets now have diviated so far from their origins that they too are different species.

[/QUOTE]

for these arguments see my posts above

[hiccup]

O and I cant be arsed to red all of the arguing and so forth but there is one major flaw in Nescios argument.

Nessy you are talking about evolution in juxtaposition to the humans influence on it, you can no longer talk about the two in the same context, the nature of the human is such that it is now far removed from all of natures laws. Survival of the fittest (a simple theory that can be illustrated in simple experiments and via a series of observations) no longer applies to us either. Although mutations are prevelent in us too which seems to suggest that no matter how hard we fight it we have the potential for genetic change..

A classic example being of how we actually look after our ill and have provisions for them and make laws and so forth giving them the HUMAN right to procreate, and the sickle cell anemia carriers in africa that have fuond themselves to be remarkably immune or...resistant to Malaria.

You cannot argue that becasue you cannot see visably the evolution of one specific creature, ie if that animal alone is a mystery to you taht the whole theory is flawed, there is way too much evidence for.

Apologies If a) doesnt make sense b) already said before

[hiccup]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *

so which bird is it? and what is the pre-supposed time line? and how hard is the evidence?
conversely, I can say there are two species that have changed hardly over millions of yrs: turtles and crocodiles

for these arguments see my posts above

[/QUOTE]

For the latter...
Ill just assume you are right becasue I have no sight in one eye as I speak :p

As for turtles crocs and our all favourite cocroach, sp, they havnt changed or evolved any further as yet simply becasue there hasnt been a need for it. They are adept in surviving intheir relative habitats and change doesnt happen for the sake of it.

As a side note, the turtle used to have a pointier more curved beak, and it was more aggresive in nature, there are also fossils that suggest the croc too has been subjected to evolutionary change.

want me to dig all this up?

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *

As for turtles crocs and our all favourite cocroach, sp, they havnt changed or evolved any further as yet simply becasue there hasnt been a need for it. They are adept in surviving intheir relative habitats and change doesnt happen for the sake of it.
[/quote]

that's not true. If the crocs/turtles were that adapted why are they almost extinct?

[quote]
As a side note, the turtle used to have a pointier more curved beak, and it was more aggresive in nature, there are also fossils that suggest the croc too has been subjected to evolutionary change.

want me to dig all this up?
[/QUOTE]

yeah, do dig up some of this all

I'll give you another example to ponder upon.

In humans, a lot of mutations are present and their results affect the new-born child. A lot of mutations cause more than one symptom. Most well-known is the down syndrome: along with physical signs there is mental retardation.

Not only with Down's syndrome, but with numerous other mutations we see various combinations of physical signs, and almost always mental retardation. Now if we assume mutations occur randomly along with their effect -an assumption evolution makes- how come we never get to see someone with some weird mutation causing a weird physical symptom -like one eye or a cleft lip or what have you- but with a very high intelligence. You never see that. All people with a very high IQ have a 'normal' physical appearance, unlike their counterparts with a low IQ

[hiccup]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *

that's not true. If the crocs/turtles were that adapted why are they almost extinct?

yeah, do dig up some of this all

I'll give you another example to ponder upon.

In humans, a lot of mutations are present and their results affect the new-born child. A lot of mutations cause more than one symptom. Most well-known is the down syndrome: along with physical signs there is mental retardation.

Not only with Down's syndrome, but with numerous other mutations we see various combinations of physical signs, and almost always mental retardation. Now if we assume mutations occur randomly along with their effect -an assumption evolution makes- how come we never get to see someone with some weird mutation causing a weird physical symptom -like one eye or a cleft lip or what have you- but with a very high intelligence. You never see that. All people with a very high IQ have a 'normal' physical appearance, unlike their counterparts with a low IQ
[/QUOTE]

Yes, mutations in the gamate cells do result sometimes in expression, however many mutations are also silent and lay dormat until such a time comes when they will be favourable, this is not an active process but it is happening. All this "rubbish" DNA for example, there are theories that they are waiting for such a time (not actively of course)
when their expression would be favourable.

I think what you are asking or wondering is why are (these multiple allele mutations that result in a marked change in the phenotype of the daughter) also linked to IQ levels.

I do not think that this is the case. There are many other multiple allele expresions taht are less dehibilitating i.e. albino(ism), this has little or nothing to do with the IQ, I think what you have pulled out is a red herrnig of sorts, I am not aware of the physiology of Downs syndrown but I am sure that there must be something key there which inhibits full brain useage.

Also, we humans are a removed species from evolution, we have granted ourselves status of God so to speak, you will not see any other species taht can willfully stay genetically stagnent.

Having said that, perhaps there are instances, potential environmental change whch would mean that poeple with Downs would have the more favourable characteristics.

However for now, we allow them to live alongside us, the more physiologically "normal".

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *

Yes, mutations in the gamate cells do result sometimes in expression, however many mutations are also silent and lay dormat until such a time comes when they will be favourable, this is not an active process but it is happening. All this "rubbish" DNA for example, there are theories that they are waiting for such a time (not actively of course)
when their expression would be favourable.
[/quote]

how come that whenever a part of this silent DNA does become apparant (like in autosomal recessive disorders) it gives you a phenotype that -at least me- would never want to have myself? Why doesn't it ever produce a desirable phenotype? keep in mind that such mutations give you more than 1 symptom.....and whenever they express themselves it is a combination from which I wouldn't want any one of these symptoms....my questions is: why doesn't it ever produce a combination of symptoms from which I would at least want one of? Why are all these expressions 'negative'.

[quote]
I think what you are asking or wondering is why are (these multiple allele mutations that result in a marked change in the phenotype of the daughter) also linked to IQ levels.

I do not think that this is the case. There are many other multiple allele expresions taht are less dehibilitating i.e. albino(ism), this has little or nothing to do with the IQ, I think what you have pulled out is a red herrnig of sorts, I am not aware of the physiology of Downs syndrown but I am sure that there must be something key there which inhibits full brain useage.
[/quote]

I gave the example of IQ, because the IQ is spread among the population according to a Gaussian curve....however, on the 70 IQ points it shows an increase in cases (= the mentally retarted people due to a mutation). My question is why isn't there an increase around 130 (=the mentally excellent ppl due to 'a' mutation)? Why do mutation have a negative effect and hence cause this asymmetry?

[quote]
Also, we humans are a removed species from evolution, we have granted ourselves status of God so to speak, you will not see any other species taht can willfully stay genetically stagnent.

Having said that, perhaps there are instances, potential environmental change whch would mean that poeple with Downs would have the more favourable characteristics.

However for now, we allow them to live alongside us, the more physiologically "normal".
[/QUOTE]

This brings me back to an argument I mentioned above: Evolution has created a species that undermines its own existence. How weak can a process be? If it cannot keep control in its own hands, but rather gives it away to one of its creations. Clearly in this respect, evolution is weaker than God. At least God is able to keep control in his own hands ;)

[hiccup]

I dont think that all mutations are disadvantageous, you also get children who are born blind (is this genetic?) and yet have an amazingly high IQ.

there was that guy who was incapable of moving his hands due to disability and he painted the most amazing picatures using his feet, the point being that although in survival terms that is not the up there ness (although some schools of thought say that the reason we left the sea was art.....dont ask) ...he was obviously very artistically intelligent.

I believe in god, and I also believe in guided evolution like I said.

Now chorro jaan meri I have to study :p

[blackzero]

to nescio..

umm. life on the planet for only few hundred thousand years?

did the dino's bones got space dropped by aliens to confuse us poor sods?

and mad_scientist..
mud.. is allegorical.. it means made of matter. where is is said adam was made of mud.. its used in comparison to - angels from noor, jinns from fire and humans from matter.

in addition.. where it is said that adam was made of mud.. the tense used is plural for adam.. i.e. not an individual person .. but the species.

as for evolution..
i believe in creation by means of evolution.

with that i sign off for another 6 months or more.

adieu