Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Ice Age Civilization


  • Please log in to reply
695 replies to this topic

#586    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:29 AM

View PostArbitran, on 25 October 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

A flood causing large-scale death = Bible now? Where shall we begin... Katrina? There are floods apart from world-drowning ones, you know... In any case, you clearly don't comprehend the concepts presented to you here; carbon-dating in particular.
Ok.


#587    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:17 PM

http://crev.info/201...clock-half-off/

Good info related to human evolution and the fallacy of the conventional evolutionist views.


#588    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:20 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

There are not one or two instances of these but thousands.Do you suggest all the mammoths that we find frozen right now fell in a pit and got frozen?
No.  Are you proposing that falling into a pit is the only way for a mammoth to die?

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

There were no scavengers and other predators eating of the dead mammoths lying around in a pit to be frozen?The explaination of tarpits and blizzards can be cagtegorically discarded.The freezing occured spontaneously hence they are so well preserved and not half eaten by scavengers etc.

The tundra is treacherous.  Some remains were half-eaten.  Others were buried by flash floods, etc.  Not to mention the occasional hole, ready to fall in.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#589    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:35 PM

View PostHarte, on 25 October 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

No.  Are you proposing that falling into a pit is the only way for a mammoth to die?



The tundra is treacherous.  Some remains were half-eaten.  Others were buried by flash floods, etc.  Not to mention the occasional hole, ready to fall in.

Harte
There are very few ways to die which will not leave any proof in the perfectly frozen bodies.


#590    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

There are very few ways to die which will not leave any proof in the perfectly frozen bodies.

And there are many ignorant people that claim that there is no "proof" of why these mammoths died.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#591    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

http://crev.info/201...clock-half-off/

Good info related to human evolution and the fallacy of the conventional evolutionist views.

It's not a fallacy, it's the way science works.  A hypothesis is made based on available information and evidence.  As other information and evidence come to light, the hypothesis is changed.  This discovery, if validated, only pushes back in time when events based on mutation could have occurred.

This not only puts another nail in the coffin of young Earth supporters but does not negatively impact the theory of evolution in any way.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#592    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,380 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:37 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Evolutionist world view regime is you people,proof is not required since it is self-evident.

The links you provide are not even touching the amount of research done on the same subject,there is 150 years of research behind evolution and hence you can imagine the amount of resources and time wasted behind this futille storytelling.There is absolutely no proof for Macroevolution or evolution on a large scale,all these examples are cases of adaptations and variations observed in single cellular bacteria/virus,until there is empirical and experimental proof of class transitions etc,they remain stories.

#1 - Thus, you acknowledge that you have no credible documentation that would support your claim.

#2 - A rather curious response. The references recently supplied deal with the following, in their respective order:

a) The impact of the climatic conditions of the Pleistocene on genetic divergence and speciation.

b) Climatic impact of the Pleistocene/Holocene on the speciation of Amazonian avians.

c) Genetic divergence and speciation in marine species.

d) Environmental impacts on speciation. Note: Observed (multiple species).

e) Documentation for the role of ecological factors in speciation (specifically, stickleback fish). Note: Observed.

f) Genetic evidence regarding factors related the speciation of chimpanzees and H. sapiens/H. sapiens sapiens.

None of the above references are specifically concerned with micro-organisms. They do, however, document numerous examples of speciation.

It should also be noted that you have not chosen to address the well documented research involving the morphological changes related to Zea spp. Despite being provided with numerous related references. Nor have you addressed your apparent "genetics conundrum".

As to your latest (and repeated) request for "experimental proof" of evolution on the class level - This is patently transparent to all. Your initial request for the documentation of speciation has been addressed ad infinitum, as have a number of the mechanisms involved.To imply that class-level changes would be observable (particularly in larger species) in a "laboratory setting" falls beyond the pale. Attempting to shift the course of the discussion beyond the currently understood temporal framework for such evolutionary changes does little to support your understanding of the topic or your credibility.

.


#593    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:03 AM

View PostHarte, on 25 October 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

And there are many ignorant people that claim that there is no "proof" of why these mammoths died.

Harte
There are people who suggest different ways the mammoths could have died,we have to pick and choose.


#594    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM

View PostSwede, on 25 October 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

#1 - Thus, you acknowledge that you have no credible documentation that would support your claim.

#2 - A rather curious response. The references recently supplied deal with the following, in their respective order:

a) The impact of the climatic conditions of the Pleistocene on genetic divergence and speciation.

B) Climatic impact of the Pleistocene/Holocene on the speciation of Amazonian avians.

c) Genetic divergence and speciation in marine species.

d) Environmental impacts on speciation. Note: Observed (multiple species).

e) Documentation for the role of ecological factors in speciation (specifically, stickleback fish). Note: Observed.

f) Genetic evidence regarding factors related the speciation of chimpanzees and H. sapiens/H. sapiens sapiens.

None of the above references are specifically concerned with micro-organisms. They do, however, document numerous examples of speciation.

It should also be noted that you have not chosen to address the well documented research involving the morphological changes related to Zea spp. Despite being provided with numerous related references. Nor have you addressed your apparent "genetics conundrum".

As to your latest (and repeated) request for "experimental proof" of evolution on the class level - This is patently transparent to all. Your initial request for the documentation of speciation has been addressed ad infinitum, as have a number of the mechanisms involved.To imply that class-level changes would be observable (particularly in larger species) in a "laboratory setting" falls beyond the pale. Attempting to shift the course of the discussion beyond the currently understood temporal framework for such evolutionary changes does little to support your understanding of the topic or your credibility.

.

http://crev.info/

http://crev.info/201...-of-innovation/

http://crev.info/201...clock-half-off/

http://crev.info/201...ot-in-the-head/

The above website has many new  articles by evolutionists and their refutations,you can read them for yourself and decide.

Credible documentations to support which claim of mine?
So you agree that you have no empirical/experimental evidence to support macroevolution.

Most of your contentions regarding effect of climate can be reversed and be used to support my theories of devolution.So all the credible stories that you have can be used to suppot devolution.

The references you provided talk  of two completely formed seperate species,all you claim is one evolved from the other without providing any proof for the same.Thats what evolutionists have been doing all along telling stories,finding two completely formed different species and saying one evolved from the other.Why should i or anyone believe any stories told by you or the evolutionists without any experimental/empirical evidence to support such claims of speciation in multicellular animals.

Regarding your claims of observed speciation in the lab in bacteria is only acheived by defining speciation=reproductive isolation,though the new strain of bacteria is still bacteria but only a different strain.

Bacteria are single cellular organism with way lesser complexity compared to multicellular or higher organism.Bacteria's have several modes of exchange of genetic materials including lateral DNA transfer,these processes are not observed in higher animals(incapable of existing as single cellular variants) where reproduction/genetic exchange is commonly through gamete fussion and zygote formation (sexual reproduction).There are a great number of differences between bacteria and say as an index hominids,which i do not need to elaborate.The experimental proof you are trying to provide is with respect to Bacteria,and i am yet not satisfied with equating speciation to reproductive isolation only even for bacteria.Now if you can provide experimental proof of a bacteria evolving into a different family or suddenly becoming multicellular then it would be reasonable to extrapolate that evolution did happen,other then that this is still all baloney and a farcry from justifying the claims of Evolutionist.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 26 October 2012 - 07:31 AM.


#595    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:01 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

http://crev.info/

http://crev.info/201...-of-innovation/

http://crev.info/201...clock-half-off/

http://crev.info/201...ot-in-the-head/

The above website has many new  articles by evolutionists and their refutations,you can read them for yourself and decide.

Finally you're not reading an overtly creationist site; though of course there are many, many creationists there.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Credible documentations to support which claim of mine?
So you agree that you have no empirical/experimental evidence to support macroevolution.

He did not agree to any such thing. You have been given numerous examples of evidence for speciation/etc., which, unsurprisingly, you simply ignored. Again.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Most of your contentions regarding effect of climate can be reversed and be used to support my theories of devolution.So all the credible stories that you have can be used to suppot devolution.

There is no such thing as "devolution". How absurd.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

The references you provided talk  of two completely formed seperate species,all you claim is one evolved from the other without providing any proof for the same.

Yes, they are completely formed, separate species. All species are. That's precisely what evolution expects to find. That doesn't change the fact that species evolve and speciate, which is undeniable to anyone even slightly familiar with genetics (or any number of other scientific fields for that matter).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Thats what evolutionists have been doing all along telling stories,finding two completely formed different species and saying one evolved from the other.Why should i or anyone believe any stories told by you or the evolutionists without any experimental/empirical evidence to support such claims of speciation in multicellular animals.

Speciation diverging one species from another has been documented and achieved in the laboratory numerous times, and you have been provided with examples of several of these events; of course, you simply ignored them. It's really starting to ******* irritate me. Anyone can go and look at the evidence, the experiments, etc., and we've even been kind enough to do the work for you and just give you examples; and yet you show no signs of ever having read any of them, and just say the same mis-/ill-informed inanities over and over again. It doesn't make me view you as a generally-cognizant person.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Regarding your claims of observed speciation in the lab in bacteria is only acheived by defining speciation=reproductive isolation,though the new strain of bacteria is still bacteria but only a different strain.

That is the definition of speciation. The experiments never expected to get anything other than bacteria; that you seem to have convinced yourself otherwise is simple creationist propaganda at work, once again.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Bacteria are single cellular organism with way lesser complexity compared to multicellular or higher organism.Bacteria's have several modes of exchange of genetic materials including lateral DNA transfer,these processes are not observed in higher animals(incapable of existing as single cellular variants) where reproduction/genetic exchange is commonly through gamete fussion and zygote formation (sexual reproduction).There are a great number of differences between bacteria and say as an index hominids,which i do not need to elaborate.The experimental proof you are trying to provide is with respect to Bacteria,and i am yet not satisfied with equating speciation to reproductive isolation only even for bacteria.Now if you can provide experimental proof of a bacteria evolving into a different family or suddenly becoming multicellular then it would be reasonable to extrapolate that evolution did happen,other then that this is still all baloney and a farcry from justifying the claims of Evolutionist.

Your shifting of the goal posts is just childish; you invent your own definitions of speciation and evolution, and then deem them false and impossible. Fortunately, science doesn't use your definitions of either. Speciation is defined as the origin of a new species; in other words, the origin of a new breeding group of organisms, which cannot interbreed with other groups (a.k.a., the definition of species). Evolution does not predict the sudden emergence of new families, or of multicellular from unicellular organisms; those sorts of changes take many many millions of years. We don't have millions of years to do experiments, do we? And you're still looking at things in a very rigid taxonomic way; as we've tried to explain (yet you have ignored), taxonomy with invented by humans specifically to categorize and organize the otherwise dizzying diversity of Earth life into something a bit more convenient and comprehensible. Not only don't you seem to comprehend taxonomy, but your grasp of its actual scope and application is pitifully deficient.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#596    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,380 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:12 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 26 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

http://crev.info/

http://crev.info/201...-of-innovation/

http://crev.info/201...clock-half-off/

http://crev.info/201...ot-in-the-head/

The above website has many new  articles by evolutionists and their refutations,you can read them for yourself and decide.

Credible documentations to support which claim of mine?
So you agree that you have no empirical/experimental evidence to support macroevolution.

Most of your contentions regarding effect of climate can be reversed and be used to support my theories of devolution.So all the credible stories that you have can be used to suppot devolution.

The references you provided talk  of two completely formed seperate species,all you claim is one evolved from the other without providing any proof for the same.Thats what evolutionists have been doing all along telling stories,finding two completely formed different species and saying one evolved from the other.Why should i or anyone believe any stories told by you or the evolutionists without any experimental/empirical evidence to support such claims of speciation in multicellular animals.

Regarding your claims of observed speciation in the lab in bacteria is only acheived by defining speciation=reproductive isolation,though the new strain of bacteria is still bacteria but only a different strain.

Bacteria are single cellular organism with way lesser complexity compared to multicellular or higher organism.Bacteria's have several modes of exchange of genetic materials including lateral DNA transfer,these processes are not observed in higher animals(incapable of existing as single cellular variants) where reproduction/genetic exchange is commonly through gamete fussion and zygote formation (sexual reproduction).There are a great number of differences between bacteria and say as an index hominids,which i do not need to elaborate.The experimental proof you are trying to provide is with respect to Bacteria,and i am yet not satisfied with equating speciation to reproductive isolation only even for bacteria.Now if you can provide experimental proof of a bacteria evolving into a different family or suddenly becoming multicellular then it would be reasonable to extrapolate that evolution did happen,other then that this is still all baloney and a farcry from justifying the claims of Evolutionist.

Re: CEH references - The attempts by this source (which, as Arbitran noted, has a distinct creationist bent) to "reinterpret" qualified studies are not well framed and suffer from notably selective quoting. Quaentum has already addressed some of the flaws in the "interpretation" of the recent article by Gibbon (2012). Let us investigate one of your other selections, that of Smaers, et. al., 2012.

How long have evolutionists told us that our relative brain size gave us the fitness edge as we evolved from apes?  That assumption has been called into question by Jeroen B. Smaers and four European colleagues in a new paper in PNAS (Smaers et al., “Comparative analyses of evolutionary rates reveal different pathways to encephalization in bats, carnivorans, and primates,” PNAS October 15, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212181109). (Emphases added).

a) The paper deals with different pathways to encephalization amongst different groups. This does not negate the evolutionary advantages of increased cranial capacity/enhanced neural function in the primate line. It should also be noted that cranial capacity alone is not the sole marker of intelligence.

“When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence, the assumption has always been that this measure is primarily driven by changes in brain size. It now appears that the relationship between changes in brain and body size in animals is more complex than has long been assumed." (Smaers, et. al. 2012) (Emphasis added).

a) The "interpreters" of this paper attempt to alter the readers perception of the information presented. The point that the authors are making is in regards to the body mass/cranial capacity ratio and factors involved in the evolution of this ratio.

Brain size and body size interact in evolution, they claim, and interact differently in bats, carnivores, and primates. (Smaers, et. al. 2012) (Emphasis added).

a) No great mystery here.

It’s possible, as with some species of bats, that evolution favored some species with smaller bodies to improve maneuverability, while leaving brain size intact. (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

a) Also no great mystery and quite in keeping with the effect of environmental pressures on selection.

“Considering that one-way tradeoff mechanisms are unlikely to provide satisfactory evolutionary explanations,” they wrote, “we introduce an analytical framework that describes and quantifies all possible evolutionary scenarios between two traits.” (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

a) And yet again, no mystery. Ongoing research is further defining the interactive nature of evolutionary processes. This in no way negates evolutionary theory, as supported by the following:

Our approach allows a more detailed interpretation of correlated trait evolution and variation in the underlying evolutionary pathways.” (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

Can go on. The attempt by the CEH fails with its own quotations.

Now, to your queries regarding macroevolution. First, it would appear that you may be deriving your understanding of the usage of this term from your creationist sources. John S. Wilkins (PhD, Bond University, Queensland) presents a rather nice summary of the history and utilization of the term in this 1997/2006 article. While he does note some degree of discrepancy in the utilization of the term in some of the professional literature, he observes the following:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. (Wilkins 2006) (Underlining added).

http://www.talkorigi...oevolution.html

As you have already been provided with quite numerous documentations related to speciation, your argument in this regard is moot. As to the evidence of species relationships, one need only look to the genetic and morphological data.

For further documentation of "macroevolution" in multicellular organisms (including bats), please consult the following:

http://digitalcommon...ution evidence"

http://bio.fsu.edu/~...eginandRoff.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/...6/22/12626.full

http://jeb.biologist...8/1099.full.pdf

In regards to credible documentation on your part - You have yet to provide said documentation to support your suggestion of an "evolutionist world view regime".

Edit: Additional reference.

Edited by Swede, 28 October 2012 - 10:26 PM.


#597    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM

View PostArbitran, on 28 October 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Finally you're not reading an overtly creationist site; though of course there are many, many creationists there.



He did not agree to any such thing. You have been given numerous examples of evidence for speciation/etc., which, unsurprisingly, you simply ignored. Again.



There is no such thing as "devolution". How absurd.



Yes, they are completely formed, separate species. All species are. That's precisely what evolution expects to find. That doesn't change the fact that species evolve and speciate, which is undeniable to anyone even slightly familiar with genetics (or any number of other scientific fields for that matter).



Speciation diverging one species from another has been documented and achieved in the laboratory numerous times, and you have been provided with examples of several of these events; of course, you simply ignored them. It's really starting to ******* irritate me. Anyone can go and look at the evidence, the experiments, etc., and we've even been kind enough to do the work for you and just give you examples; and yet you show no signs of ever having read any of them, and just say the same mis-/ill-informed inanities over and over again. It doesn't make me view you as a generally-cognizant person.



That is the definition of speciation. The experiments never expected to get anything other than bacteria; that you seem to have convinced yourself otherwise is simple creationist propaganda at work, once again.



Your shifting of the goal posts is just childish; you invent your own definitions of speciation and evolution, and then deem them false and impossible. Fortunately, science doesn't use your definitions of either. Speciation is defined as the origin of a new species; in other words, the origin of a new breeding group of organisms, which cannot interbreed with other groups (a.k.a., the definition of species). Evolution does not predict the sudden emergence of new families, or of multicellular from unicellular organisms; those sorts of changes take many many millions of years. We don't have millions of years to do experiments, do we? And you're still looking at things in a very rigid taxonomic way; as we've tried to explain (yet you have ignored), taxonomy with invented by humans specifically to categorize and organize the otherwise dizzying diversity of Earth life into something a bit more convenient and comprehensible. Not only don't you seem to comprehend taxonomy, but your grasp of its actual scope and application is pitifully deficient.
There is nothing like "evolution" how absurd.
Please restate the examples of speciation observed in laboratory,if there was such a thing happening then there would no debate (mind you i do not consider only temporary reproductive isolation in the same species of bacteria to count as speciation)
I have not shifted any goal posts, i am only asking for empirical evidence for what evolutionists claim themselves.They observe variation and extrapolate it to speciation and class transitions etc,all i am saying is no one has ever seen it happen or probably will be seeing it happen because it doesn't happen not because of the 'billions of years' stupidity.
I am not impacted by creationist or evolutionist propoganda,of which the latter is more prominent.I am not a Christian or a Young Earth creationist so there is no reason for me to be biased to creationist propoganda,but when they put up perfectly scientific objections to the conventional views of evolution that mirror my own objections,i have no issue in refering to info put by them.
I didn't have these doubts about evolution after reading creationist propoganda but i developed doubts after i studied Cell Biology,Molecular Biology,Biochemistry and Genetics (these hardly qualify as creationist propoganda).I am not so easy to influence.


#598    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:21 AM

View PostSwede, on 28 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

Re: CEH references - The attempts by this source (which, as Arbitran noted, has a distinct creationist bent) to "reinterpret" qualified studies are not well framed and suffer from notably selective quoting. Quaentum has already addressed some of the flaws in the "interpretation" of the recent article by Gibbon (2012). Let us investigate one of your other selections, that of Smaers, et. al., 2012.

How long have evolutionists told us that our relative brain size gave us the fitness edge as we evolved from apes?  That assumption has been called into question by Jeroen B. Smaers and four European colleagues in a new paper in PNAS (Smaers et al., “Comparative analyses of evolutionary rates reveal different pathways to encephalization in bats, carnivorans, and primates,” PNAS October 15, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212181109). (Emphases added).

a) The paper deals with different pathways to encephalization amongst different groups. This does not negate the evolutionary advantages of increased cranial capacity/enhanced neural function in the primate line. It should also be noted that cranial capacity alone is not the sole marker of intelligence.

“When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence, the assumption has always been that this measure is primarily driven by changes in brain size. It now appears that the relationship between changes in brain and body size in animals is more complex than has long been assumed." (Smaers, et. al. 2012) (Emphasis added).

a) The "interpreters" of this paper attempt to alter the readers perception of the information presented. The point that the authors are making is in regards to the body mass/cranial capacity ratio and factors involved in the evolution of this ratio.

Brain size and body size interact in evolution, they claim, and interact differently in bats, carnivores, and primates. (Smaers, et. al. 2012) (Emphasis added).

a) No great mystery here.

It’s possible, as with some species of bats, that evolution favored some species with smaller bodies to improve maneuverability, while leaving brain size intact. (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

a) Also no great mystery and quite in keeping with the effect of environmental pressures on selection.

“Considering that one-way tradeoff mechanisms are unlikely to provide satisfactory evolutionary explanations,” they wrote, “we introduce an analytical framework that describes and quantifies all possible evolutionary scenarios between two traits.” (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

a) And yet again, no mystery. Ongoing research is further defining the interactive nature of evolutionary processes. This in no way negates evolutionary theory, as supported by the following:

Our approach allows a more detailed interpretation of correlated trait evolution and variation in the underlying evolutionary pathways.” (Smaers, et. al. 2012).

Can go on. The attempt by the CEH fails with its own quotations.

Now, to your queries regarding macroevolution. First, it would appear that you may be deriving your understanding of the usage of this term from your creationist sources. John S. Wilkins (PhD, Bond University, Queensland) presents a rather nice summary of the history and utilization of the term in this 1997/2006 article. While he does note some degree of discrepancy in the utilization of the term in some of the professional literature, he observes the following:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. (Wilkins 2006) (Underlining added).

http://www.talkorigi...oevolution.html

As you have already been provided with quite numerous documentations related to speciation, your argument in this regard is moot. As to the evidence of species relationships, one need only look to the genetic and morphological data.

For further documentation of "macroevolution" in multicellular organisms (including bats), please consult the following:

http://digitalcommon...ution evidence"

http://bio.fsu.edu/~...eginandRoff.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/...6/22/12626.full

http://jeb.biologist...8/1099.full.pdf

In regards to credible documentation on your part - You have yet to provide said documentation to support your suggestion of an "evolutionist world view regime".

Edit: Additional reference.
Look at yourself in the mirror and repeat what you believe regarding evolution,and you will have ample proof for the 'evolutionist world view regime'.

And swede 'Macro evolution' in multicellualr animals' has never been observed,the articles you posted don't have an ounce of empirical experimental proof i.e they are stories weaved by evolutionists,remove your evolution glasses and read the same articles you posted.(assume you are skeptical of evolution and read the same article and ask yourself whether this sort of proof is enough?)


#599    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:22 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

There is nothing like "evolution" how absurd.

How childish. Kindly grow up, just long enough to write out a coherent, meaningful response.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Please restate the examples of speciation observed in laboratory,if there was such a thing happening then there would no debate (mind you i do not consider only temporary reproductive isolation in the same species of bacteria to count as speciation)
I have not shifted any goal posts, i am only asking for empirical evidence for what evolutionists claim themselves.

Go back and read everything I, Swede... basically everyone has told you. And don't ignore it all this time; you might actually learn something. And there isn't any debate, at all. Your case is utterly untenable, founded on the ethereal, vacuous base of creationist propaganda. In science, there is no debate at all. Also, how do you define "species"? It is overwhelmingly obvious that you aren't using the scientific definition; I defined its real meaning for you in my last post, but it's obvious you ignored that. And yes, you have shifted the goal posts, numerous times. An example:

You: 'Show me an example of speciation.'

Us: [gives several examples of speciation]

You: 'I don't think that reproductive isolation is the same as speciation.'

Newsflash: Speciation = Reproductive Isolation

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

They observe variation and extrapolate it to speciation and class transitions etc,all i am saying is no one has ever seen it happen or probably will be seeing it happen because it doesn't happen not because of the 'billions of years' stupidity.

False. Yes, variation is an integral part of evolutionary change; after a certain amount of variation, one arrives at the point of speciation, a.k.a., reproductive isolation.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

I am not impacted by creationist or evolutionist propoganda,of which the latter is more prominent.I am not a Christian or a Young Earth creationist so there is no reason for me to be biased to creationist propoganda,but when they put up perfectly scientific objections to the conventional views of evolution that mirror my own objections,i have no issue in refering to info put by them.

I never suggested that you were a Christian, a Young Earth Creationist, or indeed a creationist of any sort; but it is beyond doubt that your entire personal memeplex with regards to evolution is skewed due to the immense influence of your affair with creationist propaganda.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

I didn't have these doubts about evolution after reading creationist propoganda but i developed doubts after i studied Cell Biology,Molecular Biology,Biochemistry and Genetics (these hardly qualify as creationist propoganda).I am not so easy to influence.

You have not studied any of the biological subjects you claim to have; or else you would likely have at least a remedial comprehension of them. You don't. Plain and simple. Your thoughts on biology as a whole are entirely misinformed, and very clearly due in no small part to your penchant for creationist sites.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#600    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:24 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Look at yourself in the mirror and repeat what you believe regarding evolution,and you will have ample proof for the 'evolutionist world view regime'.

And swede 'Macro evolution' in multicellualr animals' has never been observed,the articles you posted don't have an ounce of empirical experimental proof i.e they are stories weaved by evolutionists,remove your evolution glasses and read the same articles you posted.(assume you are skeptical of evolution and read the same article and ask yourself whether this sort of proof is enough?)

Define 'macro-evolution'. Given it isn't a scientific term, and creationists invented it (and happen to give a slew of contradictory definitions of it), you'll need to give us an idea of what you want.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users