Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheCosmicMind

Ice Age Civilization

696 posts in this topic

What a ridiculous presumption. No, creatures trapped in tar pits, or buried by mudslides, needn't have stomachs full of mud or tar.

Ok.They were probably wearing face masks so the Tar and Mud wouldn't go in when they were drowning in it.You are the one pressuming not me. Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not based on observing variation and extrapolating it to evolution and then telling stories of how one species evolved from the other either.Be scientific be empirical don't tell stories of monkeys/ape like ancestors divurging(turn into) men if you have not seen it happening.

You seem to have a dislike of extrapolation which is unfounded. In any case, evolutionary biology today makes very few extrapolations. And again, you don't need to see something happen directly to know about it scientifically (did you not understand the Pluto orbital example I gave earlier?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.They were probably wearing face masks so the Tar and Mud wouldn't go in when they were drowning in it.

When did I suggest that they drowned in tar? Sure they might have effectively drowned/asphyxiated in mud, or possibly in tar, but that would only require the block of air to their lungs, not the filling of their stomach with the substances in question.

You're also neglecting the ice lake scenario.

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have a dislike of extrapolation which is unfounded. In any case, evolutionary biology today makes very few extrapolations. And again, you don't need to see something happen directly to know about it scientifically (did you not understand the Pluto orbital example I gave earlier?).

Pluto is in space and not easily observable but a monkey turning into a man right here on earth is a pretty observable event,so if it happens we can see it and there is absolutely no need to believe it until you see it,unless you wan't to be unscientific and listen to stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pluto is in space and not easily observable but a monkey turning into a man right here on earth is a pretty observable event,so if it happens we can see it and there is absolutely no need to believe it until you see it,unless you wan't to be unscientific and listen to stories.

You've misunderstood the example, as I thought. Pluto takes more than two-hundred years to orbit the sun, and we have only known about it for eighty years; evolutionary changes of the magnitude you are fixated upon take hundreds of thousands of years to millions or billions of years; ergo, much longer than we've been watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've misunderstood the example, as I thought. Pluto takes more than two-hundred years to orbit the sun, and we have only known about it for eighty years; evolutionary changes of the magnitude you are fixated upon take hundreds of thousands of years to millions or billions of years; ergo, much longer than we've been watching.

Pluto is non-living and far away from earth,it's orbit is calculated by it's velocity and the curvature of it's orbit.You claim evoution happens on earth and one species gives rise to another,i have never seen it happen,have you?

We can still observe pluto progressing in a orbit and we can make measurements regarding it's orbital period any number of times,can you do the same with evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pluto is non-living and far away from earth,it's orbit is calculated by it's velocity and the curvature of it's orbit.You claim evoution happens on earth and one species gives rise to another,i have never seen it happen,have you?

We can still observe pluto progressing in a orbit and we can make measurements regarding it's orbital period any number of times,can you do the same with evolution?

The answer to both of your questions is yes.

  1. I have personally been involved in speciation experimentation.
  2. Evolution (though a bit less predictable in nature than Pluto's orbit), is perfectly measurable and predictable: predictable in the sense that, as I've said, it is utterly inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the number of finds to the percentage of area excavated,then probably we can estimate how many frozen mammoths would actually be there in the region.Either ways even the bones add to the mystery since we don't know what could have wiped so many out in such a scattered manner.The bones should be checked for predator marks,or it would be safe to assume that even they died spontaneously and not because of predators.

From the same wikipedia mammoth article:

" Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths, with much soft tissue remaining, have been found in the northern parts of Siberia and Alaska. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt, mud and icy water, which then froze. This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. The evidence of undigested food in the stomach and seed pods still in the mouth of many of the specimens suggests neither starvation nor exposure are likely. The maturity of this ingested vegetation places the time period in autumn rather than in spring when flowers would be expected.[39] The animals may have fallen through ice into small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods. In one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 8,000 bones from at least 140 individual mammoths have been found in a single spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.[40][41]"

Extend the example to bodies found of other animals, including man. Corpses practically litter the countryside but we have no reason to assume a single common cause.

If one reads further, one finds that the various mammoths vary considerably in age via carbon dating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth#Frozen_remains

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same wikipedia mammoth article:

" Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths, with much soft tissue remaining, have been found in the northern parts of Siberia and Alaska. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt, mud and icy water, which then froze. This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. The evidence of undigested food in the stomach and seed pods still in the mouth of many of the specimens suggests neither starvation nor exposure are likely. The maturity of this ingested vegetation places the time period in autumn rather than in spring when flowers would be expected.[39] The animals may have fallen through ice into small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods. In one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 8,000 bones from at least 140 individual mammoths have been found in a single spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.[40][41]"

Extend the example to bodies found of other animals, including man. Corpses practically litter the countryside but we have no reason to assume a single common cause.

If one reads further, one finds that the various mammoths vary considerably in age via carbon dating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth#Frozen_remains

We have no reason to assume multiple causes also.Either ways the article reaffirms that they had frozen spontaneously without much exposure or they didn't die due to starvation.Also whatever the scale of the calamity was there was a calamity.Mammoths may have been flash frozen or died due to dramatic climatic changes over a very short period of time.The "may" word stands out through out the paragraph you posted.

I don't buy that mammoths were very stupid and a lot of them used to fall through the ice or in tarpits and get frozen without having any traces of tar to suppose so.Any which ways the excerpt highlights many options but excludes a very prominent one so i think it is baised.

Carbon dating lol.......nevermind........though the article does touch on a flood causing this large scale deaths..........bible anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no reason to assume multiple causes also.Either ways the article reaffirms that they had frozen spontaneously without much exposure or they didn't die due to starvation.Also whatever the scale of the calamity was there was a calamity.Mammoths may have been flash frozen or died due to dramatic climatic changes over a very short period of time.The "may" word stands out through out the paragraph you posted.

I don't buy that mammoths were very stupid and a lot of them used to fall through the ice or in tarpits and get frozen without having any traces of tar to suppose so.Any which ways the excerpt highlights many options but excludes a very prominent one so i think it is baised.

Carbon dating lol.......nevermind........though the article does touch on a flood causing this large scale deaths..........bible anyone?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=museummammalogy&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D30%26q%3Dmacroevolution%2Bevidence%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C24#search=%22macroevolution%20evidence%22

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing like "evolution" how absurd.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.