randman

Before I get too much into the bones between mammals and reptiles, let me ask you something. Why is there not more talk of the needed physiological changes, say from cold-blooded to warm-blooded?
I realize fossils are all we have left, but there should be some assessment, say between these species, on the number and type of mutations needed to change the internal make-up of an animal.
I haven't found hardly anything on that, nor that such dramatic changes can even occur.
When I have the time, I will look into the reptile-to-mammal transition, but keep in mind, I personally think the art example, or something along those lines, is a valid conceptin terms of logically considering why creatures closer together appear similar.

pseudobug

You've seen nothing yet, hezekiahjones.

rantman may be on the verge of telling his story of seeing ordinary dental amalgam turn to gold before his eyes, people speaking in tongues and its significance and the healing power of frauds like Benny Hinn.

Personally, I wish he would follow the advice of his own book, put his faith and Jeebus and drink a big bottle of styrchnine and put himself out of our misery.

hezekiah jones

Well, no shit Sherlock. Try looking in a university library, preferably one with a biology department, instead of your usual creationist websites.

Jack the Bodiless

And all of the available evidence shows that this is wrong. Dogs and wolves are in the same "kind", so are bears if you look a little further back, so are cats, so are all other mammals, so are reptiles and birds... did you know that humans and bananas belong to the same "kind"? Look up "eukaryote" sometime.
Looks like we've witnessed the micro-creation of a creationist out-of-context quote.

Context: there is no way to prove that an intelligent supernatural entity isn't helping evolution along. You strangely forgot to include the remainder of my sentence: "except that some designs appear too clumsy and jury-rigged to be the result of intelligence".
It doesn't. Behe has been thoroughly refuted. "Behe's colossal blunder" (as one critic put it) was his assumption that "irreducible NOW" means "has ALWAYS been irreducible", meaning "could not have evolved step-by-step". His error can easily be seen by substituting a more familiar organ, like the human heart. Take away the heart, or simplify the design in any significant way, and we cannot survive. But other creatures survive very well with simpler hearts or no hearts at all. Even if all creatures with simpler hearts were wiped out, that doesn't suddenly mean that the human heart "could not have evolved".
This is more a product of their own scientific ignorance. Abiogenesis IS actually independent of evolution: it's a separate problem. And yet, when we try to explain this simple fact, which stems directly from the definition of biological evolution, it's a "cover-up"?

Scientific knowledge isn't secret. Most of it is simply presented as fact throughout the lower and middle layers of the education system, simply because it would take too long to fully describe every scientific observation on which that knowledge is based. But those who want to dig deeper can do so.

pseudobug

That won't matter, he has been shown specific examples of those types of data, hezekiah and has been directed to both on-line interpretaions and primary data for the papers describing the work.

eg.
hen's teeth growing when supplied with a mouse hox gene..

the recent nature paper that Jonathan Wells got embarrassed over..

the '96 Melendez paper in concerning the evolution of the TCA cycle...
rantman:
a.) doesn't understand the science behind it nor does he care to..
b.) he will deny it even if he did...
c.) he will claim it is a misrepresentation and sensationalism by eviloutionist and ....

The tried and true rantmanism"
here is a quote out of context from LiesInGenesis to prove it...

Followed by a rapid change of subject or ignoring any rebuttal to his lunacy.

randman

The concept of separating abiogenesis from overall evolutionary theory is an arbitrary one, and it doesn't wash.
Evolutionary theory atates common descent. Therefore, the entire theory of evolution as a whole rests on the idea that abiogenesis occurred.
However, this is a wholly unscientific assertion.
1. We have never observed this happening.
2. It is illogical to assume inanimate mattr can spontaneously form into living matter.

There are no natural means for abiogenesis to occur that we know of. If supernatural means are suggested as plausible for abiogensis, then that renders negating that same means from consideration for evolution to be a false approach.
Fact is abiogenesis is the first step of the evolututionary theory, and unless it can be demonstrated and proved to occur, it casts the entire theory of evolution into doubt.

Dr.GH

That’s about the sum of it. I would reiterate my recommendation of Ian Tattersall’s book, “The Fossil Trail” for his appreciation of the personal/political/scientific context of hominid reconstruction.

Your personal testimony is more impressive in a church than in a debate of science. The statement of opinion by a scientist reflects either their conclusion as to how data modifies theory, or data and theory that is considered “common” (within the domain of discourse)knowledge, or unpublished data which can be presented on demand. If in fact you went
to a school somewhere that used such incompetent textbooks, I guess I can understand your lack of scientific understanding. It must have been a very poor school with textbooks nearly 40 years out of date (you did say the ‘70s didn’t you?).

The picture you are so worked up over is Boule’s original drawing. We have already
noted that 90 years ago Boule made an error, one that was abandoned when more fossil data became accessible. The web page did not resurrect anything. The exact page you quoted from went to some length to point out that Boule was wrong. You had to have read it, and so your protests are not merely misdirected but begin to look like deliberate misrepresentation.

Also it becomes clear that you know as little about abiogenesis as you do about fossils. I for one, will not undertake to educate you as I now feel that it would be a waste of time compared say, to scratching my dogs back or leaning how to play accordion.

Looks better post edit.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

This is a nonsequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Sure, the distinction between possible methods of biogenesis from what happened afterwards is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it's false.

Another nonsequitur. Your conclusion simply doesn't follow from your premises.

Regardless, no one, not even creationists, disputes that abiogenesis occured. The question is whether or not it occurred naturalistically.

Drawing an inference that is itself not directly observed is not unscientific if that inference is drawn from things directly observed. This is simply a straw-man definition of science.

It may be unrandmanlike to believe something that is directly observed, but I doubt it. Do you believe in the resurrection of christ? Did you directly observe it?

&lt;gets out his propositional calculus text&gt; Nope. Nothing in there even talks about life; it's all a bunch of rules for manipulating symbols.

There is evidence that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur; naturalistic abiogenesis has not been found to be impossible.

You need to work on your grammar and clarity. I'm unable to extract an unambiguous meaning from this sentence.

It is impossible by definition for science to determine that terrestrial abiogenesis had a supernatural means. Indeed it is unclear how one can associate the words "plausible" and "supernatural"; if supernaturalism is true, then plausibility doesn't have differential meaning: Everything is plausible.

Again this is a nonsequitur, depending on one's interpretation. This is like saying that unless we have a Theory of Everything, then we don't have any evidence that planes will fly. This is absurd.

More importantly, it is entirely uncontroversial to note that the entire theory of evolution is in doubt. Everything in science is in doubt. That's why we're called skeptics. Everything is checked and checked again, changed and improved from new evidence. Judging from past experience, there will be new evidence that compels us to abandon and reformulate some part of the theory of evolution.

To demand certainty is unscientific; you contradict your own argument.

randman

Well, it has been admitted to that Neanderthals were misrepresented for a long time, and that the false impression still lingers in the public. So DR BS, how long do you propose the error was taught. It is quite easy for you to say something like that didn't happen, but you offer nothing but your opinion, and some BS about science.
Debating textbook errors in this context is not science. You are just full of BS.
You are claiming I am lying without offering any evidence to the contrary.
I also noticed that very few treated the evolutionists here with derision for claiming I made up the story of the scientific community relying on an old man with arthritis.
Basically, the level of disingenuity displayed here is staggering and repulsive.

MrDarwin

Think about this for a minute. What randman is saying is that evolution can't happen, and evolutionary biologists themselves believe it can't happen, if the first life did not have a natural and spontaneous origin. And this is not the case at all. It's quite true that most, and possibly the overwhelming majority, of evolutionary biologists probably believe life had a natural origin on earth. But if we were to introduce a single-celled organism onto a pristine lifeless planet--even if we were to engineer a completely new living organism--evolutionary biologists would fully expect it to evolve over millions of years.