Darwin's Beagle

OK, I'm going to make an assumption that somewhere deep down you are NOT the hapless troll you appear to be and are just saying something that you think is really true.

If this is true, I'm guessing you've read a couple of creationist websites and have become convinced that evolution is an obvious pile of crap. Unfortunately, you have been sadly misled.

thebeast ==
Evolution for quacks...

Who else would believe this nonsense...!

DB=
Not to long ago there was a case brought to the Supreme
Court concerning the teaching of creationism. It was called Epperson v Arkansas. With the make-up of the court it looked as though things were going badly for the evolutionists. In response there was an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief presented on behalf of 72 Nobel Prize winning scientist in support of evolution. That is some of the people who would believe that "nonsense". A poll by Newsweek (IIRC) found 700 people with Ph.D.'s in the life sciences who stated that there was some validity to Creationism. But they also found a total of 450,000 people with Ph.D.'s in the life sciences. That comes out to about 0.15% of the life scientists who profess an affinity for creationism. Guess what the other 99.85% believe. Thus, the vast majority of people who have spent a significant time of their life actually studying the natural world believe in evolution.

thebeast==
There is more quackery in evolution than all the other sciences combined. None of the postulates have been verified by science, and everyone of it's dogmas have been shattered by scientific analysis.

DB=
What makes you think that? There are more papers published in PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals that are supportive of evolutionary theory each year than there is concerning ANY other theory in science. In short, there are few if any theories more firmly established than evolution.

thebeast==
Everytime another brick in the wall of evolution crumbles, it is replaced with another just as false as the previous one, and the circus goes on without ceasing.

DB=
Let me go out another limb here. I'm going to make the assumption that you are referring to claims made by creationists that scientists have disproved evolution only to repent later on. My guess is that the origin of your statement arises from the work of the late Stephen Jay Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium.

If I am correct, this is another example of how you have been sadly misinformed. NeoDarwinian Theory is a complex theory. Like any complex theories there are disagreements about peripheral issues but the CORE of NeoDarwinian Theory is intact and has not been substantially altered since the synthesis by Ernst Mayr, Sewell Wright, JBS Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Simpson, and others in the 1920's to 1950's. The core of the theory concerns (1). Descent with modification -- all organisms have a common ancestor. & (2) Natural selection acting on individuals with genetic variation within a population is an important but not necessarily exclusive mechanism by which this common descent came to be.

Punctuated Equilibrium is at its base an argument for a different means of selection than Natural Selection. In his tome, _The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_ published shortly before his death Gould argues for a type of species selection as the mechanism behind punctuated equilibrium. He goes out of his way to say that this does not lessen the importance of Natural Selection, however.

Thus, what you call a brick crumbling is actually those beliefs being tested. ALL beliefs underlying evolutionary theory are being tested. The core beliefs have held up remarkably well. The peripheral beliefs are doing pretty well too. But there are changes taking place, and in the future there will be more. But that is to be expected from any active area of science.

thebeast==
Nebraska man evolved from the tooth of a pig!

DB=
Actually nothing evolved from a tooth. What you mean of course is that a tooth of a pig (actually a peccary) was mistaken for that of an early human. That is correct. But as others have pointed out to you (1) at NO time in the past, present or future has/is/will Nebraska man been considered a main piece of evidence for evolution. & (2) the peccary's tooth bears a close resemblance to certain human teeth, so it is not surprising that an overzealous scientist could make a mistake. What has not as of yet been pointed out to you is (3) it was science that found and corrected the mistake. That is advantage of science, when things are wrong other investigators following up on the incorrect results will find the mistake -- ie. science is self-correcting.

thebeast==
The big bang is a mathematical and physical impossibility.
yet...quack quack quack.

DB=
What makes you say that? I do not mean any disrespect here, but from the rather curt, dismissive statements you make concerning evolution, I can tell you do not know much about biology. Here you show you do not know much about physics either. The Big Bang cosmology is just about as universally accepted amongst active physicist as evolution is amongst active biologist. Many of those physicists are known for their mathematical prowess. I think I'll trust their word over yours as to the mathematical possibilities of the Big Bang.

thebeast==
And this is taught as the gospel of darwin in every school in America... quack quack quack.

DB=
Er... no. The only thing that is taught as Gospel is that a virgin got impregnated by an omnipotent sky-pixie and gave birth to a son, who got himself killed officially for preaching sedition against Rome, but in reality it was so all humans could join the sky-pixie in a celestial, but non-material mansion after they die.

Evolution is taught as science, which means it is taught as provisionally correct. It can always be changed with the advent of new data.

thebeast==
Can you give one example of evolutionary proof.

DB=
Since in science nothing is ever proved, everything is subject to change with the advent of new data, I guess I would have to say "no". However, if you asking for data that should convince any reasonable person that the core of evolutionary theory is correct, then I would say "NO PROBLEM". The vitamin C story that is mentioned above is one. Here's another.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24 pairs. 22 of the 23 chromosomes in humans pair up nicely with 22 of the 24 pairs of chromosomes in chimpanzees. The upper half other human chromosome (Chromosome 2) pairs up with one of the remaining chimp chromosomes and the bottom half pairs up with the last of the chimp chromosomes.

Thus, it is almost certain that in some ancestor of ours after the split from chimps, these two chromosomes fused. Consistent with that is the presence of two centromere-like segments in Chromosome 2. The centromere is where spindle fibers from the centrioles attach to pull the chromosome to one pole of a dividing cell. Normally there is only one centromer spot in a chromosome.

Also there is a region in the interior of Chromosome 2 in which it looks like two telomers are joined head on. The telomere is normally found on the end of the chromosome. Other than some type of fusion event, it is hard to imagine how these telemetric segments could have occurred.

I'll leave it there for now, but there are thousands of other examples. There are many, many good books out there that have others. Since you are an anti-evolutionist, I'll assume you are a theist (virtually every anti-evolutionist is) perhaps you would be more receptive to a book written by a theist. If so I would recommend _Finding Darwin's God_ by Kenneth R. Miller. Again there is enough information in there to convince any reasonable person that evolution is a healty, useful, and basically correct theory.

thebeast==
One transient specie?

DB=
No problem, see below.


thebeast==
How about the apeman, did you find that one?

DB=
Well, none of these did I find personally, but others did.
Dryopithicus, Sivapithicus, Orrogon, Ardipithicus, Australopithicus, Homo hablis, Homo rudolfolensis (sp?), Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neandthalensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens.

I included Homo sapiens sapiens in that list even though that is us because we are essential apes. Desmond Morris called us the "Naked Ape". Jared Diamond called us the "Third Ape". There is no anatomical, or systematic reason for us not to be included with other apes.

thebeast==
how about the fishman?

DB=
Hmm, let's try this one -- Ichtyostega. It is a good candidate for the common ancestor between fish and land animals.

thebeast==
no, how about the birddog?

DB=
I guess some early reptile would be the most recent common ancestor of those two.

thebeast==
Or the snaketree? Where's that one...?

DB=
That split would have taken place very early, possibly within the protozoans

thebeast==
How about let's say, upside down trees that cross over many stratas of rock... how do you explain that?

DB=
Someone already left you a link to Talk-Origins essay on polystrate fossils. If you want to know the truth you should put in as much time reading things like that as you do reading creationist websites.

thebeast==
Who said radio-isotopes were to begin with pure elements?
Is that a valid assumption to make?

DB=
Since that statement makes no sense when read literally, I'll make a guess that you are doubting the validity of dating by using radionuclides. If you are go URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html]here[/URL] to find a decent discussion on radiometric dating. Read it and make up your mind for yourself.

Regards,

DB

pz

Oh, please. They all are.
No one with any sense or education proposes that your strange chimeras existed, so perhaps they're in the same place as that talking snake in Genesis.
Try this explanation of polystrate trees.
Why, no. Only an idiot would make such an assumption. You might want to read a general overview of dating methods.
So many errors, so much ignorance, and such an arrogant attitude...you have a serious problem here.

It's hard to avoid noticing that you are making a public fool of yourself across multiple fora here at iidb. I strongly suggest that you calm down, focus on something, and ask an intelligent question for a change. You might actually learn something.

happyboy

thebeast, you're easilythe coolest troll i've ever met. you're cooler than amos, who's incomprehensible 99% of the time, and amos is pretty damn cool. keep up the good work, thebeast! you're my hero! :notworthy

Duvenoy

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
And there's duck doo on your pickup truck,
You can bet your bottom buck,
It ain't an armadillo!

Here's a neat list of historical, evolutionary 'quackery.'

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.c...oreandmore.htm

Hope you enjoy it as much as I have.

Edited to add a fascinating link to early tetrapod evolution.

http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio35...res/temno.html

doov

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Um, no. Actually, the reverse is true. So get a clue.
Again, this isn't true in the least.
For the first: SHUT UP.
For the second:
The big bang is NOT a physical nor a mathematical impossiblility. It's been not only mathematically demonstrated (destroying your second premise entirely) but it has been empirically verified in the form of microwave background radiation, our observations of an expanding unvierse, etc.
Read Steven Hawking for a change. Jesus.
You are so full of shit it is hard to imagine a being more foul-smelling.

ksagnostic

Actually, it's "Evolution is STUPID! So THERE! QUACK! QUACK!"

Personally, I don't debate ducks over the internet. I feed them bread crumbs by the pond.

Duvenoy

I'm startin' to feed a little sorry for thebeast. He's got plenty of holler, but not much spit.

I've decided to give him a little much-needed amunition.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

This is a quote miner's mother lode!

Edited to add another link for reptile to mammal evolution, to keep everyone or no one happy.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

doov

sakrilege

My ducks don't like bread crumbs but they do love corn.

JonF

I assume that's some muddled way of asking "who said that rocks solidified with no daughter product?"

In many cases, yes. In many more cases, irrelevant; we don't make that assumption in isochron dating (initial daughtrer poroduct is automatically compensated for). In concordia-discordia dating, we do make that asumption but the method tells us whether or not iis true. The vast majority of dating studies in the last 10 years or so have been one of these two types.

Aethari

Just ignore him. He posted the exact same OP on faithforum.org, then simply ducked out of responding. He's just a drop-and-run troll, and I wouldn't recommend wasting your time with him.

~Aethari