Chicken? or the egg??!!

[Varda Oiolosseo]

the egg...no the chicken! Oh I don't know!
This sort of question drives me mad!

[Elf.Freak]

the egg! (ie. The Bible says so and, in scientific terms, the dinosoars!)
whenever someone asked me this question, most of the time i say 'Sput-nick!'

[Wayfarer]

Evidence for evolution has been provided by paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, biochemistry, moleculargenetics, and other biological disciplines

Afro elf, as I said before, anyone can make an assertion without the evidence to back it up. By this same token, anyone can claim to have evidence without the difficulty of showing any.

For example: 'Modern science has shown that darwinian or neo-darwinian evolution is impossible.'
See? I didn't provide evidence. Shall I do so now?

Biogenesis-Life can only come from life.
Mutation-genes in nature can only be deleted, duplicated, or randomized, not added.
Genetics-There is a limit to the amount of genetic change any species can undergo before further change becomes impossible.

There. I have responded to your broad assertations with specefic examples.

But I'm curious as to the disciplines you think support evolution. Shall we take a closer look?

Paleontology:
I'll leave this one to my good friend Richard Leaky, who says-

...either we throw out the fossil record or we throw out evolution...

Now, isn't that a strange thing for a paleontologist to say?

comparative anatomy:
Is wholly arbitrary and provides evidence for whatever you want it to. Not to mention that similarity does not imply relation.

biogeography:
is almost as bad, because it relies primarily on a preconceived notion on how animals evolved.

Embryology:
I cannot describe my shock to here you cite this as 'evidence' Embryology has long since been discredited as evidence for evolution.

Biochemistry:
Has shown some surprising links... for example, human lysome is closer to chicken lysome than it is to any primate.

Molecular genetics:
Has failed to support evolution, especially when attempts hav ebeen made to draw an evolutionary tree based on genetic data.

Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought.

Genetic studies dissagree with both morphology and biochemistry.


The fact of the matter is you're without proof. Give some evidence for abiogenesis. Give me and example of a mutation adding information. Give me one fossil sequence that unambiguously shows evolution. Come on, fork over something other than blanket statements.

Or better yet, since I started out talking about birds, detail for me how a lizard's scales can become feathers, or it's lungs become a bird's lungs. You can't, can you?

You also misunderstand what I said about transitional fossils. During the past century we have been presented with a steady stream of so-called 'transitional fossils'. These fall into three categories. 1) Mistakes 2) Fakes and 3) Ambiguious fossils. I hope you can understand why I'm skeptical about what seems to be merely the latest in a long line of 'transitionals' that were quickly disproved.

Having read your link, I would like to direct you to this site you should find it very informative.

But then, we're off topic, aren't we? Out of respect for blackboar's original intentions for this thread, do you think we could move our discussion to another thread or, better yet, private messages?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

I'll leave this one to my good friend Richard Leaky, who says-
Now, isn't that a strange thing for a paleontologist to say?

You might wanna read that quote in context to the rest of what he was saying.

[Wayfarer]

Do I ever!

If you can find it for me, I'd me much oblidged.

But here's a quote I can place for you:

the two outstanding facts of the fossil record-geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter.
S. J. Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, page 259

[afro-elf]

Mutation-genes in nature can only be deleted, duplicated, or randomized, not added

mutations can be caused by a change in the structure of a gene, the arrangement of genes on a chromosome or a abnormality in the number of chromosomes

during meiosis random combination produces variation


the statement "added" is ambigous. Thomas Hunt Morgan studied the Drosphila ( fruit fly) used to have a pure breed of red eyed flies. In that batch suddenly there appeared a white eyed flies. Sionce that time there have been hundreds of fruit fly mutations.

Does this mean that white eyes were added to the fly?

animals evolve by building upon what is already there, either by modifying existing characteristics or evolving new ones that add to the overall package. They are not something "else," but modified forms of what came before, right down to the retention of the "primitive" DNA sequences that are switched off by, or their effects modified by, new sequences.

Biogenesis-Life can only come from life.

What about the miller/urey and juan oro experiements?

these produced amino acids and adenine from the inorganic

Genetics-There is a limit to the amount of genetic change any species can undergo before further change becomes impossible.

Why should this be so? I guess that could some limit to the way things could be recombined during meiosis. But why should it have to be a change or two. Even the simple organizisms have hundreds of genes.

comparative anatomy:

Is wholly arbitrary and provides evidence for whatever you want it to. Not to mention that similarity does not imply relation.

maybe if you are using Linnean Taxonomy. but that is for general use but is no longer adequate for "higher" use., a new science of taxonomy called Phylogenetic Taxonomy is in use today.

biogeography:

is almost as bad, because it relies primarily on a preconceived notion on how animals evolved.

Then how do you example the modren camel? With these:

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species

You can track the change in the species through time and location.
It is what the evidences supports through consilence.

Embryology:

cannot describe my shock to here you cite this as 'evidence' Embryology has long since been discredited as evidence for evolution.

I am NOT saying that an animals recapitulates the whole of its evolution. THIS statement as long be discredited. It is that organisms develop in similar ways is what it says.

human embryos develope the same way as fish
[

Molecular genetics:

Has failed to support evolution, especially when attempts hav ebeen made to draw an evolutionary tree based on genetic data.

[

Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology.

older, classical evaluations maybe because they are older classical evaluations

[afro-elf]

QUOTE]The fact of the matter is you're without proof.[/QUOTE]

Give some evidence for abiogenesis

Done. see above.

Give me and example of a mutation adding information

Done. see above. Who say has to "add information"

Basically
it is hard to prove a theory beyond
doubt. The approach many scientists take is to try to disprove a theory.
That way they know it is false. Evolution is a theory that has not yet been
disproved.

Evolution, in this context, is how life in general changes over
time. There is little doubt that life on earth has changed over time.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species

There are two
large lines of evidence to support this theory. The first is fossils. The
other is HOMOLOGY.
Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that
they do not use because they do not walk. They probably evolved from mammals
that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called Pakicetus
that has more developed rear legs. Older whales should look more like their
ancestors if evolution is correct. Without evolution, we could not understand
why whales have hip bones.

Homology
It means
that two structures are similar because they are related genetically. If two
structures are similar but not related then they are only analogous. The
wings of birds and insects are analogous. They both are used to fly, but in
different ways. They are not related animals. Many differences between their
structures make this apparent to the keen observer. But the wing of a bat and


the wing of a bird are homologous. They both contain the same bones. Both
have an upper arm bone (humerus), both have a radius and ulna (lower arm
bones), and both have wrist bones and metacarpals and digits


at one time inscest, birds and bats were classified together

Evolution will never be proven true because we can not know for sure.
But by using the scientific method, we can make a good guess, based on careful
observations of the earth as it exists today.


you can not prove anything but you can gather a preponderance of evidence and make an assumption


scientist do not debate is evolution "fact" using the scientific defination not the layman's . They debate the how's of hows

How can some people try to prove that their theory is right mostly by trying
to put down a competing theory? Evolutionists do not try to prove their theory
by disproving "Special Creation"; they look at nature, and try to understand
why she is the way she is. Creation "scientists", you will all notice, mostly
try to disprove the idea of evolution, thinking that if evolution is put down,
only their "special creation" is there to replace it.
No Mister! This is not the way science is done! A theory must stand by itself
facing Nature, it must not depend on the competing theory's demise!!!!!!
And this, my friends, is another argument in thinking that Creation Science is
no science at all...

There is no proof for evolution". True, but proof does not exist in science. Nothing is ever proved, only accepted because of the overwhelming evidence for it. No theory is ever proved, but the evidence is remarkably in favour of evolution. There are gaps in everything, but the least gaps are found in evolution theory.
Since the origin of the universe and formation of life
occurred in the unobservable past, they are not subject to
the scientific method"

The past leaves traces. Those traces are observed, analysed,
etc. Some make conjectures about what those traces tell us
about the past, and make falsifiable predictions about them,
which in turn can be tested to be false or not; if false, the
conjectures are inapropriate; if true, they are acceptable for
now. That way, we gain knowledge of the past without
reasonable limits, although it is (and ever will be) an
imperfect knowledge of it.

[afro-elf]

the two outstanding facts of the fossil record-geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter.

as for the latter see my above about the fruit flight.


as for the link I think that a lot of the stuff there especially about the age of the earth and dating methods have been successfully defended here on the moot several times.

I found it to be full of creationist sophistry

[Legolas_is_fit]

I think the chicken came first because chickens lay eggs and eggs dont

now im making my self confused

[Blackboar]

duh!!

[Earniel]

The egg.

Paleontology:I'll leave this one to my good friend Richard Leaky, who says-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...either we throw out the fossil record or we throw out evolution...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, isn't that a strange thing for a paleontologist to say?

*sigh* We've been here before. You used the same argument in the theism-thread and BoP and I answered to it. It's Leakey by the way....

[Laurelyn]

The egg came first. Of course, it was a dinosaur egg.
*What???*
Well, we never said it was a chicken egg!

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Eärniel
The egg.



*sigh* We've been here before. You used the same argument in the theism-thread and BoP and I answered to it. It's Leakey by the way....

My dear chocolate loving friend what was the reply from you and Bop

[Lanelf]

I reckon it was the egg because:
Something else like a duck or whatever could have laid an egg that wasn't like the rest of it's eggs and so it became a chicken in a flock (or whatever they're called) of ducks!
*look proud at my deductive reasoning skills*
Lanelf.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf
My dear chocolate loving friend what was the reply from you and Bop

Look it up you lazy SOB.

The quotes by Earniel and myself:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...m&pagenumber=6

[afro-elf]

Thanks

to my favorite tppled goddess

[afro-elf]

Wayferer to bring this to a quick close

Do you believe that the following statement is TOTALLY bunk.

You do not have ti explain why. Just as simple yes or no.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species

[kiwi]

I think the chicken came first. thought i don't know why I think that?!

[zavron]

The Promordial Goo came first! Then the Dinosaur, then the dinosaur evolved gradually until when a couple of generations down the line, they became fully-flegded Chickens!!

So Primordial Goo came first!

[Blackboar]

Call me stupid all you want but whats Promordial goo?