Gaia :: Profile Comments

Report | 01/17/2010 6:17 am

Sorry im late!! Happy B-Lated B-day Craig!!!!
GOD BLESS!
~Nina~

Report | 01/06/2010 12:48 pm

PaikaruX

!!HAPPY B-DAY!!! hope ur b-day is the opposite of mine XD peace V biggrin

Report | 12/16/2009 5:21 pm

Lord Setar

'No I'm not afraid to debate any where I just hate stupid people that cover up there ears and go "na na na na na I can't hear you evolution is true"'
Since when was providing evidence and refutations equivalent to that? I see a shitload of projecting because with regards to creation that is EXACTLY what creationists do - Micheal Behe pretty much said that multiple times on the witness stand in Kitzmiller v. Dover when presented with evidence refuting things like irreducible complexity.

"there is no proof for evolution"
In a scientific sense no, because you don't have proof in science. However, if we're talking about the law then there is proof and lots of it.

"you can not use bones as evidence for anything because it's dead all you know is it died that' it."
...we can't use skeletons to determine the general structure of an animal's body? Furthermore, what about DNA evidence? The same principles used in paternity testing for things like child support can be applied to determine whether or not we share a common ancestor with another given animal as well as a general idea of about when that common ancestor lived and thus where we might expect to find fossilized remains of that ancestor in the geological column.

"And as for you it's a creation site therefore I'll ignore it claim then I guess I can ignore everything you say because it's from evolution sites. I swear it's like talking to brick walls."
Thanks for showing how intellectually dishonest you are and ignoring the question I asked immediately following that. If your claims are indeed scientific, why are you citing a creationist website and not a paper published in a scientific journal?

Report | 12/16/2009 1:04 am

Lord Setar

Okay, because you decided to run off in a public forum I'm going to take it from the top:
"Give me proof that a horse can become a dog."
Evolution doesn't claim this to have happened anywhere. Dogs are carnivores (order Carnivora), horses are odd-toed ungulates (order Perissodactyla). They're both eutherian mammals, but that's about where the similarities end. The precursors to horses (and other odd-toed ungulates) diverged from other eutherians less than ten million years after the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (about 65 Ma) while the precursors to dogs (and other carnivores) diverged at around 42 Ma. You won't see a horse evolve into a dog because the two are vastly different nowadays mainly in that one eats plants and the other eats meat. This means that there are vast differences in their digestive anatomy alone. Horses, being herbivorous, also fall into the category of prey whereas dogs are carnivores and traditionally predators or in some cases scavengers. Because of these roles, horses have their eyes located on the sides of their head to give them a greater view of the area, while dogs have their eyes on the front of their face in order to give them depth perception. Need I continue?

""First, we have to assume a huge change in environment makes larger mammals easy prey:"
Or use geological strata as well as, say, deposits of fossil fuels in order to determine what the environment was like and when changes in the environment occurred. We know what environments produced the remains needed to form oil and coal, we can study geological formations that are strong indicators of things like glaciation events (ice ages), volcanic eruptions, floods and tsunamis (both of these lay down sediment for strata exceptionally quickly!), and even impacts from space. We can't predict what the weather was like on this day in 3,209,814 BCE, but we can get a good idea of what the climate was like then.

Want to know the best indicator of a major environmental shift? Strata that are absolutely laden with fossils. Those indicate extinction events, which are due to major and (relatively) sudden changes in the environment - ice ages, major volcanic eruptions and major impacts from outer space can all be possible causes. Hell, there's an extinction event occurring now that can be at least partially ascribed to humans intervening in the environment and shaping it to fit their needs far beyond what any other animal has done in this regard.

"No you showed me a dog that change a lot, but was still a dog."
...yes, it is, just like how humans are still primates, mammals, eukaryotes, and animals. That's how taxonomy works.

Report | 12/15/2009 7:58 pm

Lord Setar

Fun how you try a comment debate with Fef yet run away when I try exposing your claims as false in a public forum. Scared, are we?

Anyway, first off, what you have provided is a creationist website, not a scientific paper. Do you have any scientific papers discrediting Archaeopteryx?
Second, what about Microraptor, which is a much better evidence of the dinosaur -> bird transition than Archaeopteryx?

'Look I'm tired of hearing this you're only saying the same thing over and over that everyone else has said a billion times in the past "IF this happen then this MIGHT happen."'
Strawman. Science does not say "If X happens Y may happen," it says "given evidence X we should expect to see Y as a result of the explanation for X; this can be tested via procedure ABCD with materials DEFG." The two are very far from being one and the same.

"Also I've already explain that the "fossil record" is false "
Using, again, a creationist site. If your claims are indeed scientific, why have they not been published in scientific journals? Can you give me a scientific paper that shows the fossil record is false? How do you explain the morphological similarities between different fossils that, when arranged in relative chronological order based on the strata the fossils were found in, show a distinct transition from one form to another over time?

Report | 12/15/2009 6:32 pm

Fighting Fefnir

Two things: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

You're wrong.

Also, your website there is either not Catholic and not correct, or just not correct, because the fossil record is a reliable resource, and Catholicism's view on evolution is that it does, it fact, happen, and is, in fact, right.

In response to the individual claims, as I came across them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html -The Cambrian explosion

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html -There's gaps.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html -the tree is disproved

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html -extinct fish found

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html -gap between reptiles and birds

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html -has enough to do with the lungfish and platypus to be worth including. The organs don't have to be halfway each thing to transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html -Neanderthals with rickets

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html -Cro-magnon man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html -Zuckerman's claim refuted

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#oh5 -She dropped her claim, didn't publicize it

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html -Piltdown man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html -Nebraska Man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html -Java man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html -Peking man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html -Quote mines and reality, or 'more on gaps'

AND as a nail in the coffin, Dr. Robin Bernhoft, author of the article, ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT SEEM UNBIASED, EVEN ADDRESSING HIMSELF FROM A SECOND PERSON'S POINT OF VIEW IN THE BEGINNING.

If I missed anything, I think the sheer quantity of correction here makes up for it.

Report | 12/15/2009 3:39 pm

Fighting Fefnir

Jesus ********, man! We have fossils that show this change! You can google it and it comes up! Follow the links, and it shows CITED PEER REVIEWED PAPERS BY REAL SCIENTISTS that support evolution! I sent you a page with so much information I know you haven't read it all, all in support of evolution!

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

An explanation of birds descending form dinosaurs. The question is different, but the information applies.

Report | 12/15/2009 3:30 pm

Fighting Fefnir

Fish don't become birds, reptiles become birds.

Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html would like to show you you're wrong.

Report | 12/15/2009 3:08 pm

Fighting Fefnir

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Take those links, and learn.

Report | 12/15/2009 2:53 pm

Fighting Fefnir

First off, yes you can observe it. That bird link I threw at you before? Generations of birds are altering their migratory patterns because they have more viable food sources in London. Because of this, each generation is more adapted for the cold. They're evolving... and evolving withing our lifetime. We know this because the only anomalies come from those staying, not migrating, and they're easy to see.

If not that, we can look at different ages of the same creature and see differences in the fossil record. That's the UC Berkley link from before.

Using what we know about those birds in London, we could establish a baseline for the new species and old species of the bird, create an artificial environment, and see whether the food is responsible, the environment is responsible, or what. Now, it'd be a loooooooong experiment, but it would be an experiment nonetheless. That eliminates the incontestability theory you've got.

Finally, evolution IS repeatable. With a sizable enough chunk of time and money, you could recreate environmental conditions for certain creatures to observe how they live and die, and track changes therein. It's not impossible, but it's just cheaper and easier to look at how it happened in the past.

Ta-da.

Report | 12/15/2009 2:08 pm

Fighting Fefnir

Don't talk as if you have a scientific view on this. The scientific view is that evolution exists, works, and has overwhelming evidence for it. You asked me to show you how a horse could become a dog, and I showed a possibility of how it could happen. Disprove, or counterpoint. You're ignoring what I'm saying.

Dogs can breed with wolves to to create hybrids. So, dogs might not only produce dogs, assuming they breed other canine species.

Report | 12/15/2009 1:47 pm

Fighting Fefnir

...You keep changing what your answer is in the face of a valid way, through evolution, that a horse could become like a dog. I just showed how it could.

Report | 12/15/2009 10:45 am

Fighting Fefnir

...No, I just gave you a situation that causes a horse to become dog-like through evolution. Re-read it.

Report | 12/15/2009 10:23 am

Fighting Fefnir

...but it USED to be a HORSE. That's the point. You said, 'show me a horse can become a dog' and I did.

Report | 12/15/2009 8:01 am

Fighting Fefnir

Yes, because I can cause a cataclysmic event to test this theory, right? Of course we must make an assumption, because you must have an operative hypothesis in order to have something to measure results of experimentation against.

The point was, given entirely unfavorable conditions for horses as a species, and no relief in sight, they may take an evolutionary path similar to the dog species that would be better suited to that type of environment.

Report | 12/15/2009 7:23 am

Fighting Fefnir

First, we have to assume a huge change in environment makes larger mammals easy prey. Smaller mammals then become the ideal type of creature. Then, we assume this change in environment creates uneven ground and reduces vegetation to near nothing. This favors carnivorous diet and softer hooves. The lack of cover works against the horse, and ones able to turn quickly will survive predation. This favors a different type of leg shape, and alters the gallop as a method of transportation, modifying it toward mobility over speed. Less food and a need for more energy will slim down the animal and increase predatory activity in the horse, and an increased number of sharper teeth will be necessary, as will a shorter muzzle for eating meat. The pack mentality will increase with the need for strategy and safety.

So, let's recap. Meat eating, shorter legged, smaller bodied, sharp toothed, more agile horses living in packs, not herds, and with soft hooves acting as a cushion. Sounds REEEEEEAL similar to wild dogs, huh?

Report | 12/14/2009 7:13 am

Fighting Fefnir

"Yea sure small steps can lead to big steps but a horse doesn't produce a dog no matter how much time goes by."

Oh really? Prove it. Given the right set of conditions, anything can turn into anything. It’s all a matter of environment and adaptation. Eventually, the animals we see today will be so far removed from their forms now that they’ll hardly be able to be compared. See my dinosaur example below.

"Second fossils can't be used as proof for anything because the only thing we know about them is they died. There have been things found in recent time that was supposed to have died millions of years ago, and they're still using those things as transitional fossils, why?"

Because we know how old the fossils are, and their structural differences as opposed to other creatures in the same time frame. It also tells us the location of creatures of this type as opposed to others like it and what environmental needs it had. Fossils teach us immense ammounts. We use them as transitional fossils because they are creatures transitioning into new forms based on location, age, structure, and environmental need. They are more developed than the ancestor before it.

"And speciation doesn't prove anything other than you can change a dogs fur, eyes, teeth, and maybe it's diet it doesn't produce a completely new animal as I said above."

Oh really? There’s some herbologists that have a thing to say about that. Cross-polination creates new, entirely different, species of plants. In the biology world, if you breed a horse and a donkey, you get a mule, another species (albeit sterile). Paleontologists would cite that every bird you see today was once a dinosaur species, adapted to live in its environment. Speciation, by its very definition, relates to things becoming other things through generations and genetics.

Report | 12/12/2009 9:58 pm

Fighting Fefnir

And small steps can't equal big steps? If I travel a mile, stop, then travel another mile, I've traveled two miles total. The effects of small changes stack over time to create large changes. Microevolution proves macroevolution in this way.

Also, David Raup, who you just quoted, STILL BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION. Even the guy you just tried to use to say fossils aren't credible proof (which clearly they are) believes in what he's saying is 'not represented properly', to paraphrase. Mind providing a link to the article, which was written almost thirty years ago and is not nearly as accurate today as it might have been in 1981?

And to top it off? Speciation in the modern day UK. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/birdfeeders-found-to-cause-evolution-bird-species.php

Report | 12/12/2009 5:46 pm

Fighting Fefnir

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Have a nice overview of the subject.

UC Berkley also begs to differ with you.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

And some more on the fossil record.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

Anything else? Some creationist logic for me to dispel?

Report | 12/11/2009 3:37 am

Fighting Fefnir

Just can't keep a good theory down, I suppose? Now, before I start telling you how exceptionally wrong you are for not thinking evolution works when there is a plethora of evidence to show that it does, tell me if your name is meant to be ironic. User Image

Welcome to Gaia! :: Gaia :: Profile Comments

Comments

More Information