Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe when challenged to show where Lamarckian ideas are found in textbooks or the literature)
Here you go.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315813

That's a great example of the way Stipe walks into walls because he's completely in the dark. I gather he thought "pleiotropic" meant "Lamarckian."

Or maybe he thinks everyone else does.

"Pleiotropic" means a gene that causes a change in more than one characteristic. Is Stipe really that dumb?

Yeah, I think so.

 

[The Barbarian]

The idea is that we have a really good understanding of the main points of how things evolved, and the Precambrian was way before the time of mammals. So if actual rabbit fossils were found that were as old as the other Precambrian fossils, that would completely break our ToE.

Oh I think thats an obvious lie. What I mean is that if mammals are found in that strata the headline will merely read "mammals evolved earlier than previously thought". Thus this is not a falsifiable point. It's jello again.

That's because you have very little idea of what that would mean. Mammals that originated before there were any vertebrates would blow out evolutionary theory. Mammals a few tens of millions of years older than the ones we know would be no problems because the mammal-like reptiles go back a lot farther than that.

I mean isn't that exactly what happened with the evolution of feathers? They didn't scrap ToE in 2010 when newspapers ran stories that the evolution of the feather was having to be pushed back.

In part, because scientists from Huxley on, predicted feathers would be very ancient, perhaps as ancient as dinosaurs themselves. Very much later, when this prediction was validated, it got some press. But as you see, the prediction was a lot older than the finding.

This reminds me, in reverse, of how when arguments for Chromosome 2 began evolutionists suddenly began saying there had been previously a problem that evolution was failing falsification because of the difference in chromosome pairs in apes and men.

Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up. But we'll see what you can show us.

Laughable since none of the evolutionists prior were concerned with the discrepancy.

Until we knew about it. Then, of course, scientists took a look at it. Not surprisingly, they found this:

"H" is "human"; "C" is chimpanzee. You see, when people took a closer look, human chromosome 2 precisely matches two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres where they would have been if chromosome 2 was the result of a chromosome fusion. Pretty much the smoking gun for common ancestry.

The oldest citation for this that turns up on a quick search, is about a quarter-century old. Doesn't sound very recent to me. lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

The reference was in the context of what he was taught as a child, not a peer reviewed scientific paper. If you want examples of that, look no further than Disney's description of how things began to fly.

Walt Disney is now accepted by creationists as scientific literature. Mickey Mouse, indeed.

And to think the giraffe example is outside the possibility of what was taught to kids in Enyart's day,

Would be to understand that Lamarckism was dead by that time.

consider that Haeckel's drawings were in textbooks as recent as 10 years ago.

Show me a textbook even twice that age which says Haeckel's recapitulation theory is correct. When it wasn't being used as a cautionary tale, it was being used to show (correctly) that early embryos develop in remarkably similar ways.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Now --- As to your anger that I answered a different question than was asked -- I ask you to consider if I did not already say I had a hard time understanding what exactly the question was.

I'm sorry that I was overly aggressive in my response to you.

About your question of whether Precambrian rabbit fossils would present a major problem for the ToE, The Barbarian addressed that correctly - rabbit fossils that pre-date even vertebrates would not just push back the time when mammals developed. It would invalidate everything that biologists think they know for sure about how things evolved.

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

:mock: Barbie.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik has used this same line on me . After many failed attempts at obfuscation and red herrings, out comes the accusation that onus for the failure to communicate lies with the person not playing games.

So you would also deny that one way (one of many ways) to help decide what side has the truth is to see that one side knows the arguments of both sides, and the other does not?

 

[Yorzhik]

Walt Disney is now accepted by creationists as scientific literature. Mickey Mouse, indeed.

This was a good debate tactic line. It wasn't an honest response, but a good debate tactic.

Would be to understand that Lamarckism was dead by that time.

Yet the spirit of Lamarck, at least in shadow, is resurrected occasionally because a)there are anomalies that seem to have some Lamarckian qualities and b)evolutionists need another mechanism because mutation plus NS doesn't work.

Show me a textbook even twice that age which says Haeckel's recapitulation theory is correct. When it wasn't being used as a cautionary tale, it was being used to show (correctly) that early embryos develop in remarkably similar ways.

And saying that embryos develop in "remarkably similar ways" with the drawings in a discussion on how evolution works (or even without the drawings) is simply ORP lite. Or will you admit that embryos developing in remarkably similar ways (by looks) is not evidence for evolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Walt Disney is now accepted by creationists as scientific literature. Mickey Mouse, indeed.

This was a good debate tactic line. It wasn't an honest response, but a good debate tactic.

I gather you've realized citing Disney as an example was not a very good tactic. If someone does that, then the conclusion follows.

Would be to understand that Lamarckism was dead by that time.
Yet the spirit of Lamarck, at least in shadow, is resurrected occasionally because a)there are anomalies that seem to have some Lamarckian qualities and b)evolutionists need another mechanism because mutation plus NS doesn't work.

So far, it's been able to handle everything. And so far, when we get to the bottom of those "Lamarckian" examples, none of them are Lamarckian. As you know, in every case, mutation plus natural selection turns out to be sufficient.

Barbarian suggests:
Show me a textbook even twice that age which says Haeckel's recapitulation theory is correct. When it wasn't being used as a cautionary tale, it was being used to show (correctly) that early embryos develop in remarkably similar ways.

And saying that embryos develop in "remarkably similar ways" with the drawings in a discussion on how evolution works (or even without the drawings) is simply ORP lite.

Nope. That's just a fact that Haeckel tried to extend into a non-Darwinian theory. Some of your guys had holy tantrums when they removed the drawings and used photos instead.

Showed the same thing.

Or will you admit that embryos developing in remarkably similar ways (by looks) is not evidence for evolution?

Indeed, sometimes they don't "look" alike because of enlarged yolk sacks or other reasons. The reason most of them look alike is because their development follows from the same tissues in the same way. The (by looks) dodge is the creationist attempt to get around the deeper, histological and chemical evidence.

Nice try, though.

And yes, that our development is constrained by evolutionary history is evidence for the fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

One easy example was the proposal that evolution happens more often quickly rather than slowly.

Sometimes it happens pretty fast. But that was part of evolutionary theory from Huxley on. So nothing new there.

Another example is the tons of evidence showing how dinosaurs evolved into birds, now discredited.

Show us that. The vast majority of biologists think that dinos did evolve into birds, and the few who don't, like Feduccia, think that dinos and birds had a common ancestor.

Another example is recapitulation -- also in my 1980s high school texts.

I reviewed texts in the 80s. Show me a textbook from that time, that endorsed recapitulation.

Perhaps another example is the following of junk DNA, now increasingly shown not to be junk.

"Junk DNA" was kind of a joke term. In fact, when I was an undergraduate in the 60s, there were papers showing non-coding DNA had other functions.

You have anything that hasn't been in the dumpster a thousand times before?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

That's because you have very little idea of what that would mean. Mammals that originated before there were any vertebrates would blow out evolutionary theory.

I understood the point. Good gracious do you have zero social skills or are you so insecure that you only respond with insults?

I also said and showed why your conclusion seems baseless. I appreciate that you want to jump in, but consider toning down the hostility.

Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up. But we'll see what you can show us.

There is a video on YouTube where the significance of this is admitted after the fact. Oddly they had no problem before.

"H" is "human"; "C" is chimpanzee. You see, when people took a closer look, human chromosome 2 precisely matches two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres where they would have been if chromosome 2 was the result of a chromosome fusion. Pretty much the smoking gun for common ancestry.

Having a common number of chromosomes hardly constitutes a "smoking gun" for common ancestry.

A quarter century (your number) is 25 years. Are you really saying that's not recent? That would be in the 80s. You do realize thats not very long ago. And is that really important whether it's recent or not to anything I am saying?

I've noticed that evolutionists here are very dismissive and seem to prefer insults to actual arguments. Why is that? Why are they so immediately defensive? And abusive? I think Ben Stein may have been on to something. You certainly couldn't prove otherwise by this groups actions.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I'm sorry that I was overly aggressive in my response to you.

About your question of whether Precambrian rabbit fossils would present a major problem for the ToE, The Barbarian addressed that correctly - rabbit fossils that pre-date even vertebrates would not just push back the time when mammals developed. It would invalidate everything that biologists think they know for sure about how things evolved.

I appreciate the apology.

As for your response, I've already shown that pushing things back would be done without blinking. I have solid reason to suggest that yours and his guess is unfounded.

Since you claimed there are a myriad of falsifications, can you provide any that aren't as shaky?

 

[Frayed Knot]

And saying that embryos develop in "remarkably similar ways" with the drawings in a discussion on how evolution works (or even without the drawings) is simply ORP [ontology recapitulates phylogeny] lite. Or will you admit that embryos developing in remarkably similar ways (by looks) is not evidence for evolution?

You, like a lot of creationists, carry the criticisms of Haeckel beyond his flawed work and into other areas.

Haeckel's idea that the development of the embryo follows the same path as the evolution of its ancestors, is what's referred to by the O-R-P phrase, and this idea was discredited more than 100 years ago.

The O-R-P idea, by the way, contradicts the Darwinian understanding of evolution, so discrediting Haeckel's ideas strengthened Darwin's.

However, and this is an important point, the homology of embryos across different species is strong evidence for evolution. Putting pictures or drawings of the similar embryos of that stage into biology textbooks, is completely appropriate.


Edit: Please read this short article from yesterday about embryonic development, and watch the video that shows how the human face is pulled together from a more fish-looking early embryo.

 

[Frayed Knot]

As for your response, I've already shown that pushing things back would be done without blinking. I have solid reason to suggest that yours and his guess is unfounded.

Since you claimed there are a myriad of falsifications, can you provide any that aren't as shaky?

Finding rabbit fossils that are 600 million years old would not be simply explained away by adjusting timelines.

It would be like finding a modern M16 rifle with a laser sight, in an ancient Egyptian tomb, with verification that the rifle is as old as the tomb. That wouldn't just make us adjust our understanding of the timeline of weapons development - it would completely shatter it. We wouldn't just say "oh well I guess our explanation of the development of laser sights and bullet dynamics wasn't exact and needs to be adjusted," it would show us that what we thought we knew was completely wrong.

 

[Jukia]

As for your response, I've already shown that pushing things back would be done without blinking. I have solid reason to suggest that yours and his guess is unfounded.

No, you have shown nothing of the sort. A bunny fossil from a time period before there were any other vertebrates would cause evolutionary theory to fall on its own sword.

 

[The Barbarian]

I understood the point. Good gracious do you have zero social skills

Barbarian here.

or are you so insecure that you only respond with insults?

Battle axe ineffective at this range. Sorry.

I also said and showed why your conclusion seems baseless.

As you saw, the conclusion follows from the evidence.

I appreciate that you want to jump in, but consider toning down the hostility.

Crabby, are we?

Barbarian observes:
Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up. But we'll see what you can show us.

There is a video on YouTube..

So you can't find one? Neither can anyone else. No surprise there.

Barbarian observes:
"H" is "human"; "C" is chimpanzee. You see, when people took a closer look, human chromosome 2 precisely matches two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres where they would have been if chromosome 2 was the result of a chromosome fusion. Pretty much the smoking gun for common ancestry.

Having a common number of chromosomes hardly constitutes a "smoking gun" for common ancestry.

But that's not what I said, was it? The fact that a single human chromosome precisely matches the genes on two chimpanzee chromosomes, and has remnants of telomeres precisely where they would be if those two chromosomes had fused, is a smoking gun. And of course, as soon as the discrepancy was noted, scientists went to work, finding out why there were different numbers of chromosomes.

A quarter century (your number) is 25 years. Are you really saying that's not recent? That would be in the 80s.

Yep. Ancient history in science. There's been an explosion of knowledge.

I've noticed that evolutionists here are very dismissive and seem to prefer insults to actual arguments.

I've shown you a good deal of evidence, and demonstrated what it means. I'm surprised you consider it insulting. And you've told me to go look in You Tube for your argument.

Why is that?

Probably because you don't know very much about the issue. Creationists are inclined to offer Disney and You Tube as evidence, instead of scientific papers or facts.

Why are they so immediately defensive?

I suppose it's because they get overwhelmed with facts they don't fully understand, if at all.

And abusive?

Mostly frustration. Like your response on learning the evidence for a common ancestry for humans and chimps.

I think Ben Stein may have been on to something.

A good example, is his claim that scientists were directing his family into the ovens at Auschwitz. Even the Anti-Defamation League roasted him for that bit of libel. And of course, his decision to ban from his film any scientist who was a Christian and accepted evolution. "No Intelligence Allowed" You betcha.

You certainly couldn't prove otherwise by this groups actions.

You've been blindsided by the evidence, and like most creationists, are lashing out.

Not surprising.

 

[Frayed Knot]

"H" is "human"; "C" is chimpanzee. You see, when people took a closer look, human chromosome 2 precisely matches two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres where they would have been if chromosome 2 was the result of a chromosome fusion. Pretty much the smoking gun for common ancestry.

It's also a really good example of a useful theory in science: it makes predictions that turn out to be verified. When we found that humans and chimps have a different number of chromosomes, although that information was a little surprising, based on the theory that we had, we could make a prediction. Since it hasn't been that long since we shared a common ancestor with chimps, we should expect to find that two of their chromosomes had been merged into one - so if you look at the details of what genes are there, you should find two chimp chromosomes that match one human chromosome.

Did this prediction turn out to be true? Bullseye.

The genes on the two chimp chromosomes match perfectly to ours', even to the detail of the telomeres, which are very much like shoelace tips (aglets) in that they mark the end of the DNA strand. Human chromosome 2 has these extra telomeres in its middle, exactly corresponding to the location of the ends of the two chimp DNA strands that had merged.

This is an example of a prediction that, if the ToE were wrong, would have almost certainly turned out to be wrong. If the DNA didn't match closely, that's another example of something that could have falsified the ToE.

 

[Dr.Watson]

I have solid reason to suggest that yours and his guess is unfounded.

Born from ignorance I would say that this is embellishment of a high order. However, knowing that this has been explained to you on this very thread (and that you refer to them as "guess"(es)), implies dishonesty and means that this is an outright lie. You have no reason other than personal incredulity to suggest such. And you know it.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Crabby, are we?

I don't think wanting a civil discussion makes one crabby.

So you can't find one? Neither can anyone else. No surprise there.

I didn't say that the chromosome 2 information was in a textbook. That was your manuevering to try to obfuscate. I said that evolutionists said that. The first YouTube video you come to when typing in chromosome 2 speaks to how this was a "major problem".

No, he doesn't say "failed falsification" and yes I overpushed his statement to link the comparison. Basically claiming an "issue" only after the fact, that previously was glossed over is very similar to the jello arguments we see.

You have a nice blend of spin and abusive language. Why are you afraid of addressing the issues!

But that's not what I said, was it? The fact that a single human chromosome precisely matches the genes on two chimpanzee chromosomes, and has remnants of telomeres precisely where they would be if those two chromosomes had fused, is a smoking gun.

They don't match exactly, and that's nor even the argument with chromosome 2. The argument is that it was predicted by evolution and turned out to be true.

No one is claiming it to be exactly identical.

Yep. Ancient history in science. There's been an explosion of knowledge.

Okay, that's quite a spin. Obviously relative to the age of ToE it's very new, but I'll retract my statement. My goal is to advance the conversation rather than try to be argumentative, especially not bringing up every insignificant point.

I've shown you a good deal of evidence, and demonstrated what it means. I'm surprised you consider it insulting. And you've told me to go look in You Tube for your argument.[\quote]

What evidence did you offer? I was the one who offered the arguments for chromosome 2. You merely ran with something we are all already familiar with (adding erroneously that the chromosomes are identical).

You asked for "textbook" for chromosome two, and I fail to see where you got that I said that came from a textbook. Yes that argument comes from a you tube video of a conference on evolution where chromosome 2 is reported and the speaker them admits how they had a problem previously. This was all mentioned by me because the claiming of whether something is really a problem or not changes with evolutionist seemingly all the time.

No the only "textbook" argument I gave was that I was taught both that giraffes necks grew due to eating from trees and that we were taught recapitulation in biology when in high school around 30 years ago. To this you claimed I am lying (as if I would) and suggested the only way to prove I was not was to produce a textbook I haven't seen in 30 years (if 25 years is ancient, what is 30?). Of course that would be a massive waste of my time for a book I doubt if I could pick out of a lineup even it was before me. (I doubt I could pick my topography book out of a lineup and I was in graduate scoop only half that time ago.) Nevertheless I remember many if the things I was taught in that class, and I am not lying about it. Asking to produce a book you know is impossible to produce is only juvenile and manipulative.

Probably because you don't know very much about the issue. Creationists are inclined to offer Disney and You Tube as evidence, instead of scientific papers or facts.[\quote]

More spin.

The topic i pointed to was how things are classified as "problems" or not. Explain to me why a YouTube video is nor sufficient for demonstrating that if the speaker is indeed a believer in evolution (he need nit even be a scientist really to prove my point, but in this case I believe he is a paleontologist).

Once again, the argument scares you so much that you must lie about it? You accuse me of lying, but thus far you are the only one caught in lies. It would be better if you addressed issues rather than merely resorting to attacks against the person only.

Mostly frustration. Like your response on learning the evidence for a common ancestry for humans and chimps.

Learning? LOL. I brought it up. Apparently I was well aware of it. More spin.

A good example, is his claim that scientists were directing his family into the ovens at Auschwitz. Even the Anti-Defamation League roasted him for that bit of libel. And of course, his decision to ban from his film any scientist who was a Christian and accepted evolution. "No Intelligence Allowed" You betcha.

I haven't heard that about the film. Did he ban them, or is it just coincidence? He let Eugene Scott on who proposed evolution and Christianity could co exist. He let Dawkins on. Why would he need someone else?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Born from ignorance I would say that this is embellishment of a high order. However, knowing that this has been explained to you on this very thread (and that you refer to them as "guess"(es)), implies dishonesty and means that this is an outright lie. You have no reason other than personal incredulity to suggest such. And you know it.

I gave a solid price of doubt tonthe idea that showing a species around before it was felt it should be there is handled without even one person suggesting evolution was invalidated (with birds). That is sufficient to show that the claim that people would abandon ToE if mammals are found similarly (though admittedly with greater scale) earlier than expected.

You've failed to show why ToE would need to be abandoned and nor just reformulated. In fact, I suggest that if a mammal were found, none of the atheists on here would abandon the theory, and you know it.

Don't forget ToE existed long before the theories on when mammals evolved without issue.

And I refer to them as "guesses" only because they ate not logically imperative. You are guessing that scientists would abandon ToE if such were found, and I doubt you even really believe that. Of course ToE would be reformulated with mammals coming about in earlier threads.

 

[Dr.Watson]

And I refer to them as "guesses" only because they ate not logically imperative.

This objection has already been addressed by at least two different people. Would my addressing it make you any less incredulous?

You are guessing that scientists would abandon ToE if such were found, and I doubt you even really believe that. Of course ToE would be reformulated with mammals coming about in earlier threads.

No. Such a finding runs completely contrary to the very keystone of the theory itself. Your objections are not well reasoned and your understanding of evolution is below the standard which would make for productive discussion. This seems simply like an exercise in everyones patience with you while you sulk about how horrible you think you are treated by those with less of it than others.