The Theory of Evolution

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If all of life is derived from a single cell organism, the fossil record should be replete with transitional forms connecting one species to another. It isn't. In fact, not a single transitional form has been identified.

Consequently, proponents of macroevolution have been reduced to fraudulent behavior (Piltdown man, for example) or engaging in wishful thinking.

Archeopteryx is a bird.

Questioning Orthodoxy: Dr. Alan Feduccia Speaks on the Origin of Birds

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

 

[Riprorin]

I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?

You have not answered the question. I want to know your opinion, you have given us so many of your others do you refuse to answer the question?

 

[dannybin1742]

what about my questions rip?

 

[MaverikV]

Man people will come up with any amount of BS when their precious beliefs are threatened. It's really quite sick; the main reason religion exists is to placate man's need for self actualization.

I'll say it. You might all not want to say/hear it, but here it is:

There is no god. There never was, there never will be. God is an invention of man. And until we allow ourselves to put aside these beliefs, we will never be able to get to the real truths, because a part of us will be satisfied with the happy lie.

Evolution is a fact. It is observed. There is evidence. Evolution is not a "belief." It does not take faith. Many animals still have the latent body parts of their ancestors that have slowly evolved away. Humans have tails. Whales have hind legs. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's there. I'm not lying.

If this fact contradicts your belief, then the belief is wrong! Inventing stories about how they coexist is even worse than the initial beliefs.

What I like the most, though, is when the believers use crackpot science to confuse or complicate. You know what I mean, when one of them drops in and links some assenine article from the Church for the Unified Christian Martians or some sh*t with the link text "This May Help You Understand" or something.

Uh oh- here comes the science! Reminds me of Hitchhiker's, where Adams writes that the population of the universe is scientifically zero. Only he was making fun of you guys~

 

[Riprorin]

Humans have tails.

Let's examine this statement.

In the May 20, 1982 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Fred Ledley, M.D. presented a clinical case report titled "Evolution and the Human Tail." Ledley's report concerned a baby born with a two inch long fleshy growth on it's back, bearing a superficial resemblance to a tail. Ledley strongly implied that this growth (called a caudal appendage) was essentially a "human tail," though he admitted that it had virtually none of the distinctive biological characteristics of a tail!

All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features. In fact, the caudal appendage Ledley described is merely a fatty outgrowth of skin that wasn't located in the right place on the back to be a tail! Still, Ledley saw his caudal appendage as providing compelling proof for the evolution of man from our monkey-like ancestors. He said that:

"...even those of us who are familiar with the literature that defined our place in nature (Darwinism) -- are rarely confronted with the relation between human beings and their primitive ancestors on a daily basis. The caudal appendage brings this reality to the fore and makes it tangible and inescapable."

Is there any branch of science, other than evolution, where such trivial data can be extrapolated into such profound and "inescapable" facts?

The "human tail" is just one example of what evolutionists call a "vestigial organ." As the name suggests, these organs are supposed to represent useless remnants of what were once functional and useful organs in our primitive ancestors. As recently as 1971, the Encyclopedia Britannica claimed that there were more than 100 vestigial organs in man. Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood. As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. The most frequently cited examples of vestigial organs in man are the coccyx and the appendix.

The human coccyx, or "tail bone," is a group of four or five small vertebrae fused into one bone at the lower end of our vertebral column. Most of us never really think about our "tail bone" until we fall on it. Evolutionists are dead certain that the coccyx is a vestige of a tail left over from our monkey-like ancestors. The coccyx does occupy the same relative position at the end of our vertebral column as does the tail in tailed primates, but then, where else would it be? The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.

From The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution by David N. Menton, Ph.D.

 

[Czar]

rip

about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Czar
rip

about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

Topic Title: The Theory of Evolution
Topic Summary: Whaddya think?

Can't say that I blame you for wanting to change the topic given the hopeless position you're trying to defend.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Czar
rip

about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

Topic Title: The Theory of Evolution
Topic Summary: Whaddya think?

Can't say that I blame you for wanting to change the topic given the hopeless position you're trying to defend.

why is it so hard to answer these simple questions?

 

[Riprorin]

They're not, but they don't have anything to do with the topic.

 

[Czar]

the topic is about evolution, the questions are about your belives regarding evolution

so go on, answer the questions, everyone is waiting to see where you stand

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.

Ha! If the coccyx is just the "end" of our vertebrae, then why does it have a muscle known as the extensor coccygis?

Gray's Anatomy

"The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. It is a rudiment of the Extensor muscle of the caudal vertebræ of the lower animals."

http://www.bartleby.com/107/115.html

Why does a muscle connect from the coccyx to the sacrum, especially when the coccyx is "supposed to just be the end of the vertebrae?" Guess what a muscle located on the posterior side of the sacrum would do? Contraction would result in the erection of the coccyx. Why the heck would we need to raise our coccyx, if it is just supposed to be the "end of the of the vertebrae?"Even your source describes "The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs," then why the heck would we want a muscle that does the opposite? Please note that your reference refers to "pelvic diaphragm muscles" but those are anterior to the sacrum.

 

[Riprorin]

The notion that humans evolved from animals since human fetuses temprorarily develop gills, a tail, and yolk sac has been discredited and thrown out decades ago and the originator of this theory, Ernst Haeckel, has been exposed as a fraud.

Since you believe that humans have tails, are you trying to perpetuate this theory too?

Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?

 

[MaverikV]

Rip I don't get it-

So you're agreeing with me?

 

[Czar]

rip,
Why are those questions so hard to answer?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The notion that humans evolved from animals since human fetuses temprorarily develop gills, a tail, and yolk sac has been discredited and thrown out decades ago and the originator of this theory, Ernst Haeckel, has been exposed as a fraud.

Good job on not understanding embryology or even your own link. The Yolk sac is an important structure early in development, taking over before the formation of the placenta. Even you own link can only attribute the Yolk sac to "creative design."

Did I bring up gills, yolk sac, or the "tail" as being vestibual during development? Nope. Nice try on perpetuating BS too.

But why have you stopped responding to the extensor coccygis, and tried to change the topic?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: shira
Hey, a woman here at work thought up a GREAT question that challenges the whole notion of ID very elegantly:

Why do men have nipples?

Better question, why do we have an appendix?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The notion that humans evolved from animals since human fetuses temprorarily develop gills, a tail, and yolk sac has been discredited and thrown out decades ago and the originator of this theory, Ernst Haeckel, has been exposed as a fraud.

Good job on not understanding embryology or even your own link. The Yolk sac is an important structure early in development, taking over before the formation of the placenta. Even you own link can only attribute the Yolk sac to "creative design."

Did I bring up gills, yolk sac, or the "tail" as being vestibual during development? Nope. Nice try on perpetuating BS too.

But why have you stopped responding to the extensor coccygis, and tried to change the topic?

So the "tail" didn't develop from the human fetus?

So if you think that humans have "tails", do you also think that we evolved from fish and reptiles?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If all of life is derived from a single cell organism, the fossil record should be replete with transitional forms connecting one species to another. It isn't. In fact, not a single transitional form has been identified.

That's just not true. What the creationists are demanding is something on the order of a jackalope. They redfine "transitional form" as something that is outside of what evolution requires.

If you want to find out about transitional forms, start here.

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.

Response:
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

Dinosaur-bird transitions.

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

So the "tail" didn't develop from the human fetus?

We have a "tail bone" that is left over from previous generations and changes. Adult humans don't have a "tail" anymore. So what is the point of having a extensor coccygis?

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So if you think that humans have "tails", do you also think that we evolved from fish and reptiles?

Humans, fish and reptiles are all eukaryotic organisms, with multicellular bodies and specilized cells, the usage of oxidative phosphorylation, DNA/RNA/Protein replication, with double membraned mitochondria, communication between cells with hormones and neurotransmitters, and exhibit similar body divisions as in neural, muscular, and reproductive systens; Yes, I would figure that there is a common ancestor.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
Why are those questions so hard to answer?

Because they're attacking his credibility?

If he says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, he's taking a viewpoint only supported by some people's interpretations of the Bible, and it would hurt his position in a scientific discussion.
If he says humans are as old as the Earth, that also hurts his position.
If his says dinosaurs didn't exist...I don't think that's even a possible position to take as their fossils clearly exist. If he says they coexisted with man, once again that's a position only supported by the Bible.

Or he could take the scientific answers...
Earth is millions or billions of years old.
Humans have been around for around 20,000-60,000 years.
Dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago.

which may lead to another attack on his credibility, like why does he believe those and not evolution?

 

[rahvin]

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
Why are those questions so hard to answer?

Because they're attacking his credibility?

If he says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, he's taking a viewpoint only supported by some people's interpretations of the Bible, and it would hurt his position in a scientific discussion.
If he says humans are as old as the Earth, that also hurts his position.
If his says dinosaurs didn't exist...I don't think that's even a possible position to take as their fossils clearly exist. If he says they coexisted with man, once again that's a position only supported by the Bible.

Or he could take the scientific answers...
Earth is millions or billions of years old.
Humans have been around for around 20,000-60,000 years.
Dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago.

which may lead to another attack on his credibility, like why does he believe those and not evolution?

How so?

If he says humans are as old as the Earth, that also hurts his position.

If Homo sapiens have been around for 3.6 million years then humans lived at the same times as as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus and all the other extinct apes and extinct races of men that they allegedly descended from.

 

[shoegazer]

"If Homo sapiens have been around for 3.6 million years, then they existed at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus and all the other extinct apes and extinct races of men."

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i5n.htm

at least cite your sources rip

speakin of which. who said homo sapiens are 3.6 million years old?

and also, why can't an organisim that evolved from another organism not coexist? as long as they fit different niches or live in different areas it should be fine.

 

[Czar]

Rip,
So since you obviosly are following this thread, can you answer the three questions?