 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm glad that you don't have a real rebuttal against the argument that atavisms are excellent evidence for evolution.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pete
Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 873
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I'm glad that you don't have a real rebuttal against the argument that atavisms are excellent evidence for evolution. |
Anomalies happen all the time in every species. It proves nothing. Human babies have been born with facial hair. Does that prove humans rose from chimps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | I'm glad that you don't have a real rebuttal against the argument that atavisms are excellent evidence for evolution. |
Anomalies happen all the time in every species.
|
Sure, but it becomes interesting when we start asking WHERE these anomalies came from. In the case of atavisms, the anomalies came from the fact that the creature has a segment of DNA present in its genome which was present in one of its ancestor species. Evolution didn't get rid of the DNA, but rather just turned it off, and every now and then you find a creature in which it is not turned off.
It is very powerful evidence supporting evolution.
| Pete wrote: |
It proves nothing. Human babies have been born with facial hair.
|
Really? Do you have a citation for this?
| Pete wrote: |
Does that prove humans rose from chimps? |
I don't know. That one could just be a hormonal imbalance during development.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 873
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The bottom line still is, how does living tissue evolve from dirt? Next: How does living tissue suddenly waltz out of a puddle and become a thinking animated being? One more: how does an animated being adapt to its environment by simply growing gills, or wings, or arms? Last one, for now: How do evolution work when kinds can only reroduce after their kinds?
See ya, Gotta go to the place I hate. Ohare Airport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | The bottom line still is, how does living tissue evolve from dirt? |
It doesn't and the theory of evolution doesn't say it does.
| Pete wrote: | | Next: How does living tissue suddenly waltz out of a puddle and become a thinking animated being? |
It doesn't and the theory of evolution doesn't say it does.
| Pete wrote: | | One more: how does an animated being adapt to its environment by simply growing gills, or wings, or arms? |
It doesn't and the theory of evolution doesn't say it does.
| Pete wrote: | | Last one, for now: How do evolution work when kinds can only reroduce after their kinds? |
First define 'kinds'.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | The bottom line still is, how does living tissue evolve from dirt? Next: How does living tissue suddenly waltz out of a puddle and become a thinking animated being? One more: how does an animated being adapt to its environment by simply growing gills, or wings, or arms? Last one, for now:
|
Pete, interacting with you is getting to be ridiculous. Multiple people on this board have told you on literally dozens of different occasions that evolutionary theory doesn't in any way, shape, or form say that any of these things happened. You're PURPOSEFULLY misunderstanding what evolution says, and then stating your misunderstanding of evolution as if that were actually what it says.
You're never going to win an argument with anyone who understands evolution, because they know better.
And secondly, nice try at changing the subject and going on the offensive against evolution. This thread is about atavisms. Go ahead and explain them, if you can.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lekker!!!
This I`m Saving for our Debate!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm bumping this thread up to the top because atavisms present a major problem for literal creationists.
And a personal comment: I just read through the early parts of this thread, and it's really interesting!
Oh how I yearn for the good old days when the C vs. E forum contained interesting conversations!
I'm going to try to get that happening again, which is another reason for dusting off this thread.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 143
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: Atavisms |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | I challenge any creationist here to come up with an explanation for atavisms which is anywhere near as good as the standard evolutionary explanation.
Also, while you're at it, I've got a really burning question: creationists constantly say that there is no evidence for macroevolution. We evolutionists constantly reply that there is plenty of evidence, including fossils. Here's the question: exactly what don't you like about the fossils? Why are they not evidence? How come the successively more upright homonid fossils that are found are not evidence that humans were evolving from lower primates?
A standard creationist argument is that nobody has ever witnesed macroevolution, so there is no evidence for it. Nobody ever witnessed dinosaurs walking the Earth, and yet we believe in them based PURELY on fossil evidence... With respect to macroevolution, we have plenty of evidence such as DNA and atavisms ON TOP of the fossil evidence, so if anything, it is stronger than the case for dinosaurs!
So why are you willing to believe the fossils when they tell us that dinosaurs existed, but you're not willing to believe the fossils, DNA, atavisms, and other evidence when they tell us that macroevolution is fact??? |
If one does not assume evolution to begin with, an atavism is just as easily seen as a character present in one animal that God decided to put in another more complex animal. This is yet another example of evolutionists claiming facts support their theory when they can just as readily support the creation model. Or even better support the creation model.
This debate is meaningless, as the very definition of atavism implies an evolutionary throwback. Any change that is not 'consistent' with an organism's supposed evolutionary history will not be considered an atavism, so what does this 'observation' prove? Nothing at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | If one does not assume evolution to begin with, an atavism is just as easily seen as a character present in one animal that God decided to put in another more complex animal |
That's a pretty big stretch. Why would God decide to give an individual a tail when its specie typically does not have tails?
| daviddale3 wrote: | | This is yet another example of evolutionists claiming facts support their theory when they can just as readily support the creation model. Or even better support the creation model. |
Please. Anything can be interpreted to support the idea of a creator. Something weird happens that doesn't really make any sense when one thinks there's a creator? The creator did it!
It's an unfalsifiable idea, especially when one is okay with the idea of a capricious omnipotent being.
| daviddale3 wrote: | | This debate is meaningless, as the very definition of atavism implies an evolutionary throwback. Any change that is not 'consistent' with an organism's supposed evolutionary history will not be considered an atavism, so what does this 'observation' prove? Nothing at all. |
Thing is, these atavisms are already in the DNA. They're just disabled. Why would God give us genes for tails/hirsute ... um ... -ness/the ability to synthesize Vitamin C but leave them turned off?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Re: Atavisms |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: |
If one does not assume evolution to begin with, an atavism is just as easily seen as a character present in one animal that God decided to put in another more complex animal. This is yet another example of evolutionists claiming facts support their theory when they can just as readily support the creation model. Or even better support the creation model. |
So why are the atavisms ALWAYS from creatures which evolutionists claim were ancestors???
Science claims that whales evolved from land creatures which had legs. And we find whales which are sometimes born with hind legs.
Science claims that humans evolved from creatures with tails. And we find that humans are sometimes born with tails.
Science claims that chickens evolved from dinosaurs, and the chicken genome contains DNA for teeth.
NEVER ONCE has anyone EVER discovered an atavism which is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. For example, nobody has ever found a spider with atavistic echolocation abilities (as in the kind found in bats). Nobody has ever found a fish with atavistic DNA for growing fur. Nobody has ever found a bird with atavistic DNA for being able to make honey like bees.
Atavisms are ALWAYS from what evolutionists claim to be ancestors. That's an AWFULLY big coincidence, don't you think?
Plus there's what FFT said: Atavisms are completely inconsistent with the idea of an intelligent designer. You must have a pretty low opinion of God's engineering abilities if you think he could have messed up so badly as to put useless hind legs on whales.
Atavisms present a MAJOR problem for creationists. You guys have a really hard time trying to square this evidence with what the Bible says. By contrast, evolution explains it all *perfectly*.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Atavisms |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Here's the question: exactly what don't you like about the fossils? |
I like fossils. I just weeded out my rock collection, most of which were found or purchased in the 1990s. I kept all of my best finds and purchased specimens, which includes some vertebrate fossils, which I prize higher than the invertebrate fossils, although I do also have a couple of fossil ferns, one of which I found and another I purchased. So, I like fossils. I also have some nice minerals. I like them too.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Why are they not evidence? |
Evidence of what? If you mean evidence that some animals existed, were buried (perhaps catastrophically), and their bones replaced with minerals, well yes there is evidence that dinosaurs once roamed what is now Wyoming, or that Mastadons once roamed what is now Wisconsin. Yes there is evidence for that. That is not in dispute.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
How come the successively more upright homonid fossils that are found are not evidence that humans were evolving from lower primates? |
Ah! That's what's in dispute. I think there is evidence that some apes were buried, and their bones fossilized, in what is now the badlands of east Africa. But there is no evidence that apes reproduced and over many succesive generations and became human.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
A standard creationist argument is that nobody has ever witnesed macroevolution, so there is no evidence for it.
~~~~~~
Nobody ever witnessed dinosaurs walking the Earth, and yet we believe in them based PURELY on fossil evidence... |
See my comments above. There is evidence that some really big animals once roamed what is now the badlands of the North American west and got suddenly buried and their bones fossilized. I have seen the fossil bones, picked them up in the badlands where they are buried, and examined them with a magnifying glass. I've also seen them displayed in museums, and at gem and mineral shows.
What is your point P? Are you trying to say that brachiopods found fossillized in limestone are ancesteral to fishes found fossillized in shale? No evidence for that. Are you trying to say that turtles found fossilized in the badlands of the Dakotas are ancesteral to the vertebrate animals found fossilized in the same badlands? No evidence for that. Are you saying that some bones of what was probably a chimpanzee found fossillized in the badlands of east Africa are ancesteral to us humans? No evidence for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Atavisms |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Ah! That's what's in dispute. I think there is evidence that some apes were buried, and their bones fossilized, in what is now the badlands of east Africa. But there is no evidence that apes reproduced and over many succesive generations and became human. |
We have many successive fossils, which, when you arrange them according to their age, show several primate species. If you compare their skeletons and skulls as time marches on, the skulls get progressively larger, and they stand ever more upright. This is very compelling evidence.
And as if that is not enough, we've sequenced our DNA as well as that of several other primate species, and our DNA is virtually identical.
And then we've got atavistic evidence. You and I both have DNA for a tail in our genome which has been turned off.
Not to mention that the genetic mechanisms behind macroevolution have been observed and are well understood.
This is all *very* good scientific evidence. Any single piece of it would be compelling all on its own. Together they paint such a solid picture that no truly objective person can show honest skepticism when faced with them.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1749
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey P - Just have to point out the "no true Scotsman" in the last sentence.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Hey P - Just have to point out the "no true Scotsman" in the last sentence. |
Really? How do you figure?
As I understand the no true Scotsman fallacy, it requires going back and changing one's original definition after the evidence no longer fits. (Which, by the way is a perfectly acceptable -even required- thing to do in science.)
You can remove the word 'truly' from my sentence and it still means the same thing:
| Quote: | | Any single piece of it would be compelling all on its own. Together they paint such a solid picture that no objective person can show honest skepticism when faced with them. |
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
