 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 138
Location: georgia
|
 Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bouncer
| Quote: | | Oh but we do. Oxford University has mapped the platypus genome. That's the subject of the article I referenced. Surely you didn't launch into this diatribe without even reading the link I posted? (and Nobby corrected, Thanks Nobby) |
Yes I did read the article. You claim that the mapping of the genome shows the evolutionary process (am I correct in this?). My question is simple. How do you personally determine that evolution is responsible for this genome? What we have is a fully developed organism. We do not have the generations that preceded it to show that the mapping is correct. When did the mutations take place? Was it 10 generation ago or 100 or 1000 or has it always been this way? There is no way of telling without some kind of fossil evidence or data collected while the event was occuring.
| Quote: | | I don't infer squat. I stated that Evolutionary processes certainly explain the platypus. |
Of course you are inferring evolution. Without having the ability to observe the process in action, how do you know that the process actually happened? I'm sorry, but the bottom line is we do not have the information in order to escape any type of inferrence.
| Quote: | | I don't see a real designer planning this creature. I see no evidence of design. I am qualified to make that statement. I have been a design engineer for years. How long have you done design? |
This is really off subject. You have made a POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE STATEMENT. In doing so it is your burden to support this statement. It matters not what I think or your position is secular society.
| Quote: | | Genetics is teaching us so much more about Evolution and how we evolved than could ever be garnered from the fossil record. |
The problem is you need the fossil record in order to determine if what you see actually happened or not. Again, how do you know that the inferrence is correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Bouncer
| Quote: | | Oh but we do. Oxford University has mapped the platypus genome. That's the subject of the article I referenced. Surely you didn't launch into this diatribe without even reading the link I posted? (and Nobby corrected, Thanks Nobby) |
Yes I did read the article. You claim that the mapping of the genome shows the evolutionary process (am I correct in this?). |
If you read the article, what part do you disagree with? What is your alternate explanation for that part?
| Quote: | | My question is simple. How do you personally determine that evolution is responsible for this genome? |
It's not my personal responsibility to determine anything. Nor is it germane to the subject at hand. You don't agree feel free to lay out your alternate explanation.
| Quote: | | What we have is a fully developed organism. We do not have the generations that preceded it to show that the mapping is correct. When did the mutations take place? Was it 10 generation ago or 100 or 1000 or has it always been this way? There is no way of telling without some kind of fossil evidence or data collected while the event was occuring. |
Why not? Do you doubt everything you do not personally observe?
Again anytime you wish to weigh in with an alternate explanation we can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of that. At this point I have not seen anything that comes close to an alternate explanation.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't infer squat. I stated that Evolutionary processes certainly explain the platypus. |
Of course you are inferring evolution. Without having the ability to observe the process in action, how do you know that the process actually happened? I'm sorry, but the bottom line is we do not have the information in order to escape any type of inferrence. |
You aren't from Macon are ya? Ok I'll play for now. I don't deduce, reason, guess, suggest or imply. What I said (if youre from Macon you might not grasp this) was that Evolution ie: changes over time better explains this mishmash of a creature than any other explanation out there.
You say you infer design. To which I responded that in my PROFESSIONAL opinion based on the criteria engineers use to create designs that the data from the genome mapping of the platypus is counterindicative of design. Prove me wrong.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't see a real designer planning this creature. I see no evidence of design. I am qualified to make that statement. I have been a design engineer for years. How long have you done design? |
This is really off subject. You have made a POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE STATEMENT. In doing so it is your burden to support this statement. It matters not what I think or your position is secular society. |
I am a positive person. And you are right it matters not one bit my position in society. The question was posed to you to determine if you are qualified to judge what is or is not designed.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Genetics is teaching us so much more about Evolution and how we evolved than could ever be garnered from the fossil record. |
The problem is you need the fossil record in order to determine if what you see actually happened or not. Again, how do you know that the inferrence is correct? |
Another surprise for you. There is a process known as the Scientific Method. It works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 138
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bouncer
| Quote: | You aren't from Macon are ya? Ok I'll play for now. I don't deduce, reason, guess, suggest or imply. What I said (if youre from Macon you might not grasp this) was that Evolution ie: changes over time better explains this mishmash of a creature than any other explanation out there.
|
This is not what you said. You made the positive knowledge statement
| Quote: | | The platypus is a living transitional. Aviarian, Mammalian, and Reptilian features all rolled into one. Someone asked to see a dog with wings. |
You said nothing about explanations of any sort, you said that it was truly in fact a transitional form. Now, please give the evidence and not an interpretation of the evidence to support your claim.
| Quote: | | To which I responded that in my PROFESSIONAL opinion based on the criteria engineers use to create designs that the data from the genome mapping of the platypus is counterindicative of design. |
Again your opinion is not what is needed. I respect your position, but it in no way has any bearing on the truth or falsity of your statement.
Again, I was not the one who made the statement that this organism was in fact a transitional form. You are the one who made that statement. Shall I remind you.
| Quote: | | The platypus is a living transitional. Aviarian, Mammalian, and Reptilian features all rolled into one. Someone asked to see a dog with wings. |
You are the one who has to provide proof for your statement, It is not up to me to provide anything.
| Quote: | | I am a positive person. And you are right it matters not one bit my position in society. The question was posed to you to determine if you are qualified to judge what is or is not designed. |
It would seem that it does matter or you would not have posed the question.
| Quote: | | Another surprise for you. There is a process known as the Scientific Method. It works. |
Yes there is, and the scientific method is based on observation and the collection of data. This process has never been observed by anyone.
Besides, this is one of those great philosophical questions . The scientific method cannot be verified scientifically, since all scientific verification necessarily presupposes the method itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | Did you read the article I linked to? |
Yes... and I don't believe I am arguing with the findings of the article.
| Quote: | | All the Evolutionary trees every created are incomplete and probably grossly inaccurate in many places. |
Oh no you don't... you are not going to sluff this off that easily... the evolutionary trees may indeed be incomplete... and they may be adjusted every now and then to reflect current findings, that mush is true. But your obfuscation here is incredible. This isn't some minor adjustment... what you are... or at least what this study implies is that you have an organism that 'evolved' amphibian, to reptile, to dinosaur, to bird to mammal. That has not happened. There are no transitionals supporting this supposition. This demonstrates that the idea of succession from amphibian to bird or amphibian to mammal is wrong. Based on extant evidence, this should NOT happen. The reptilian and avian genes should not be there... period.
| Quote: | | The Genome though is a whole different ball game. You obviously didn't read the article, or ignored/couldn't grasp what it said. |
Whatever.... poor Trinity the YEC... can't seem to grasp such complicated ideas.  Perhaps its your inability to associate the study's implication is the issue?
| Quote: | | The features found in the platypus are not surprising in any way. All your blathering about mammals descending from fish and birds from reptiles etc... is so much bluster. |
Oh... I'm sorry... would you like to see the source of said blathering? I'm only regurgitating the dogma of what is being taught in our schools and universities... but you know... I think we can agree on the fact that it is indeed blathering.
| Quote: | | Mammal, Bird, and Reptile all share a common ancestor. |
Right. You are correct... An amphibian with none of the evolved features...
| Quote: | | It should not be surprising that this one creature has features of all three. |
Fine... provide a transitional demonstrating the progression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Oh no you don't... you are not going to sluff this off that easily... the evolutionary trees may indeed be incomplete... and they may be adjusted every now and then to reflect current findings, that mush is true. But your obfuscation here is incredible. This isn't some minor adjustment... what you are... or at least what this study implies is that you have an organism that 'evolved' amphibian, to reptile, to dinosaur, to bird to mammal. That has not happened. |
Rephrasing what I said? The genetic material (reptilian, avian, and mammalian) is exactly what one would expect to find if reptiles, birds and mammals share a common ancestor. Thumper types maintain this did not happen. The platypus' DNA just proved them wrong.
| Quote: | | There are no transitionals supporting this supposition. This demonstrates that the idea of succession from amphibian to bird or amphibian to mammal is wrong. Based on extant evidence, this should NOT happen. The reptilian and avian genes should not be there... period. |
I don't recall anything about Evolutionary pathways in the article. But, it happened. Proven by observation of the evidence. The genetic material is there.
Neither Creationism nor ID can explain how it got there.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The Genome though is a whole different ball game. You obviously didn't read the article, or ignored/couldn't grasp what it said. |
Whatever.... poor Trinity the YEC... can't seem to grasp such complicated ideas. Perhaps its your inability to associate the study's implication is the issue?
| Quote: | | The features found in the platypus are not surprising in any way. All your blathering about mammals descending from fish and birds from reptiles etc... is so much bluster. |
Oh... I'm sorry... would you like to see the source of said blathering? I'm only regurgitating the dogma of what is being taught in our schools and universities... but you know... I think we can agree on the fact that it is indeed blathering.
| Quote: | | Mammal, Bird, and Reptile all share a common ancestor. |
Right. You are correct... An amphibian with none of the evolved features...
| Quote: | | It should not be surprising that this one creature has features of all three. |
Fine... provide a transitional demonstrating the progression. |
Be happy to. First demonstrate that you would know what you were looking at. Define 'transitional' as it applies here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Oh no you don't... you are not going to sluff this off that easily... the evolutionary trees may indeed be incomplete... and they may be adjusted every now and then to reflect current findings, that mush is true. But your obfuscation here is incredible. This isn't some minor adjustment... what you are... or at least what this study implies is that you have an organism that 'evolved' amphibian, to reptile, to dinosaur, to bird to mammal. That has not happened. |
Rephrasing what I said? The genetic material (reptilian, avian, and mammalian) is exactly what one would expect to find if reptiles, birds and mammals share a common ancestor. Thumper types maintain this did not happen. The platypus' DNA just proved them wrong. |
Wrong Bouncer. The party line is that birds evolved from dinosaurs/reptiles.... reptiles from amphibians. Mammals evolved directly from amphibians. Therefore, if this theory and progression of the evolutionary processes is correct (which this proves it is not), then there should be no vestiges of avian DNA in a mammal. Unless of course, you are going to cite where these traits are resonate in amphibians.
| Quote: | | Be happy to. First demonstrate that you would know what you were looking at. Define 'transitional' as it applies here. |
No… I don’t have to demonstrate dink… you are the one making the assertion that the platypus, a mammal, is a descendant of an amphibian that possessed both avian and reptilian type DNA. If you want this to work you have to tell us when or where the convergence occurred… as all of the ‘science’ that I have seen on this suggests differently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Wrong Bouncer. The party line is that birds evolved from dinosaurs/reptiles.... reptiles from amphibians. Mammals evolved directly from amphibians. [blah blah blah] |
Again all of which evolved from a common ancestor.
| Quote: | | Therefore, if this theory and progression of the evolutionary processes is correct (which this proves it is not), then there should be no vestiges of avian DNA in a mammal. Unless of course, you are going to cite where these traits are resonate in amphibians. |
avian DNA should be lost? Is this what you are saying? Lost how? Where did it go?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Be happy to. First demonstrate that you would know what you were looking at. Define 'transitional' as it applies here. |
No… I don’t have to demonstrate dink… |
Youre right you don't. But you are inadvertantly demonstrating your incredible ignorance of the subject matter.
| Quote: | | you are the one making the assertion that the platypus, a mammal, is a descendant of an amphibian that possessed both avian and reptilian type DNA. |
Do they teach rephrasing initially or is it an advanced Cretinist course? Please feel free to cite the post where I said platypii were descended from amphibians.
| Quote: | | If you want this to work you have to tell us when or where the convergence occurred… as all of the ‘science’ that I have seen on this suggests differently. |
Translation you wouldn't know a transitional if it hit you in the face and knocked the bible outta your hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Wrong Bouncer. The party line is that birds evolved from dinosaurs/reptiles.... reptiles from amphibians. Mammals evolved directly from amphibians. [blah blah blah] |
Again all of which evolved from a common ancestor. |
Which was? Come now Bouncer... you're a smart guy... please... tell us. Teach us... enlighten us... you keep on insisting that this ancestor exists… somewhere. Me thinks the only place it exists is your imagination… if not, please feel free to cite.
| Quote: | | avian DNA should be lost? Is this what you are saying? Lost how? Where did it go? |
Huh? Do you even think before you write??? Did I write that avian DNA was lost somewhere? Incredible.
| Quote: | | Do they teach rephrasing initially or is it an advanced Cretinist course? Please feel free to cite the post where I said platypii were descended from amphibians. |
Perhaps you ought to take one of those biology courses Bouncer. Current theory supposes mammals descended from amphibians... the platypus is a mammal.. ergo... descendent from an amphibian. IF you disagree, you are going to have to point me up the evolutionary tree and show me which branch it sits on.
| Quote: | | Translation you wouldn't know a transitional if it hit you in the face and knocked the bible outta your hand. |
-k-... if you say so... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bumping for Bouncer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Wrong Bouncer. |
Bouncer isn't wrong.
Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine report, in Genome Research, that they linked the evolution of a specific gene in the ancient platypus to a mutated version of that same gene in humans which moved the testes outside of the body and into an external pouch, or scrotum.
The unmutated version is responsible for the original orifice referred to in modern birds as the cloaca.
Further, "Testicular descent is a very specialized process that required the evolution of specific genes," says Sheau Yu Teddy Hsu, a Stanford assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and co-author of the study in Genome Research. "The platypus serves as a 'bridge' animal between nonmammals like birds and reptiles, which maintain their *Hairy Human Bowling Balls* in a body cavity, and placental and marsupial mammals, which hold their testes in an external scrotum."
Although I have provided a quote by Professor Sheau Yu Teddy Hsu, I am not allowed to give the link to verify his statement at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: here you go |
|
|
This one
Last edited by Bouncer on Thu May 29, 2008 12:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's the one, Bouncer. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well... I see Bouncer is monitoring.. but not participating.  I ask for the transitional he insists exists... denigrates others for not acknowledging as much… and then refuses too or is incapable of citing it.
Very interesting.
| Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Wrong Bouncer. |
Bouncer isn't wrong. |
OK... if he is not, perhaps you will explain how the Platypus shares genetic material that evolved in a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree and seems to jump over to mammals without ever passing through the supposed evolutionary processes.
I'm not sure if you or Bouncer fully understand the implications of these findings. Maybe it is my inability to fully explain the problem...
If you have an amphibian, that over millions of years evolves into a reptile (developing traits that are most suited for their environment) and at the same time... or later, an amphibian also evolves completely separate traits suited for their environment resulting in a mammal... then, separate from the mammal, the reptile evolves into an avian organism.... COMPLETELY separate from a mammal... how do you explain the existence of avian traits in this mammal... when the process of developing traits diverged at the reptilian and mammalian stages? How does this happen? It is almost as if the avian traits were planted into this mammal.
Simply asserting as much... that it does... by referring back to this article... does not advance the argument that they shared a common ancestor unless you are prepared to cite which ancestor it is! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | Well... I see Bouncer is monitoring.. but not participating. I ask for the transitional he insists exists... denigrates others for not acknowledging as much… and then refuses too or is incapable of citing it.
Very interesting. |
Obviously he's looking in on this thread, inspite of the fact that he's at work. He's not on your deadline. 
| Quote: | | ...............by referring back to this article... does not advance the argument that they shared a common ancestor unless you are prepared to cite which ancestor it is! |
Think of all progeny with the varied traits being passed on genetically as transitional in thier own way. As they become successful survivors of thier environment they lose "transitional" status.
You need to understand the basics of Evolution in order to grasp the various influences and mechanisms that shape new species and have caused extinction of 99% of other species in the past.
(I'd give you a link but I'm not able to at this time due to the rules of this forum.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
