Spiritual Warrior Posted August 24, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 108 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2004 "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". - Romans 6:23 My advice would be for any atheists to turn from sin and repent unto God for the day of Judgment is quickly approaching. "The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice". -Pro. 12:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I believe that you could be a great asset to the cause of Christ if you would just submit yourself to Jesus and make him your savior. Amen! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 25, 2004 SA, mebbe its just doin this for me, but I tried to view that link, and it gives me an error that says something to the effect of "Remote linking prohibited for free accounts" perhaps you should load it up on photobucket or somethin? In Christ Truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2004 QUOTEÂ Did the fish know about the food on the land? If yes, how, if they couldn't see it? QUOTEÂ Again, how did they know about the food if they didn't see it. If they didn't 'will' it to happen, it just happened accidentally? I've answered both of these questions before. I said: "But the fish didn't see the food, and think "well now I have to grow legs". Rather, the fish simply hunted for food, and some of those fish, the ones with legs or protolegs, had a larger and more fruitful potential hunting area than the others" SA: I'm sorry. I know this is getting tiring for you and it's getting equally as tiring as me. To be honest, it is downright getting boring. Nothing you've said so far has made me think that evolution is even remotely logical. I'm sorry, but there's been nothing that has sparked and interest or intrigued me or second guess my faith at all. Not that I ever thought there would be, mind you, but it's just all getting so old and boring. I dread coming here. Not because I fear you'll have some convincing proof of evolution, but because I know that no matter what, you'll defend evolution til the end - no matter how remote or impossible it sounds. And that's what get's tiresome. Not so much that you defend it, but that you'll just continue to defend it, no matter how extreme your arguments have to become. However I feel that I must continue this discussion. I guess it's God's leading. I don't much like it, but I have to obey here. Anyway, enough of my rant, and forgive me for if you are offended, but I thought, what the heck, I may as well be honest. I hope I don't sound arrogant and cocky. I'm not feeling that way at all. Maybe you're thinking I'm sounding brainwashed. I have no idea. Anyway, I'm sorry you've explained it to me so many times. I just don't see anything to make me beleive it might have happened so far. I really just don't understand. The fish are in the water and there is food on the land yet the fish don't seem to see or smell the food, yet they, by random chance, grow stumps. The stumps are with that species for a thousand of years seeminginly useless, if not a complete nuisanse. Then, they grow legs and are finally able to get the food on the land. But since they couldn't see or smell the food or know the food was even on the land, how does evolution even come into play. What if the food were not there? They can's see or smell it anyway or even know that it is there. Do they just grow the stumps anyway, and why? I've posted the video a few times now. Hope you've had a chance to look at it. If not, I can repost. In any case, there was a fish recently caught that had legs and a horn. You can clearly and easily see this on the video. However, researchers called it a spotted ratfish. However again, a spotted ratfish, if you look it up, does not have these 'legs' or a 'horn". I am interested in your comments on this. Do you think researchers are correct and that this is a spotted ratfish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2004 Why ought we not be creating hypothetical situations in which land dwelling animals could develop. It's at least interesting - and at most could help up in interpretting what we find in the fossil record in the future. Noone claimed this as a hard fact... Interesting, maybe, but they DO claim it as a cold hard fact. That's the problem. Show me a high school textbook that says something so vague as to make it seem like a theory. Something like "Most scientists believe that the fish grew stumps and then legs and eventually was an ancestor to man!" Never going to happen. They do teach it as fact. QUOTE Do you think it's fair that the creation theory or the YEC theory is not allowed to be discussed? It is allowed to be discussed, which makes your question impossible to answer, because it is based on the false premise that YEC theory cannot be discussed. It's like me asking "why is it against the law to not be a Christian in the US?" - of course, it isn't against the law, making the question impossible to answer simply. No, creationsim cannot be discussed as a reasonable scientific theory, even though there are many scientists who beleive in it. However, YEC is not allowed to be presented as science, or a scientific theory. That's fair, because it isn't science, it isn't scientific, it's not a theory and it's not scientifically true. QUOTE What? No scientists beleive in creationism? Are you actually saying that you are not aware that there are scientists who are YECs? I will rephrase that: a) No well informed scientist believes in literal biblical creationism b) No well informed scientist believes that the earth is less than billions of years old c) No biologist that I know of believes in literal creationism d) No physicist that I know of believes in a young earth You have got to be joking. Please tell me that you do not believe the above and that this is some kind of joke. ARe you out of your mind? There are many well informed scientists who believe in a literal biblical creation! Of course there are scientists who believe the earth is less than billions of years old! ARe you kidding me? you think there are no biologists who believe in a literal creation???? Do you actually beleive that there are no physicist's who believe in a young earth? I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. It seems you actually beleive the above statements. Are you serious? do I need to prove that real scientists with real degrees believe in the truth of Genesis? Are you for real????? QUOTE No it hasn't. That's like saying that evolution has been proven wrong. Creationists use the same evidence but come up with theories that are much different. That's all. But it's the same EVIDENCE. Not so, creationists ignore huge swathes of evidence that disagrees with creationism. They also try very hard to make sure that creationism has no testable predictions, and to sweep under the carpet the predictions it does make that have been proven wrong. Okay. Just one. Tell me ONE thing creationists ingore. Yet evolution has testable predictions that they could use!!!!! A fish can grow stumps and legs when there is no food around!!! Well test it!!!!! ROFL! Creationism is not an interpretation of the evidence that any fair minded person would come up with without the a priori assumption of the literal reading of the Genesis scripture. Creationists are forced to twist the evidence and use ad hoc additions to their theories to try to accomodate evidence, and even then they fail. Whatever. You are clearly dillusioned here. I might get in trouble from the mods for saying so, but so be it. You make the most absurd and ridiculous claims about creationists, yet you won't even read a book written by one. You'll go running to talkorigins for all of your answers. You are no free thinker. You quote almost word for word the same old rhetoric you've heard over there, without a second thought as to what THEY are saying is true or false. QUOTE Have you seen a population explosion of mice? Or rabbits? When these creatures are left on their own, there is harmony. What are you talking about? No, that's the point, and I'm asking you "why"? Why hasn't their been a population explosion? Let me do some math for you: A fruit fly has hundreds of offspring in a single reproductive cycle, which takes about 2 to 4 weeks. Imagine if each of these offspring had another 100 each, a couple of months later, when they reached reproductive maturity. And imagine if all these offspring went on to have 100 of their own, etc etc etc. What would happen? Well, it's simple, starting with 1 pregnant fly: 1 Month: 100 flys 2 Months: 200 flys (another batchs from the original fly) 3 months: 10,000 flys 6 months: 1,000,000 flys 9 months: 100,000,000 flys 1 year: 10 billion flys 2 years: 1 billion billion 3 years: 1000 billion billion billion 5 years: 1000 billion billion billion billion billion flys Well, you see the problem right, with small creatures reproducing real fast. This is what would happen without natural selection. Within a few short years, the world would be overflowing with flys. The fruit flys die. They have a shorter lifespan. It's all balanced perfectly, Thank GOD. What single force that Darwin recognised the power of is there to keep the system in check? That force is God, the Creator. QUOTE Well, if the guy who wrote it is a scientist, then he's scientist! And he has plenty of PEERS who agree with him! lol! You just want to hear from PEERS who disagree with him, right? Peer review is about disagreement, scientists do not engage in peer review for a pat on the back - but so that debate can take place from people who disagree. That is why peer review is so important in science, so that it doesn't turn into a mutual appreciation back-slapping society. That is a cop out. If you're so brilliant, you should be able to look at these living fossils, read about them and come to your own conclusions. Look at it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. QUOTE So, since you brought it up, did you find out how they date sand yet? Or are you going to drop that old anthropological find? No, I'm certainly not, I just havn't gotten round to actually going to the library and reading the original paper on it, which is publically available. Okay. Let me know when you find out how they date sand then. QUOTE In any case, they keep living in harmony. As you know, most extinctions are due to man's intervention. Most over population of a species is due to man's 'intelligent' intervention. Nature sure seems to have perfect design, doesn't it? No, there is a very simple, non-designed feature of nature that keeps populations in check, one that you havn't quite grasped. Hopefully, you will by answering my questions about population dynamics above. Yeah, it's pretty simple. God. QUOTE I said it would be simple for a species to take over if it lived LONG AND had a lot of offspring. And I mean a predatory animal - top of the food chain. Is it just genes required to make something live long and have a lot of offspring? Or do they require other things? Well, genes have a lot to do with it. What is your point? QUOTE That's not true about down syndrome families, nor is it true of families where dwarfism is present. The chances of the baby inheriting these genes is very good, not small. And how many down syndrome patients end up breeding and having viable offspring? And how many dwarfs breed and have viable offspring? If the answer is "lots" - then the mutation can't be as bad as you thought, because bad means preventing you from breeding, in an evolutionary sense. If the answer is "very few" then the mutation is bad, and will be eliminated by natural selection, because it will be passed down to "very few" offsrping. Your original point is that bad mutations die off. Well, they don't. Regarding fossils. Pardon me for not quoting our entire conversation over the last four posts. Let me just ask you a question. If there was a natural disaster like a flood, who would be the first to go. The small creatures, or the big creatures, like humans. QUOTE Well do you believe that it happened with divine intervention or just all on it's own? If you believe it happened all on it's own, then your experiment of me taking the fish out of the water is silly. So if happened naturally, the real experiment would be to put a guppy in a tank with a shark to see if the guppy tries to get out and take breaths. What do YOU think would happen? I never suggested that taking a guppy out of a tank would prove evolution, I said that it would prove that already, even though guppies are adapted to breath in water, they can survive for some limited time outside of water. You suggested that fish developed lungs because they had to take more and more jumps out of the water to get away from predators. So, if it happened like that millions or billions of years ago, why can't it happen today? Why can't we create such an experiment? If smaller fish jumped out of the water to get away from predators, why can't we recreate this scenario, (a scientific experiment today) ?? I'll tell you why? Because it would happen anything like that in an experiemt and everyone knows it. The fish would get eaten by the predators. this is so ridiculous that it's not even funny anymore. Secondly, as I have said before, and this is the last time I'm saying it, fish who live close to land and are heavily predated, especially by larger predators, often to swim further and further ashored to escape predation - some even swim too far, and get beached or trapped in small pools and die. Fine! That has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH to do with developing lungs and stupid stumps! Please. Stop repeating the same things over and over again. I agree with you on this and it does nothing to prove that fish developed legs or lungs. Also, animals do search further and further abroad when food is scarce, this is undeniable. QUOTE Okay. So they're NOT jumping out of the water anymore? I never said they did - this suggestion was your invention. Yes you did. As ridiculous as it sounds you said that fish developed lungs because they kept jumpint out of the water to get away from predators. I have made it clear again and again that fish who lived near shores in the deluvian would find advantage by widening their effective food searching range, and getting away from predators by gaining the ability to safely move further and further towards the shore, and eventually onto it. Fine okay, I agree with you. This has nothing to do with anything anyway so I don't know why you continually repeat it. QUOTE Well of course, but this offers nothing to the process of developing lungs or legs. Quite the opposite, it does. It provides a selective advantage to any fish that did develop proto lungs, or adapted fins. Once the selective advantage is there, all we need is the random mutations, and given a large enough population, these are in no short supply. Because fish swam, or even today, swim to shallower waters to get food this proves they developed lungs. Okay. Whatever. Keep telling yourself this. You are not convincing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rev Rabbi JCG Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 :hug: You forgot about the eyes. The eyes of a human are differant then a fish. They'd be blind in a second if the blood vessels in the eyes weren't infront of the reseptors, but behind the eye like all sea creatures. Plus look at how the eyes is wires electrically. All creatures that can move ( fish, people, animals, bugs, ect, ect, ect) all have nerves. and the eyes have nerve endings to send signals to the brain. evolution simplifies things. There are thousands of nerve ending in the eyes. And the placement of the blood vessels. There are people who are Creation Scientists that have pointed this fact out. I myself as a christian believe the Genesis account of how everything got here. Science should be used to show us how everything works together to preserve life on this planet. And how each created being ( plants, animals, and people) work, and live together. :hug: :hug: :x: :x: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2004 "Multicoloured bands make a snake appear to be of one colour as it moves quickly blending the colours. When it stops and its many colours camouflage it against the background, a predator looking for a single-coloured snake will think it disappeared into thin air! Banding also results in flicker fusion, the illusion that the snake is going in the opposite direction (just as a car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2004 You forgot about the eyes. The eyes of a human are differant then a fish. They'd be blind in a second if the blood vessels in the eyes weren't infront of the reseptors, but behind the eye like all sea creatures. Plus look at how the eyes is wires electrically. All creatures that can move ( fish, people, animals, bugs, ect, ect, ect) all have nerves. and the eyes have nerve endings to send signals to the brain. evolution simplifies things. There are thousands of nerve ending in the eyes. And the placement of the blood vessels. There are people who are Creation Scientists that have pointed this fact out. I myself as a christian believe the Genesis account of how everything got here. Science should be used to show us how everything works together to preserve life on this planet. And how each created being ( plants, animals, and people) work, and live together. Yes of course. The eyes. Pretty much all creatures independantly developed the eyes. With no prior knowledge of the intracet details involved, or of the end result somehow 'randomly' created sight, each creature independantly, without knowing the awesome end product. In the meantime, each creature 'randomly' developed the many parts that came together, otherwise completely useless, to develop the miracle of sight. Faith is amazing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted August 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 25, 2004 artsylady What kind of environment would yellow, red and black stripes be a good camoflauge for? Any. In this case, when the snake is travelling at speed, the bands blend to produce one composite colour. By stopping, while the snake would not be camoflauged in a traditional sense, it would have just changed from being a single coloured snake to a multicoloured snake, at least in the eyes of a predator. Therefore, a predator looking for a single coloured thing would percieve that it had disappeared. And I don't think that either creatures mentioned in your website, the Roadrunner, or the Secretary Bird go after the coral snake. They may or they may not, but the coral snake is not at the top of the food chain - it has predators. Yes, warning colors. Why would a snake 'evolve' to warn it's prey?? So as not to get eaten. If you can pretend to be noxious or terrible tasting or toxic, it's almost as good as actually being noxious or terrible tasting or toxic - in that predators may choose to stay away from you, just in case. So tell me how their bright red, yellow and black stripes are advantageous. I have. They avoid predation in a variety of ways, by blending, flicker fusion (appearing to be going backwards when you're really going forwards), and mimicry of toxic or poisonous species. To tell you the truth, I think the whole thing is backwards anyway. It would be salt water fish being exposed to fresh water (the rain) If this is the case, you can see why it would be fairly gradual. You're incorrect, if anything during the flood, as I have stated several times, the waters would have got saltier, despite the influx of freshwater. Most creationists agree with this, as "flood geology" requires massive ammounts of tectonic and volcanic activity that would inject massive ammounts of salt into the water. However, I have been very generous indeed in saying that I would accept a watering down of salt water to half its original concentration (since about the same ammount of freshwater would have to be added as saltwater to cover the highest mountain). Therefore, I would ask you to dump at the very least 1.6 kg of salt water into your tank, and observe your fish slowly dying. I would also ask you to investigate various creationist sources on fresh water fish and the flood. Most admit (the ICR and AiG do) that the waters would have been more salty not less. I'm not afraid of that at all. lol. I'm actually laughing here. Don't worry, I'll add some more, but have to get some real sea salt because I've been adding table salt, which has iodine. And the fish are doing just fine. I told them 'hello' from you today. Just as soon as you add at the very least 1.6kg of salt to your tank, I'll be happy that you've actually performed the experiment. At the moment, you're adding a few tablespoons (about 4-5g each), which isn't even on the right scale. Interesting, maybe, but they DO claim it as a cold hard fact. That's the problem. Show me a high school textbook that says something so vague as to make it seem like a theory. Something like "Most scientists believe that the fish grew stumps and then legs and eventually was an ancestor to man!" Never going to happen. They do teach it as fact. Do you have a quote from a textbook to authenticate this claim? There are many well informed scientists who believe in a literal biblical creation! Of course there are scientists who believe the earth is less than billions of years old! ARe you kidding me? you think there are no biologists who believe in a literal creation???? Do you actually beleive that there are no physicist's who believe in a young earth? Firstly, I said that no biologists I know of believe in the literal creation account in genesis. That is true. Secondly, I said that no physicist I know of believes in a young earth. That is also true. I did say that no well informed scientist believes in the literal creation account - that is also true, since if they were well informed and applying the scientific method, they could not possibly believe the literal creation account of Genesis. So, you may think I'm a loony, but I do stick by these statements. Okay. Just one. Tell me ONE thing creationists ingore. Surface features in the fossil record. The uniformity of the order of the fossil record. Mass extinctions in the fossil record. Iridium anomolies and meteor impacts in the fossil record. Unconformities. Angular unconformities. The exo-thermic nature of radioactive decay. The many geomagnetic reversals in the geological strata. The chronological order of transitional fossils. Endogenous retroviral insertions. DNA Transposons. Redundant Pseudogenes. The layering of the grand canyon The uniform chronological order of fossils worldwide Ring species Whale leg atavism Human tail atavism Isochronology, and its agreement with K-Ar and other dating methods. Recent results from the Oklo reactor. The analysis of radioactive decay in starlight. I could go on pretty much ad infinitum. Yet evolution has testable predictions that they could use!!!!! A fish can grow stumps and legs when there is no food around!!! Well test it!!!!! ROFL! This is not a prediction of evolutionary theory, therefore testing it would be basically useless and wasteful. Whatever. You are clearly dillusioned here. I might get in trouble from the mods for saying so, but so be it. You make the most absurd and ridiculous claims about creationists, yet you won't even read a book written by one. This is a personal insult, which I will ignore. I do wonder though, how exactly I insulted you to illicit wuch a response...? You'll go running to talkorigins for all of your answers. Not so, most of my answer come from my research outside of talkorigins (although, a lot of them appear on talkorigins anyway, in some form or other, which I can hardly help can I?) You are no free thinker. You quote almost word for word the same old rhetoric you've heard over there, without a second thought as to what THEY are saying is true or false. That simply isn't so. In fact, as much as I can, I quote peer reviewed scientific papers and literature, and usually give references where possible. The fruit flys die. They have a shorter lifespan. It's all balanced perfectly, Thank GOD. Do the fruit flies die before or after breeding. If they die after, then the equation doesn't change, they will exponentially increase. However, if the vast majority die before getting the chance to mate, then that might help. Which is it? That force is God, the Creator. No, as you just admitted, the force is death. What you're going to admit next, I predict, is that the vast majority of animals die not of natural causes or living our their natural lifespan, but before the even get a chance to become an adult and mate. That is a cop out. If you're so brilliant, you should be able to look at these living fossils, read about them and come to your own conclusions. Look at it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. What, you want me to examine every single fossil I ever read about, and study it in depth? You know how many fossils there are? You reckon every scientist should repeat every single experiment or observation they read about? Do you know how long that'd take? That's why we have peer review. We let experts in each field argue about finds and what they mean for the theories they hold, repeat experiments and observations. We can then take that argument at a later time, read it, and come to conclusions about whether it was thorough. Okay. Let me know when you find out how they date sand then. Will do. Well, genes have a lot to do with it. What is your point? My point is, there's no magic gene for living longer and having lots of offspring. To live long you have to successfully negotiate predators, disease, accident, competition for food, and limited food resources. To have lots of viable offspring you have to convince mates to have sex with you, you have to have the extra resources to develop a child in the womb, you have to avoid death in childbirth, and you have to make sure somehow that not all the children get instantly eaten or die from malnutrition. There isn't a magic gene that protects you from this, or guarantees you food, or creates more food when you have more children to eat it. Also, having lots of kids put your lifespan in danger - because the kids are taking up your resources, during gestation and also afterwards. Childbirth is very dangerous too, in many species of animal. In other words, the two objective (having lots of children, living a long time) can often be mutually exclusive - because having lots of children increases your chances of dying. Your original point is that bad mutations die off. Well, they don't. Then they can't be as bad as you claim. "bad" in a genetic sense means "less likely to be passed onto the next generation". Therefore, by definition, bad genes do die off in a relatively stable population. That means that if a gene isn't dying off, either the population is exponentially growing and noone is dying, which in most natural populations cannot happen, because of a lack of resources, and it certainly can't keep on happening for a long time - or the gene isn't really that bad after all. For example, the sickle cell gene is dying off in America, but not in Africa. That means that it's bad in America, but not in Africa, because if it was wholly bad in Africa, it'd die off. That's just what bad is in a genetic sense. If there was a natural disaster like a flood, who would be the first to go. The small creatures, or the big creatures, like humans. Well, it depends on the natural disaster. In a flood, everything that lived on land would go, no matter how big or small, perhaps with the exception of some amphibians. In a meteorite impact, and many other natural disasters, we'd expect the top of the food chain to go first, and then the second top etc etc. That's because the top of the food chain is most sensitive to changes at the bottom, and in layers below it. Indeed, at the K-T boundary (the one with the meteor that took our the dinos) that's exactly what happened. Every creature over 25kg went extinct. Why? Because large creatures typically occupy high parts of the food chain, and are dependent on many smaller creatures for their food. You suggested that fish developed lungs because they had to take more and more jumps out of the water to get away from predators. No, I didn't. You've made that statement up. I never suggested or implied that fish jumped out of water. I suggested that they found themselves searching for food and evading predators in shallower and shallower water, where they were more and more likely to be exposed to the air, and therefore it would become more and more advantageous to be able to breath air. this is so ridiculous that it's not even funny anymore. What is ridiculous artsylady, is that despite me no longer being able to count the number of times I have corrected you on what I am saying, that you still insist on essentially fabricating my argument and countering the fabrication. Fine! That has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH to do with developing lungs and stupid stumps! Please. Stop repeating the same things over and over again. I agree with you on this and it does nothing to prove that fish developed legs or lungs. Yes, it does. It has everything to do with MY argument. But it has nothing to do with your fabricated imaginary version of my argument where fish jumped out of water to escape predation, or willed themselves to grow stumps so that they could search for food on land. Yes you did. As ridiculous as it sounds you said that fish developed lungs because they kept jumpint out of the water to get away from predators. Artsylady, do you often have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy? In any case, whether or not this is an isolated incident of overactive imagination on your part - could you find me a quote, from myself, from any post on or off this forum, where I have said something to the affect that: "fish developed lungs because they kept jumping out of the water to get away from predators" The quick answer is "no", because I never said or implied anything like this, other than in your furtive imagination. Fine okay, I agree with you. This has nothing to do with anything anyway so I don't know why you continually repeat it. You don't know why I continually repeat it because you still cling to an imaginary version of my hypothesis of how fish developed lungs and legs, rather than the real one. If you look back at my posts, you will be able to find the real argument, several times. Because fish swam, or even today, swim to shallower waters to get food this proves they developed lungs. This is, again, not what I said. What I said is that it shows that there would have been a selective advantage to getting nearer and nearer the shore, firstly to escape predation, and secondly to harvest the ready supply of un-touched food nearer the shore. Any animal that could do this without getting stuck, and without dying would have a great advantage over their peers. The fish are in the water and there is food on the land yet the fish don't seem to see or smell the food, yet they, by random chance, grow stumps. Again, I have corrected you on this before. There are two conflicting hypotheses, one that fish grew legs (or stumps at first) and one that fish adapted their fins for mobility functions on land. The leading hypothesis given fossil finds is adapted fins, not new legs. However, that doesn't matter - here's the argument: 1. Fish are predated 2. Fish need food 3. In order to escape predators, coastal fish often swim nearer and nearer the shore so that larger predators cannot catch them. 4. Food is scarce, and in the Deluvian, plants colonised land - meaning that all the way up the shore and onto the land there will have been food sources. Conclusion 1: Fish that somehow could adapt to swim closer to land would gain an advantage from getting more food, and more protection. 5. However, swimming close to the land is dangerous. There's a danger of getting stuck in the mud as the tide goes out. There's a danger of getting stuck in a small pool as the tide goes out. 6. Proto-legs capable of some sort of motion, or even adapted, stronger fins could help fish escape these dangers if they faced them, because the fish would be able to push themselves away from lands and back into the sea. Conclusion 2: Any fish that developed fins or limbs that could help them escape being beached, or help them escape from small pools back into the sea would be able to safely swim closer and closer to land without the danger of getting killed. 7. The stronger, longer and better adapted these limbs got, the closer to land a fish could go safely. At first, with protolimbs or slightly stronger adapter fins, a fish might only be able to safely move a few centimetres more than their peers without the adaption. However, the stronger the limbs got and the better adapted, the closer and closer a fish could get to land safely. 8. Furthermore, at the same time, if a fish could adapt it's gills to be able to breathe, even a little bit, that'd buy it some time if it did get beached, or stuck in the mud/sand, or stuck in a pool. 9. The better fish got at breathing air, the more time it'd buy itself on land, or when it was beached, or when it was stuck in a pool etc etc. Conclusion 3: There would be a selective advantage to the development of limbs and lungs continuing, and for those organs to become more and more effective. 10. At one point, a fish would become good enough at breathing air and pushing itself on land to be able to get right up on shore, where another mass of untapped food supplies awaited it. Conclusion 4: Eventually, amphibians, creatures capable of living in water and land would evolve and exploit the large reserves of food and the lack of predators on land. No fish jumping out of water. No developing limbs with no purpose that are a hindrance. Of course, this isn't the only way it could happen, and I don't claim it is. I don't even claim that this *is* the way it happened, it might not have been. I don't even claim that God wasn't involved before, during or after, he could have been. However, this argument should prove that it *could* happen in gradual stages. Truseek SA, mebbe its just doin this for me, but I tried to view that link, and it gives me an error that says something to the effect of "Remote linking prohibited for free accounts" perhaps you should load it up on photobucket or somethin? That sucks. What I'll do is I'll make an HTML page out of it, and upload that instead, then re-link it. It's quite an impressive picture - especially when creationists claim things like that species are classified because of one tooth, or silly things like that. Spiritual Warrior I am perfectly happy to answer as many questions as you have about evolution, and those that I cannot answer, I will either tell you who could, or tell you that they have not been answered yet. It's really that simple. On the other hand, I have noticed that many of your supposed questions about evolution are really questions about philosophy or cosmology. For example "where did the matter come from for the Big Bang" is a philosophical question, nor a scientific one, and therefore not one about evolution (which is a theory about how life has changed since its inception on earth). However, I would even be happy to answer these questions, but of course, on seperate threads so that they do not confuse the subject. Would you like for me to ask your permission next time I want to post a few interesting thoughts and quotes. No, and there is no requirement on you to post logical or cogent arguments online - however I would ask you to not misrepresent these thoughts and quotes as proofs or arguments for or against something. It's one thing quoting Fred Hoyle and saying "isn't that an interesting quote etc etc", it's quite another presenting a quote as some sort of material proof that evolution is incorrect, for example. However, again, I don't think that it is a rule on the bulletin boards here to present your material accurately. So it's just a suggestion really. Or should I say hey, Scientific Atheist I'm about to post something that may be liguistically or politically incorrect how should I word this so that others can debate it properly according to your perspective. Again, this is not a requirement. However, if you do post something, it would help if you are willing to back it up when questioned. For example, your post on industrial melanism has been refuted by myself - but you have essentially ignored the refutation. This sort of "hit and run" tactic may be popular, and it certainly isn't against the rules - but it isn't condusive to intelligent debate, and it's also quite rude. Remember, I spend my time answering and researching the points you make in some detail, and coming up with a watertight and referenced response to them. I do this on the basis of an (unwritten) bond of trust that you will at least take the time to read what I have written, consider it seriously, and either write a rebuttal, concede the point, or do more research on the subject yourself. It's really rather rude to break this bond of trust, and it will likely mean that you will put me, and other like me, off taking your arguments seriously. That would be sad for both of us, as neither of us will then profit any from each other's knowledge. Look, I am sure that there are many atheists on line that are missing out on your extreme intelligence. Why don't you go and bless them with your vast knowledge of the universe. I respectfully refuse this request, until it comes from a board administrator. I believe that there are people on this board who do take time to read what I have to say in response to them, and post serious questions with an open mind to their being answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 28, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 28, 2004 That sucks. What I'll do is I'll make an HTML page out of it, and upload that instead, then re-link it. It's quite an impressive picture - especially when creationists claim things like that species are classified because of one tooth, or silly things like that. Well aren't we Mr. Smartypants truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts