# another 'living fossil'



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-fossil-eel-squirms.html

lol    this eel isn't even in the fossil record...so they label it 'proto' and say that it had no reason to evolve for 200 million yrs.     

Darwin-of-the-gaps.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 23, 2011)

I haven't read it, but if it's not in the fossil record how would anyone know if it has or hasn't evolved in some way?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I haven't read it, but if it's not in the fossil record how would anyone know if it has or hasn't evolved in some way?



“In some features it is more primitive than recent eels, and in others, even more primitive than the oldest known fossil eels, suggesting that it represents a ‘living fossil’ without a known fossil record.”   from a BBC News article  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14547942

"The US-Palauan-Japanese team say the eel's features suggest it has a long and independent evolutionary history stretching back 200m years."   Whattha?  Whotha?   Maybe, just maybe.....IT NEVER EVOLVED FROM ANYTHING????!!!!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 23, 2011)

"long and independent evolutionary history" 

That implies there is an evolutionary history, just that it evolved independently (differently) than other eels that have similarities with it. 

Again, I'm not one that easily accepts that everything evolved from a puddle of mud. I'm just saying that because the evolution of some things seems faint or different from other things doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Again, I'm not one that easily accepts that everything evolved from a puddle of mud.



attaboy!  I commend you for keeping an open mind and going where the evidence leads....as we all should.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2011)

Where does the evidence lead?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Where does the evidence lead?



This eel is not in the fossil record.
We did not know it existed before very recently.
This eel lives in the ocean.
This eel can swim.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> This eel is not in the fossil record.
> We did not know it existed before very recently.
> This eel lives in the ocean.
> This eel can swim.



Also it goes back 200 Million years.
Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.

From the article:
"The team - including Masaki Miya from Chiba's Natural History Museum in Japan, Jiro Sakaue from the Southern Marine Laboratory in Palau and G David Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC - drew up a family tree of different eels, showing the relationships between them.

This allowed them to estimate when the ancestors of P. palau split away from other types of eel.

Their results suggest this new family has been _evolving_(italics mine) independently for the last 200m years, placing their origins in the early Mesozoic era, when dinosaurs were beginning their domination of the planet.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Also it goes back 200 Million years.
> Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.
> 
> From the article:
> ...



Devil talk


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.



"Usually evolution occurs out of necessity..."   How would anyone know that?  No matter what the environmental stresses, an organism has no say in how it mutates!     

Yep...if an eel doesn't need to evolve at all in 200 million years, evolutionary theory has it covered!   If that same eel had to evolve from a single-celled animal in a few million years, evolution fits that, too!   

What a theory!  No evidence is able to refute it!   lol    Fast....slow....static....back-and-forth guesses and theories...evolution answers it all!   (It has too, since that's all science has to work with)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Where does the evidence lead?



Recently, a prominent atheist university professor/philosopher came to believe the evidence leads to design.     Most who realize the complications and astronomical improbability of 'life-from-nothing' wind up going there, too.   Unless they have an '_a priori_' belief that life couldn't have been designed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Usually evolution occurs out of necessity..."   How would anyone know that?  No matter what the environmental stresses, an organism has no say in how it mutates!
> 
> Yep...if an eel doesn't need to evolve at all in 200 million years, evolutionary theory has it covered!   If that same eel had to evolve from a single-celled animal in a few million years, evolution fits that, too!
> 
> What a theory!  No evidence is able to refute it!   lol    Fast....slow....static....back-and-forth guesses and theories...evolution answers it all!   (It has too, since that's all science has to work with)



Well I am all ears when you explain hows and whos with irrefutable evidence as to how it all went down.

Start anytime you want Bandy....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well I am all ears when you explain hows and whos with irrefutable evidence as to how it all went down.
> 
> Start anytime you want Bandy....



so, you're admitting the theory sucks and are willing to investigate something else?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

I am always open to any and all ideas. If I have the choice between evolution( not Darwinism ) and Religion (take your pick) I tend to lean towards evolution. I have no problem hearing any and all personal theories and probably learning something to boot.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> ...and Religion (take your pick)...



I'm not religious; I'm christian       Grace separates Christianity from religion.   Religion is men trying to work their way into favor with 'god'.

Although I'm obviously an 'ID' proponent, it aggravates me to watch scientists try to force every discovery, every piece of data, into the one theory.    They also force this theory on our children in school (that should be inserted into the other thread probably) and forbid teachers from teaching what the alternative theories are.


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

If :

" Religion is men trying to work their way into favor with 'god'.

Then:

Most of what I see of Christianity fits the definition of religion fully and to a T.

ID is not a theory, it does not fit the definition of what a theory is, you don't get to the point of being a theory unless and until you have tested your hypothesis. 

What is the hypothesis behind ID and how was it tested scientifically? 


"...scientists try to force every discovery, every piece of data, into the one theory."

They try to fit all new data into a theory because that is what science does. You apply new data to existing theories and if it doesn't fit you try to figure out why. 

ID is religion not science and as such it is not an idea I want taught in a school as science. "God did it" is not now, never has been and never shall be science, it is now, always has been and will remain religion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> Most of what I see of Christianity fits the definition of religion fully and to a T.



And what do you see that makes Christianity fit into what you'd classify as religion?    To be a christian all one has to do is "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead".   Faith makes one right in God's sight, according to the bible.


Personally, I'd want my children to be taught all theories (and a theory doesn't have to be testable.  i.e. Big Bang "theory")    When one theory has contradicting evidence....other alternative theories should be presented.    I'm glad my children get to hear the other side of the story.     Design makes  much more sense than evolution.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

I don't recall anything being stressed to me as THEORY in school through 9th grade or so. At least not in the life sciences. I think that creation/god is more of choice and a parent has the choice to put their children in to a separate class where they get taught nothing but that. As long as the more scientific theories are presented as THEORIES explicitly, then there should be more comfortability with it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> And what do you see that makes Christianity fit into what you'd classify as religion?    To be a christian all one has to do is "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead".


 

...it's the rules that follow (see C&J forum for examples).  I don't think Jesus was religious, but most of his followers have been ever since.


----------



## slightly grayling (Aug 24, 2011)

The fossil record is woefully incomplete.  It takes ideal circumstances for fossils to form and be preserved.  With a rare animal or one with cartleged instead of bone, finding one is probably about the same odds as winning the lottery.


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

Men trying to work their way into god's favor.

Context is a wonderful thing to maintain Bandersnatch.

Or will you try to deny that "works vs faith" debates and the actions described in them that have raged for centuries are still around in the Christian community.

Design makes perfect sense from a religious viewpoint, it has the benefit that science never can have, an endless supply of miracles to explain away any contradicting evidence. You talk about science cramming things that don't fit and then trot out ID with its endless supply of miracle explanations?  


Enough contradicting evidence sends a theory onto the scrap heap, or modifies it to take the new evidence into account.

You seem confused when you say a theory does not have to be testable, and then talk about contravening evidence. The existence of evidence to the contrary proves testability. 

The BBT is testable in that if you look at what the theory actually says, not the watered down explanations. The actual core theory along with all the arguments for and against it that followed the theory was the testing. The testing of course was inductive and deductive reasoning based rather than direct observation of the past, which of course is not possible.

Observed data:

The objects in the universe appear to be expanding, (Hubble) 

ergo:

The objects in the visible universe were once closer together than they are today, ergo they were at some point in time very close together.

The explosion thing was never really part of the theory but rather a hyperbole made in an attempt to refute the theory.

BTW the man who coined the term was a champion of the competing Steady State Theory which is generally held to have been disproven.


Again ID is not science it does not fit the definition of theory used by science.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ID is not a theory, it does not fit the definition of what a theory is, you don't get to the point of being a theory unless and until you have tested your hypothesis.



This is why I said what I did about a theory.   You can have a theory way before any testing....and you can have a theory without the ability to test.   

Design is something that we accept everyday....and live our life with...but it's not allowed in science or the debate on origins.   

ID theory

Scientists say that the odds of life originating on its own is staggeringly astronomically improbable  (impossible)  and has structured complexity.

ergo....

an intelligence (didn't say "god") started it.   It's a no-brainer.    If it couldn't come together by random chance, it must have been designed.   


In any other area of life design is inferred when complexity on the scale of the cell is witnessed.   Nature, though, has been placed off-limits by science when it comes to design.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ...it's the rules that follow (see C&J forum for examples).  I don't think Jesus was religious, but most of his followers have been ever since.



I agree with that.....not hard to find religious christians.   I would say "many" instead of "most", though.


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> This is why I said what I did about a theory.   You can have a theory way before any testing....and you can have a theory without the ability to test.



NO you cannot, it violates the scientific method to do so.
Thus I tell you what you are doing is not science. 

An idea explaining observed data doesn't start as a theory in science unless you are working on someone's previous work. It starts as a hypothesis and remains one until it has been tested a number of times and ways. After having passed several tests it becomes a theory, after the theory has passed enough tests and been refined to cover almost every problem it becomes a scientific law. This chart may help explain things.

http://www.antiquark.com/2005/08/scientific-method-flowchart.html

ID, even as you explain it above, is a hypothesis at best and one which cannot be tested and thus cannot advance through the steps of the scientific method.


Which BTW does not mean that it is not exactly what happened, only that it is something that is not science.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

Ya can't say I believe in Intelligent Design and not have some ideas to share WHY.

To Say I believe in Jesus and I believe in ID and leave it at that leaves a lot to be interpreted.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> NO you cannot, it violates the scientific method to do so.
> Thus I tell you what you are doing is not science.
> 
> An idea explaining observed data doesn't start as a theory in science unless you are working on someone's previous work. It starts as a hypothesis and remains one until it has been tested a number of times and ways. After having passed several tests it becomes a theory, after the theory has passed enough tests and been refined to cover almost every problem it becomes a scientific law. This chart may help explain things.
> ...



Thank you TTom.  I have the hardest time trying to explain to Creationists how science uses the word "theory".


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> NO you cannot, it violates the scientific method to do so.
> Thus I tell you what you are doing is not science.
> 
> An idea explaining observed data doesn't start as a theory in science unless you are working on someone's previous work. It starts as a hypothesis and remains one until it has been tested a number of times and ways. After having passed several tests it becomes a theory, after the theory has passed enough tests and been refined to cover almost every problem it becomes a scientific law. This chart may help explain things.
> ...



Well stated.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Also it goes back 200 Million years.Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.
> 
> From the article:
> "The team - including Masaki Miya from Chiba's Natural History Museum in Japan, Jiro Sakaue from the Southern Marine Laboratory in Palau and G David Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC - drew up a family tree of different eels, showing the relationships between them.
> ...



Where in the heck did you get 200 million years from? It kinda looks like a 200 million old eel fossil is supposition.

Quite a stretch.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

slightly grayling said:


> The fossil record is woefully incomplete.  It takes ideal circumstances for fossils to form and be preserved.  With a rare animal or one with cartleged instead of bone, finding one is probably about the same odds as winning the lottery.



Then how are so many assumptions made about the process of evolution?

_We have this woefully incomplete set of data, so, we are gonna make a whole bunch of stuff up and call it science._


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 24, 2011)

What about Triops? relatively unchanged for MILLIONS of years.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> What about Triops? relatively unchanged for MILLIONS of years.



Unchanged or relatively unchanged?


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Unchanged or relatively unchanged?



WIKI:

Triops are sometimes called "living fossils". Fossils attributable to this genus have been found in rocks of Carboniferous age, 300 million years ago,[2] and one extant species, Triops cancriformis, has hardly changed since the Jurassic period (approximately 180 million years ago).[3]


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Where in the heck did you get 200 million years from? It kinda looks like a 200 million old eel fossil is supposition.
> 
> Quite a stretch.



From Article:

"A new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported on Wednesday."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> WIKI:
> 
> Triops are sometimes called "living fossils". Fossils attributable to this genus have been found in rocks of Carboniferous age, 300 million years ago,[2] and one extant species, Triops cancriformis, has hardly changed since the Jurassic period (approximately 180 million years ago).[3]



Dawg, we have "grown" Triops with the kids quite a few times. 

Does "hardly changed" mean unchanged? Is it the same or has it changed even if slightly? If so, why did it change? Evolution?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From Article:
> 
> "A new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported on Wednesday."



Most ID scientists will acknowledge micro-evolution (dogs to foxes etc), just not species change.  This might fall under that category.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From Article:
> 
> "A new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported on Wednesday."



Yes, I realize it came from the article, I read it.

My point is that the authors have jumped to the conclusion that it is a living fossil based on similarities it shares with other fossilized eels. This is not science, or a "living fossil".

There are no fossils of the eel in question, hence, it cannot be a living fossil.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Most ID scientists will acknowledge micro-evolution (dogs to foxes etc), just not species change.  This might fall under that category.



Yes.

Just not sure why I was asked where the heck 200million years came from when I got it right from the article.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Dawg, we have "grown" Triops with the kids quite a few times.
> 
> Does "hardly changed" mean unchanged? Is it the same or has it changed even if slightly? If so, why did it change? Evolution?



I take it as hardly distuingishable from the ones from millions of years ago.  We have some hatching now.  I'll let you know


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Most ID scientists will acknowledge micro-evolution (dogs to foxes etc), just not species change.  This might fall under that category.



Dogs to foxes is a species change. Tall white dogs to medium sized spotted dogs is evolution as defined "change over time".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, I realize it came from the article, I read it.
> 
> My point is that the authors have jumped to the conclusion that it is a living fossil based on similarities it shares with other fossilized eels. This is not science, or a "living fossil".
> 
> There are no fossils of the eel in question, hence, it cannot be a living fossil.



Tell that to Bandy!


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> 
> Just not sure why I was asked where the heck 200million years came from when I got it right from the article.



Sorry BH, I knew where you got it, and I am not trying to belittle you, the article has made some stuff up, and you bought it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> I take it as hardly distuingishable from the ones from millions of years ago.  We have some hatching now.  I'll let you know



I don't know who enjoyed them more, the wife and I or the kids!! They are neat to watch grow.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

BH - I think I am a half a post behind you! Slow down and let me catch up! LOL


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-fossil-eel-squirms.html
> 
> lol    this eel isn't even in the fossil record...so they label it 'proto' and say that it had no reason to evolve for 200 million yrs.
> 
> Darwin-of-the-gaps.



I think Bandy agrees, the OP.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Dogs to foxes is a species change. Tall white dogs to medium sized spotted dogs is evolution as defined "change over time".



Not completely, their related somewhere along the way.  Here is one reference which is not wiki (I am too lazy to go get peer reviewed stuff, but will if you insist):

http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/red_fox.htm

Same thing with wolves.



bullethead said:


> Just not sure why I was asked where the heck 200million years came from when I got it right from the article.



Ok.  I was just going with how an ID person might discuss the differences.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Sorry BH, I knew where you got it, and I am not trying to belittle you, the article has made some stuff up, and you bought it.



Until Bandy posted the article I didn't know a thing about them. I wouldn't say I "bought into it" I just thought maybe you were overlooking something in the article so I re-posted some excerpts.

I can't figure out how something could be a living fossil if we do not have a fossil of it to compare it to. I think it is hard to find perfect examples of every fossil giving the places where they might be found, conditions and way they might be destroyed by someone not looking for them(IE: Rock Quarry or Mines). Something that lived in the oceans could be at depths that man has yet to explore.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I think Bandy agrees, the OP.



OK GOTCHA!  I was under the impression that Bandy was saying that because it has been unchanged for 200 million years that it IS a living fossil, albeit...unchanged because of the lack of evolution in 200 million years. I totally over looked the obvious Bandy was getting at.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Not completely, their related somewhere along the way.  Here is one reference which is not wiki (I am too lazy to go get peer reviewed stuff, but will if you insist):
> 
> http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/red_fox.htm
> 
> ...



Same Genus, different Species.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> OK GOTCHA!  I was under the impression that Bandy was saying that because it has been unchanged for 200 million years that it IS a living fossil, albeit...unchanged because of the lack of evolution in 200 million years. I totally over looked the obvious Bandy was getting at.



Darwin-of-the-gaps. I think interpreted his post correctly.
Correct me if I am wrong Bandy.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

Electric eels are another interesting creature. Anyone know about creatures from millions of years ago with similar ways to produce electricity??


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Same Genus, different Species.




Ok.  I don't know how that stuff breaks down.  I was really just passing along what a some dude (Dr. Jackson) who works here....

http://www.creationtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=132

.....told me when I was in college.  Most ID folks accept evolution on a small scale.  You are a scientist, so you know more about the genus stuff than I do.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

Found this while searching for info on Electric Eels

http://www.livescience.com/10505-electric-fish-verge-evolutionary-split.html


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Tell that to Bandy!



I agree with Ted.....since there are no fossils of this eel...or of any predecessors, then it shouldn't be classified as a 'living fossil'.    To classify it as a 'living fossil', or to say that it "has been evolving on it's own" for millions of years is pure speculation.   No science involved....just guessing and theory-fitting.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Same Genus, different Species.



I have to correct myself a little bit. Dogs, coyotes and wolves are all the same Genus. Foxes are a different Genus. They are all the same family.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I have to correct myself a little bit. Dogs, coyotes and wolves are all the same Genus. Foxes are a different Genus. They are all the same family.



Ok, so are they related?  I don't really care one way or the other, I was just curious because this was pointed out to me by ID and 7 day creationists as a type of micro-evolution (which they all seem to believe in, ID just thinks it took longer).


----------



## TTom (Aug 26, 2011)

Yes, related they are all canidae (Canine, K-9) Family.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 27, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, so are they related?  I don't really care one way or the other, I was just curious because this was pointed out to me by ID and 7 day creationists as a type of micro-evolution (which they all seem to believe in, ID just thinks it took longer).



The domestication and selective breeding of dogs from wolves is pretty well documented. This is an example of evolution defined as "change over time".

Evolution defined as "the origin of man", is totally different and far more speculative.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 27, 2011)

That's true ted, but look at how fast selective breeding changed the wolves to the many kinds of dogs we have today. I've seen a lot about this. That's just a few hundred years.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 27, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's true ted, but look at how fast selective breeding changed the wolves to the many kinds of dogs we have today. I've seen a lot about this. That's just a few hundred years.



Right, but it isn't changing them into turtles or fish or monkeys. Change over time happens. Changing into another type of creature does not.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Right, but it isn't changing them into turtles or fish or monkeys. Change over time happens. Changing into another type of creature does not.




Precisely!   That's why the fossil record only has a few questionable transitional examples, too.   It should be littered with one great example after another....but we're left with head-scratchin' and hypotheses to explain the lack.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

How "easy" is it to find complete fossils of every creature that has ever inhabited the earth? I am being serious.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

amazing how all the transitionals got lucky in avoiding the 'global' flooding and catastrophes that cause fossils!   

almost as big a miracle as that first self-replicating cell!

Even your father Mr Darwin knew the fossil record should be full....

alas, zilch.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> amazing how all the transitionals got lucky in avoiding the 'global' flooding and catastrophes that cause fossils!
> 
> almost as big a miracle as that first self-replicating cell!
> 
> ...



Global flooding? "Global" in the bible was actually just a small area in that region. The Noah's Ark flood wasn't on a large scale and not old enough to include many of those species that were already dead hundreds of millions of years already. When did the Globe flood?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Global flooding? "Global" in the bible was actually just a small area in that region. The Noah's Ark flood wasn't on a large scale and not old enough to include many of those species that were already dead hundreds of millions of years already. When did the Globe flood?



There you go with the subject changin' again, Bullet!   lol    fossils all over the world ....ergo.....catastrophes all over the world!   I could care less when the flooding occured....100 years ago....1000....million. 

the subject at hand is the lack of transitional fossils.   lots and lots of catastrophic flooding....but the transitional species got 'lucky'.   OR.....there never was a true 'amoeba-to-man' story!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

Here we go with the link-pastin'!!!!  

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp


If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

    “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> There you go with the subject changin' again, Bullet!   lol    fossils all over the world ....ergo.....catastrophes all over the world!   I could care less when the flooding occured....100 years ago....1000....million.
> 
> the subject at hand is the lack of transitional fossils.   lots and lots of catastrophic flooding....but the transitional species got 'lucky'.   OR.....there never was a true 'amoeba-to-man' story!



I am certain YOU mentioned global flooding so what subject did I change? In the link I provided above there are examples of transitional fossils and and explanation of why there are no examples for every species. 
I would think that the odds of a perfect example of every transitional fossil are very slim. Just the right set of circumstances need to happen for something to be fossilized and then we have to actually FIND it. Conditions during death and after have a huge impact on the creature ever being found. Bones decay, they get eaten, they get spread out from scavengers, etc etc etc. The location of where the animal died either makes it prime for becoming a complete fossil or almost impossible. How many examples have been unknowingly smashed by big machinery and never known to have been there at all? How many are there right now but have not been discovered? How many are in the oceans where we still have not explored? Maybe none? Maybe all? Maybe a few real good examples...?? Who knows? Someday mankind might know for sure when we can get to those places. I am convinced the pieces are out there...needles in a haystack...some have been found and others are still there waiting to be discovered.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here we go with the link-pastin'!!!!
> 
> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
> 
> ...




What do you want me to paste? My in depth personal archeological notes from my digs all throughout the world? I gotta go with something above my Barber pay scale.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here we go with the link-pastin'!!!!
> 
> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
> 
> ...



I'm open to other suggestions and all I ask is you provide as much proof as you require from me. Tell me how it all happened.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What do you want me to paste? My in depth personal archeological notes from my digs all throughout the world? I gotta go with something above my Barber pay scale.




LOL   no, I guess I'm just saying I'm not a fan of link-pasting!  I know it's hard to avoid at times; just seems to 
derail threads.   All of us can use material from people much smarter than we are.     No offense intended.   I just don't like having to read through all the material in a link.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

Do you believe that modern birds were once lizards?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Do you believe that modern birds were once lizards?



I think there is some evidence that suggests that. I don't know if it 100% or 1% accurate.


The only reason I provide the links is so that if someone is actually interested in reading it I have saved them some time in searching for it. It is easier for those links to be examples rather than what I know. I actually enjoy when others post a link that backs up their thoughts.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ml#/ambulocetus-missing-link_5098_600x450.jpg


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

I'd like to (over time) tackle each of these National Geographic "transitions" one at a time.

What I have seen is that, for every reported 'transition', there's an equal number of evolutionary scientists who have reasons for it not being a transition.   

I know the archeopteryx is a true bird.   feathers....wishbone.....hollow bones....etc.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'd like to (over time) tackle each of these National Geographic "transitions" one at a time.
> 
> What I have seen is that, for every reported 'transition', there's an equal number of evolutionary scientists who have reasons for it not being a transition.
> 
> I know the archeopteryx is a true bird.   feathers....wishbone.....hollow bones....etc.



Don't forget to include why you think things are as they are too.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Don't forget to include why you think things are as they are too.



When you say "as they are" what do you mean?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> When you say "as they are" what do you mean?



"As they are" = how things came to be.

Just how did creatures come to life in current or past species. For the sake of conversation I'll concede that evolution DID NOT happen. I am now interested in something that will convince me how these species came to exist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I know the archeopteryx is a true bird.   feathers....wishbone.....hollow bones....etc.



From: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

"Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds."

Not sure if that makes it a "true" bird. Sounds like transitional features along with modern features.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Do you believe that modern birds were once lizards?



Do you believe that we have found every possible example of every fossil that has ever been preserved?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Do you believe that we have found every possible example of every fossil that has ever been preserved?



Every?   No.    

A really really good sampling that should have a good percentage of transitions?   without a doubt.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Every?   No.
> 
> A really really good sampling that should have a good percentage of transitions?   without a doubt.



I don't think we have scratched the surface.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't think we have scratched the surface.



I hope for your sake that the record improves.   bound to be some really good transitions buried somewhere.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

Getting back to my post about the Archaeopteryx, what modern birds have those features?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I hope for your sake that the record improves.   bound to be some really good transitions buried somewhere.



There is lots of undisturbed ground out there both above and below the Oceans. No one knows what is there until it is found.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Getting back to my post about the Archaeopteryx, what modern birds have those features?



by 'true bird' I meant that, obviously, it could flap it's wings and fly!   lol    It wasn't 'developing' the ability to fly, but already had the needed components.

Here's a list of what archeopteryx shared with modern birds...    quite extensive....and it flew.

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

I also believe there is an extant bird with a claw on it's wing...   not sure, though.    I may be wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> by 'true bird' I meant that, obviously, it could flap it's wings and fly!   lol    It wasn't 'developing' the ability to fly, but already had the needed components.
> 
> Here's a list of what archeopteryx shared with modern birds...    quite extensive....and it flew.
> 
> http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm



Kinda like having some features of the creatures before it and some features of the creatures after it???


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

Of the National Geographic link you submitted earlier, the one that drew most attention to me first was the 'turkana boy' Homo Ergaster fossil....    I did some quick research at my favorite Creation Evolution site and found, what I think is, a really good article about this 'ancestor' of yours.  

http://crev.info/content/turkana_boy_causes_museum_ruckus

To me, it's interesting how paleontologists leave out these tidbits of information, when they should present all the data.   Why would they do that?   Because they want a major hominid fossil find!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I also believe there is an extant bird with a claw on it's wing...   not sure, though.    I may be wrong.



And teeth?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And teeth?



Nope, no teeth.  Yet another example of 'losing' genetic information.   Used to have teeth, (sight, flight, etc) now does not.   

Information loss is what we generally see in the fossil record.  no surprise.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Nope, no teeth.  Yet another example of 'losing' genetic information.   Used to have teeth, (sight, flight, etc) now does not.
> 
> Information loss is what we generally see in the fossil record.  no surprise.



Where did the teeth come from to start?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Of the National Geographic link you submitted earlier, the one that drew most attention to me first was the 'turkana boy' Homo Ergaster fossil....    I did some quick research at my favorite Creation Evolution site and found, what I think is, a really good article about this 'ancestor' of yours.
> 
> http://crev.info/content/turkana_boy_causes_museum_ruckus
> 
> To me, it's interesting how paleontologists leave out these tidbits of information, when they should present all the data.   Why would they do that?   Because they want a major hominid fossil find!



I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle where propaganda from either side is not included.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Where did the teeth come from to start?



lol   probably from the same place that all the phyla in the Cambrian era came from!      They just 'appear' out of nowhere!!!   With advanced sight and features....without predecessor!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle where propaganda from either side is not included.



I agree.....probably lots of 'agenda' on both sides.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree.....probably lots of 'agenda' on both sides.



From: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7379471

"Bishop Boniface Adoyo heads Christ is the Answer Ministries here. He also heads the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, a national association of churches. Sitting in his book-lined office in Nairobi recently, the bishop, a former marketer for Xerox, said he even wants evolutionary studies out of Kenya's schools.

Bishop ADOYO: What we are telling our congregations, which number about 10 million, there's no need to visit the museum. If your children are going to be taught evolution, evolution is anti-God. It's a faith that contradicts God's word. So, if you want to remain in the truth of God, don't buy evolution's theories. "


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   probably from the same place that all the phyla in the Cambrian era came from!      They just 'appear' out of nowhere!!!   With advanced sight and features....without predecessor!



No really, what is YOUR personal stance on it? I have heard a lot about how evolution is wrong so I am still waiting to hear what makes more sense.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> No really, what is YOUR personal stance on it? I have heard a lot about how evolution is wrong so I am still waiting to hear what makes more sense.



   I thought I had made that clear already!   Since many scientist -- with the advent of the microscope and subsequent discover of the immense complexity of the cell -- have come to realize that life could not have come about from random chance, then it must have been designed.     If something with specified complexity could not have come about by random mutations and chance, then it infers design.

Some will never believe in design, even if all the evidence pointed to it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I thought I had made that clear already!   Since many scientist -- with the advent of the microscope and subsequent discover of the immense complexity of the cell -- have come to realize that life could not have come about from random chance, then it must have been designed.     If something with specified complexity could not have come about by random mutations and chance, then it infers design.
> 
> Some will never believe in design, even if all the evidence pointed to it.



Oh I understand you believe in design. All I ask is for evidence (that is held to the same scrutiny as evolution) to help me understand why. If there is a creator, Who is it? If there is evidence of creation please show me.

I understand not all creatures that were on this earth are still here now and I understand most that have been here are gone. It is very clear that the ones that exist now came at a much later date than the ones before them. When and how were they just poofed into existence. I am interested in the evidence that shows where a creature just formed into existence where there once was empty space.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh I understand you believe in design. All I ask is for evidence (that is held to the same scrutiny as evolution) to help me understand why. If there is a creator, Who is it? If there is evidence of creation please show me.
> 
> I understand not all creatures that were on this earth are still here now and I understand most that have been here are gone. It is very clear that the ones that exist now came at a much later date than the ones before them. When and how were they just poofed into existence. I am interested in the evidence that shows where a creature just formed into existence where there once was empty space.



First of all....'who' the creator is is irrelevant to "if" something was created.  Something can be created without knowing who did it.

Do you believe there is evidence for design?   or is it just 'design in biology' that you struggle with?   

What kind of evidence for design in biology would you believe?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> ...(that is held to the same scrutiny as evolution) ....



I think we've shown that evolutionary theory is held to very little scrutiny as a theory.   

for example....when a species does not change AT ALL for 200 million years, the question of age never comes up....only "how could DNA stay unchanged that long?"   They force the evidence into the theory.

When soft blood vessels are found in a T-Rex thigh bone, the question "Could it really be millions of years old?" never comes up.....just "wow, it's amazing that blood vessels can stay soft in a fossil for millions of years!"   

no scrutiny.    scrutiny will get you shunned in the peer-reviewed papers.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

I'll say again,
"I understand not all creatures that were on this earth are still here now and I understand most that have been here are gone. It is very clear that the ones that exist now came at a much later date than the ones before them. When and how were they just poofed into existence. I am interested in the evidence that shows where a creature just formed into existence where there once was empty space."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'll say again,
> "I understand not all creatures that were on this earth are still here now and I understand most that have been here are gone. It is very clear that the ones that exist now came at a much later date than the ones before them. When and how were they just poofed into existence. I am interested in the evidence that shows where a creature just formed into existence where there once was empty space."



That's what I thought....no amount of evidence (as I mentioned with the overwhelming improbability of life from nothing) will sway you.   You wouldn't accept any amount of evidence as evidence of design.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

From Mary Schweitze about the blood cells in T-Rex bone:

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1WXeqIBCQ


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> That's what I thought....no amount of evidence (as I mentioned with the overwhelming improbability of life from nothing) will sway you.   You wouldn't accept any amount of evidence as evidence of design.



In other words, you have  zero evidence to provide, gotcha.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Interesting conversation she had with PBS about a year after the smithsonian article....

apparently everyone was still leaning toward actual blood vessels and blood cells...

I'll see if I can dig up anything further...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In other words, you have  zero evidence to provide, gotcha.



I think one of the best 'evidences' I can provide would be something I've shared numerous times on here...

In 94 a group of scientists got together to find out the minimum gene set for a living cell to survive with.   After cutting out 'the fat' of a bacterium cell's genetic material, they came up with a minimum set of over 256....and this hypothetical creature would have struggled to survive.

What do you make of that evidence?    What does logic tell you?  

How could that first cell have acquired 256+ genes?

Logic tells you that it couldn't have been an accident.   200 genes was a waste of time.   You and I both know what it means.   Biological or not....it had to be put together.   did I see who did it?   Nope.   doesn't matter.   LOGIC (the same kind I use everyday when I'm not dealing with discussions of origins) tells me that it HAD to be designed.

It was impossible to originate by chance.   Is improbability evidence in your opinion?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

I honestly believe nature....life....defies logic. Things that can't, do. Things that shouldn't be, are. The impossible ends up being not only possible but common. Somehow the machine was set in motion and it just continues to modify and grow.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Somehow the machine was set in motion and it just continues to modify and grow.



In other words, that minimum gene set is a real stumper.

Do you believe that a cell with 256 genes came about by chance?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2011)

If I have the choice of Chance or Design I have to go with chance right now. There could be a 3rd, 4th or 100th option that neither of us have considered. Cells with less genes may not be able to survive here on Earth. If they came from a place where they can live and mix with the right match here on earth then it has a shot. Maybe the first cell with 256+ genes hit the earth on an asteroid and got the ball rolling. We may never have had a cell with the minimum genes to survive on earth until one or billions got here from a distant planet.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Every?   No.
> 
> A really really good sampling that should have a good percentage of transitions?   without a doubt.



I have COMPLETE doubt of this. That doesn't mean that I believe 100% in evolution.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> There is lots of undisturbed ground out there both above and below the Oceans. No one knows what is there until it is found.



And as you stated before, TONS of disturbed earth.. Giant holes excavated by giant machines.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Of the National Geographic link you submitted earlier, the one that drew most attention to me first was the 'turkana boy' Homo Ergaster fossil....    I did some quick research at my favorite Creation Evolution site and found, what I think is, a really good article about this 'ancestor' of yours.
> 
> http://crev.info/content/turkana_boy_causes_museum_ruckus
> 
> To me, it's interesting how paleontologists leave out these tidbits of information, when they should present all the data.   Why would they do that?   Because they want a major hominid fossil find!



Or is your site adding fibs or further speculation? Honestly, could be either way.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Nope, no teeth.  Yet another example of 'losing' genetic information.   Used to have teeth, (sight, flight, etc) now does not.
> 
> Information loss is what we generally see in the fossil record.  no surprise.



teeth or no teeth... Which is more "highly" evolved? Either could be. Life can evolve teeth, then evolve something else in their mouths to better fit whatever they were doing with their mouths, sure, probably eating.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree.....probably lots of 'agenda' on both sides.



I see agenda on both side. 

Agenda on creation side - only one POSSIBLE way it could have happened. THE creator. 

Agenda on evolution side - to Me, this seems more like it's just not creation. Could be something else, just NOT creation. 

Evolution could be set aside if a better theory was presented. More creationists would have a harder time setting their creator aside.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> First of all....'who' the creator is is irrelevant to "if" something was created.  Something can be created without knowing who did it.
> 
> Do you believe there is evidence for design?   or is it just 'design in biology' that you struggle with?
> 
> What kind of evidence for design in biology would you believe?



I believe the evidence you think is for design is just gaps in what we can't otherwise completely explain by evidence... evidence for WHATEVER else it might have been.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think we've shown that evolutionary theory is held to very little scrutiny as a theory.
> 
> for example....when a species does not change AT ALL for 200 million years, the question of age never comes up....only "how could DNA stay unchanged that long?"   They force the evidence into the theory.
> 
> ...



So how long ago would you speculate the T-rex was around? Why have we found no human being, homosapien, whatever, in the jaws of a t-rex during one of those flood, fossilization events?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> In other words, that minimum gene set is a real stumper.
> 
> Do you believe that a cell with 256 genes came about by chance?



As easily as 25, 56, 26, 62, 52, 65, 652.. and so on, could have.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2011)

Phew..... can you tell I was busy at work today???


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If I have the choice of Chance or Design I have to go with chance right now. There could be a 3rd, 4th or 100th option that neither of us have considered. Cells with less genes may not be able to survive here on Earth. If they came from a place where they can live and mix with the right match here on earth then it has a shot. Maybe the first cell with 256+ genes hit the earth on an asteroid and got the ball rolling. We may never have had a cell with the minimum genes to survive on earth until one or billions got here from a distant planet.



I LOVE responses like this!       And I love that others who troll this thread get to read what one of their 'champions' says about the origin of life!   It shows me the lengths to which you (and others) will go in denying evidence for design.   No matter how complex a system, no matter how impossible scientists say life 'appearing' from nothing is, you'll stand firm in the belief that it had to have come about by chance...given enough time.

"got the ball rolling".... "has a shot".   lol    as if these chemicals had a desire or purpose!!!!   lol   There was no desire to be better chemicals....or to become 'alive'!   

I believe few scientist believe that life can enjoy a radiation-filled space ride on an asteroid anymore!   lol   Space theories have arisen because the complexity of 'simple' life has been discovered.  

A simple "No, I don't believe there will ever be evidence of design in life" would have sufficed!   

"Maybe the first cell with 256+ genes hit the earth...."       Awesome.    I can tell that minimum gene set eats at you....     

You, too, believe in miracles.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> As easily as 25, 56, 26, 62, 52, 65, 652.. and so on, could have.



So, you believe that there were cells with 25 genes that could replicate?   And would just add genes (where these other genes would originate, who knows!?) over time?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> So how long ago would you speculate the T-rex was around? Why have we found no human being, homosapien, whatever, in the jaws of a t-rex during one of those flood, fossilization events?



Have they found anything in the jaws of a T-Rex?    I'm sure in a 'fossilization event' it was 'every man for himself', even among dinosaurs.   

BTW, dinosaurs live today....and the bible mentions dinosaurs.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I LOVE responses like this!       And I love that others who troll this thread get to read what one of their 'champions' says about the origin of life!   It shows me the lengths to which you (and others) will go in denying evidence for design.   No matter how complex a system, no matter how impossible scientists say life 'appearing' from nothing is, you'll stand firm in the belief that it had to have come about by chance...given enough time.
> 
> "got the ball rolling".... "has a shot".   lol    as if these chemicals had a desire or purpose!!!!   lol   There was no desire to be better chemicals....or to become 'alive'!
> 
> ...



STILL WAITING for a shred of evidence that shows it is design. I "get" that because you think it is not evolution then it HAS to be design. Just show us some examples that cannot be questioned.

I see how you get to pick apart examples I provide. But at least I provide examples. You continue to makes design statements and do not provide one example that is universally agreed upon where design has been proven. You say it is from a creator, might not be god, then reference the bible.....

Like I said many times before, for this conversations sake I'll agree that evolution is wrong and nothing can come from nothing. So I am giving you the full stage to convince me that it is all designed. Please provide examples that back up your thoughts.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

lol   You've already admitted that you don't believe biological systems will ever show design!   I've provided evidence....irreducible complexity of that first living cell, and you said it could happen by chance!     

I think my work here is done!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, you believe that there were cells with 25 genes that could replicate?   And would just add genes (where these other genes would originate, who knows!?) over time?



Maybe. I don't know. I'm not a geneticist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   You've already admitted that you don't believe biological systems will ever show design!   I've provided evidence....irreducible complexity of that first living cell, and you said it could happen by chance!
> 
> I think my work here is done!



Show me the design. Irreducible complexity does not hold all the clout you think it does. Take one thing away and No it is not what it was but it is now something similar but different. It certainly does not PROVE I.D.! Gimme something more.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

lol   i've given you evidence...you just dont want to admit that it's evidence.

SETI....the 'radars-pointing-to-the-sky' search for intelligent life in space gig....    They are listening for 'specified complexity' in a signal.   "Evidence" of extraterrestrial life.    They will assume design when they see the complex signal.   They will believe it was designed having never seen or having known the designer.

Specified complexity is design evidence....no matter what you think!   

I'm wondering if you believe anything was designed!!!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   You've already admitted that you don't believe biological systems will ever show design!   I've provided evidence....irreducible complexity of that first living cell, and you said it could happen by chance!
> 
> I think my work here is done!



I have not seen or heard how a cell was made by design. The argument(with no proof) is that "I can't see how a cell evolved and no one has yet been able to figure it out, so therefore it has to be design." Well where is the proof of design?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   i've given you evidence...you just dont want to admit that it's evidence.
> 
> SETI....the 'radars-pointing-to-the-sky' search for intelligent life in space gig....    They are listening for 'specified complexity' in a signal.   "Evidence" of extraterrestrial life.    They will assume design when they see the complex signal.   They will believe it was designed having never seen or having known the designer.
> 
> ...



So a couple of odd beeps will be evidence of a designed intelligent response......has anyone responded? Who responded to the question "Who Designed Us/Everything?" I'm still waiting for a couple of beeps from an Invisible guy in the sky.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   i've given you evidence...you just dont want to admit that it's evidence.
> 
> SETI....the 'radars-pointing-to-the-sky' search for intelligent life in space gig....    They are listening for 'specified complexity' in a signal.   "Evidence" of extraterrestrial life.    They will assume design when they see the complex signal.   They will believe it was designed having never seen or having known the designer.
> 
> ...



Your evidence has as many holes as mine. Maybe it's time we look for a 3rd option.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I have not seen or heard how a cell was made by design. The argument(with no proof) is that "I can't see how a cell evolved and no one has yet been able to figure it out, so therefore it has to be design." Well where is the proof of design?



Specified complexity.   It's evidence of design in everything. 

256 genes minimum.   256 genes with millions of uniquely paired base pairs.     

You, too, believe in miracles.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> So a couple of odd beeps will be evidence of a designed intelligent response......has anyone responded? Who responded to the question "Who Designed Us/Everything?" I'm still waiting for a couple of beeps from an Invisible guy in the sky.




That's what the SETI scientists think...    Yep, they believe that a signal could be received that shows design....not just random beeps.      your scientists will then believe in an invisible designer


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your evidence has as many holes as mine. Maybe it's time we look for a 3rd option.



256 minimum gene set is eating at you, isn't it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 256 minimum gene set is eating at you, isn't it?



Like I said earlier, it is above my pay scale. I don't let things bother me that I have no control over.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

256....hmmm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC515251/

They seem to think 206......... we lost 50 already.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your evidence has as many holes as mine. Maybe it's time we look for a 3rd option.



Quite an admission   which leads too this.....



BANDERSNATCH said:


> Specified complexity.   It's evidence of design in everything.
> 
> 256 genes minimum.   256 genes with millions of uniquely paired base pairs.
> 
> You, too, believe in miracles.



The only way that specified complexity is an evidence of DESIGN is by DEFAULT. That is, if those are the only two choices. It's more a detraction of evolution than evidence of design.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> That's what the SETI scientists think...    Yep, they believe that a signal could be received that shows design....not just random beeps.      your scientists will then believe in an invisible designer



Like I said above... hearing repeating or patterned beeps will not be PROOF of ET life. Beeps they are looking for would, at first at least, just be a detraction from the other idea - that there is nothing out there.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

Who created a virus within a cell?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 1, 2011)

What a wonderful bird the frog are
 When he stand he sit almost;
 When he hop he fly almost. 

 He ain't got no sense hardly;
 He ain't got no tail hardly either.
 When he sit, he sit on what he ain't got almost.


----------

