Evidence for God from Science

Zenith,

You listed some nice information, but none of it supports evolution, again, especially when talking about humans.

So, how do you think the first white people came to be...

No, it's not because of mutation. Apparently, you don't know what is being discussed here.

Mystical wrote:Zenith,

You listed some nice information, but none of it supports evolution, again, especially when talking about humans.

So, how do you think the first white people came to be...

No, it's not because of mutation. Apparently, you don't know what is being discussed here.

well then why don't you tell me what is being discussed here. and while you're at it why don't you tell me why the change in skin color is not because of mutation or why none of my arguments actually support evolution. you do nothing by telling me that i am wrong. if you saw someone changing a tire incorrectly would you just tell them they're doing in wrong and then walk away?

Zenith wrote:

Mystical wrote:Zenith,

You listed some nice information, but none of it supports evolution, again, especially when talking about humans.

So, how do you think the first white people came to be...

No, it's not because of mutation. Apparently, you don't know what is being discussed here.

well then why don't you tell me what is being discussed here. and while you're at it why don't you tell me why the change in skin color is not because of mutation or why none of my arguments actually support evolution. you do nothing by telling me that i am wrong. if you saw someone changing a tire incorrectly would you just tell them they're doing in wrong and then walk away?

Well some people are just too stupid to understand things...so I might

Moved to more appropriate thread.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:No we start with a population ancestral to dolphins and related to the population ancestral to hippos, or cows. Animals reproduce.

Again there IS NO common ancestor. You have to start from scratch.. You can't start playing your poker game without chips.. Because you have no chips.. You have nada..

Are you saying that there were no animals in the past? Are fossil records not enough to convince you that they have existed in the past?

Gman wrote:

Why do you surmise that there was no population to work with? Where does this conclusion come from?

Answer my question first... Where did your population come from then? Does your population consist of chemicals?

No my population consists of an ancestral population. Possibly a population belonging to the family mesonychid? I don't have a definitive answer. But there are many clues which point to the terrestrial origin of dolphins.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Reproduction itself handles the modification passing on of information.
Would you disagree?

But you stated before that your information was defective...So how can it reproduce? You haven't convinced me...

Defects occur in the reproduction process. These can pass onto offspring with no deleterious effects.

I am not here to convince you. Just providing facts.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:The front flippers found in modern dolphins resemble the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals. We are not talking about the rear fins of which we have no data for. I would venture to guess that they would resemble hindlimbs, but that would just be an educated guess. Your juxtaposition of the two statements and the resulting logical inconsistency is a non-sequitor. In other words it's an absurd conclusion to say that I meant that dolphin ancestors walked on four front limbs. Would you disagree?

This is your problem because these rear fins do in fact resemble the front fins of the dolphin.. Have a look again... Why are they calling these newly found fins in the back "fins" then? Are you suggesting that they are wheels or something?

You need a closer look than simple looking at the picture. We need to disect the rear fins to see if there is any skeletal structure, etc.

Gman wrote:They have no resemblance whatsoever to the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals.. Well maybe if you want to put a pair of sneakers on them..

Bgood wrote:I would venture to guess that they would resemble hindlimbs, but that would just be an educated guess. Your juxtaposition of the two statements and the resulting logical inconsistency is a non-sequitor. In other words it's an absurd conclusion to say that I meant that dolphin ancestors walked on four front limbs. Would you disagree?

Bgood this TOTALLY contradicts what you stated before... You stated before that fin of a dolphin more closely resembles the forelimb of terrestrial mammals...

Yes the front flippers, you see dolphins have only two flippers, this one in the article is an anamoly and this statement does not apply to it's rear fins. There is not enough information to apply any statement of this sort to this dolphins rear fins.

Gman wrote:Quote Bgood: "My statement was that the fin of a dolphin more closely resembles the forelimb of terrestrial mammals than that of the fins of fish. Do you disagree?"

Bgood wrote:You have yet to address the original intent of the exchange. Why would dolphins, which are aquatic be created with the need to breath air(once out of the womb).

Why wouldn't they or any other aquatic organism need air?

Fish do fine getting oxygen through gills, why would the dolphin seem to have the modified breathing aparatus of a terrestrial mammal?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:This restriction makes absolutely no sence within the paradigm of evolution. Dolphins are beleived to have evolved from non-dolphin whale like creatures. Thus the theory that modern whales and dolphins share a common ancestor.

Is absolutely does!! Again you stated "whales and dolphins share a common ancestor." If whales and dolphin share a common ancestor then who is that ancestor? It can't be whales because as you clearly stated that they SHARE a common ancestor...

Perhaps you need to research more on evolution. There is no logical reason why branching would occur the same way everytime nor follow any artificial classification schemes. In this case it appears that primitive whales led to modern whales and dolphins, based on homology and the fossil record.

Bgood wrote:Are you saying that there were no animals in the past? Are fossil records not enough to convince you that they have existed in the past?

At least my animals are not mutated defective piles of poo.. Ok actually I retract that because you don't even have that either... Sorry.

In other words you ain't got [blank]!

Gman wrote:Where did your population come from then? Does your population consist of chemicals?

Bgood wrote:No my population consists of an ancestral population. Possibly a population belonging to the family mesonychid? I don't have a definitive answer. But there are many clues which point to the terrestrial origin of dolphins.

Your population doesn't consist of biological chemicals? Perhaps.. Just perhaps do you think they exist on only paper then?

Bgood wrote:Defects occur in the reproduction process. These can pass onto offspring with no deleterious effects.

I am not here to convince you. Just providing facts.

Facts? What facts? You said in your other post that it is still under an investigation.. Ok then, who did your cops find as the suspect? Was it the hambugler?

Bgood wrote:You need a closer look than simple looking at the picture. We need to disect the rear fins to see if there is any skeletal structure, etc.

Oh my God Bgood.. You have to be kidding me again.. You don't think there is any skeletal structure in these back fins?? What do you think they are being held up by then? Silly puddy again?

Bgood wrote:Yes the front flippers, you see dolphins have only two flippers, this one in the article is an anamoly and this statement does not apply to it's rear fins. There is not enough information to apply any statement of this sort to this dolphins rear fins.

Not enough evidence for a statement?? What are you saying here? Are you just trying to back out of your other statements now? The scientist were giving themselves high fives because they were associating these extra fins in the back to the legs of the land mammals and now you are saying there is not enough information to apply any statement of this sort to this dolphin? Good grief Bgood...

Bgood wrote:Fish do fine getting oxygen through gills, why would the dolphin seem to have the modified breathing aparatus of a terrestrial mammal?

Modified from what? You still haven't convinced me and you still have no explanation as to why the blow hole is on the top of the dolphin...

Bgood wrote:Perhaps you need to research more on evolution. There is no logical reason why branching would occur the same way everytime nor follow any artificial classification schemes. In this case it appears that primitive whales led to modern whales and dolphins, based on homology and the fossil record.

Like I was saying before, the more I read what you are posting the more I see this as all bunk... I'm becoming more and more upset by the absurdity of this argument for a common ancestor..

Gman wrote:At least my animals are not mutated defective piles of poo.. Ok actually I retract that because you don't even have that either... Sorry.

In other words you ain't got [blank]!

Gman wrote:Where did your population come from then? Does your population consist of chemicals?

Bgood wrote:No my population consists of an ancestral population. Possibly a population belonging to the family mesonychid? I don't have a definitive answer. But there are many clues which point to the terrestrial origin of dolphins.

Your population doesn't consist of biological chemicals? Perhaps.. Just perhaps do you think they exist on only paper then?

No I think it's safe to say that populations of animals existed in the past, based on fossil findings.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Defects occur in the reproduction process. These can pass onto offspring with no deleterious effects.

I am not here to convince you. Just providing facts.

Facts? What facts? You said in your other post that it is still under an investigation..

The facts of the dolphin article are still under investigation.
That mutations occur commonly which do not cause failure is a fact.
You are conflating two unrelated statements.

If I stated that Wendy Williams is on VH1 tonight.
And then later said I am going to Wendy's for a burger, will you think that I am going to a celebrities home for some grub?

Gman wrote:Ok then, who did your cops find as the suspect? Was it the hambugler?

Bgood wrote:You need a closer look than simple looking at the picture. We need to disect the rear fins to see if there is any skeletal structure, etc.

Oh my God Bgood.. You have to be kidding me again.. You don't think there is any skeletal structure in these back fins?? What do you think they are being held up by then? Silly puddy again?

Um, no I think it's clear that I meant that we need to do comparative anatomical analysis to see if the rear fins structure is like that of the front flippers or more homologous to the hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals. This simply cannot be done by looking at pictures.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Yes the front flippers, you see dolphins have only two flippers, this one in the article is an anamoly and this statement does not apply to it's rear fins. There is not enough information to apply any statement of this sort to this dolphins rear fins.

Not enough evidence for a statement?? What are you saying here? Are you just trying to back out of your other statements now? The scientist were giving themselves high fives because they were associating these extra fins in the back to the legs of the land mammals and now you are saying there is not enough information to apply any statement of this sort to this dolphin? Good grief Bgood...

First off, I stated from the very outset(first post) that this particular case (the four finned dolphin) may not be good evidence (This does not mean I think there is no evidence, just this particular instance may not add to the argument) in the case for the terrestrial origin of dolphins.
Notice the many qualifies in the previous sentence, this is to prevent mis-interpretation and conflation in future discourse.
LOL
And additionally you misrepresent the scientists themselves. See below.
"Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."
Notice the could and may, this is not the language of a definitive statement.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Fish do fine getting oxygen through gills, why would the dolphin seem to have the modified breathing aparatus of a terrestrial mammal?

Modified from what? You still haven't convinced me and you still have no explanation as to why the blow hole is on the top of the dolphin...

As I said earlier the telescoping ot the dolphin skull could have caused the nasal cavity to recess. I don't have a concrete explanation describing the evolution of the blowhole. But plausible explanations using mechanisms proven to exist can be made. And that is the key, mechanisms of modification over time have been identified. If one is to accept it's terrestrial origins the development and anatomy of the dolphin makes perfect sence. The fact that a dolphin breaths air is no longer a mystery.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Perhaps you need to research more on evolution. There is no logical reason why branching would occur the same way everytime nor follow any artificial classification schemes. In this case it appears that primitive whales led to modern whales and dolphins, based on homology and the fossil record.

Like I was saying before, the more I read what you are posting the more I see this as all bunk... I'm becoming more and more upset by the absurdity of this argument for a common ancestor..

If you are getting upset, let's end the conversation here. You may have the last post.

Bgood wrote:No I think it's safe to say that populations of animals existed in the past, based on fossil findings.

If your population doesn't or didn't consist of biological chemicals then you don't have any fossil findings..

Bgood wrote:The facts of the dolphin article are still under investigation.
That mutations occur commonly which do not cause failure is a fact.
You are conflating two unrelated statements.

And what about deleterious mutations? The accumulation of these are lethal...

Quote:"Evolutionists are faced with a serious problem in explaining how hominids could have evolved given their high rate for accumulation of deleterious mutations, and their extremely low reproductive rates. How do these harmful mutations get removed as one species evolves into another? If evolution is correct, then the hominids should have become extinct many millions of year ago, due to the accumulation of these bad mutations."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld043.html

Or...

Quote:"According to evolutionary theory, a new adaptation must be acquired fairly quickly, or else organisms will be poorly adapted to both the new and the old conditions and will not survive. Therefore, it seems logical that the first genetic changes must have large effects or else the changes will not be selected. However, the observation that large beneficial mutations seem to occur (of course de novo creation is eliminated as a possibility) poses a problem, since these mutations are thought to be mostly rare and mostly disadvantageous when they do happen so "they contradict theory," according to Dr. H. Allen Orr, an evolutionary geneticist at University of Rochester in New York (19). "We're in a funny situation - we're about to have a wave of data crash down on us and no theory to hang it on." New models have been proposed to attempt to explain these data, although they are yet to be confirmed."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Bgood wrote:Um, no I think it's clear that I meant that we need to do comparative anatomical analysis to see if the rear fins structure is like that of the front flippers or more homologous to the hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals. This simply cannot be done by looking at pictures.

No.... I was pointing out to the fact that you said there was a need to see if there is any skeletal structure... Obviously there is a skeleton in there to hold up the fins... Even if it isn't fully formed...

Bgood wrote:First off, I stated from the very outset(first post) that this particular case (the four finned dolphin) may not be good evidence (This does not mean I think there is no evidence, just this particular instance may not add to the argument) in the case for the terrestrial origin of dolphins.
Notice the many qualifies in the previous sentence, this is to prevent mis-interpretation and conflation in future discourse.
Very Happy LOL
And additionally you misrepresent the scientists themselves. See below.
"Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."
Notice the could and may, this is not the language of a definitive statement.

First off you are wrong... This is what you stated...

Quote Bgood: "There is not enough information to apply ANY statement of this sort to this dolphins rear fins." "Any" meaning NO statements... Nada... "Could" and "May" are statements... This is why these scientists should have waited before opening their mouths so quickly before examining things further...

Bgood wrote:As I said earlier the telescoping ot the dolphin skull could have caused the nasal cavity to recess. I don't have a concrete explanation describing the evolution of the blowhole.

You are finally being reasonable... No facts...

Bgood wrote:If you are getting upset, let's end the conversation here. You may have the last post.

I doubt if you will...