Evidence for God from Science

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..

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?

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...

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?

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...

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?

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...

Bgood wrote:Of course it does, but however much you disagree with evolution we need to agree on what it means, don't you think?
It's similar to a Muslim comming into a Baptist church and having a different definition for the trinity.

Bgood wrote:The point is that a muslim who is studying Christianity needs to understand the Christian definition of trinity in order to discuss it's merits. And similarily you need to understand what homology and analogy represent within the paradigm of evolution.

Are you kidding me?? The point of my statement is that they DON'T have another definition of the Trinity because it is evil to them... They reject the Trinity.. The Trinity has no other definitions except one... Both Muslims and Christians have the same definition of it and agree on what it stands for. That is why Muslims don't believe in it. It is not a debatable theology, Muslim's do NOT have a different definition of it as you stated...

Bgood wrote:And similarily you need to understand what homology and analogy represent within the paradigm of evolution.

And the more you explain it to me the more I see it as bunk...

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:I did not say it was a worthless study, how does your statement above even follow?
Here's our conversation.

Excuse me? Let's roll back the tape...

Me: And why are those functions different? Also I thought you said that functionality is insignificant to homology..
BGood: It is, we are talking about analogy.

Analogy is not insignificant...

I did not state that analogy is insignificant, read more carefully what I am agreeing with here. Functionality is insignificant to homology. I am agreeing with your statement that FUNCTIONALITY is insignificant to homology.

Gman wrote:Do you know what the word insignificant means? Please look it up in the dictionary if you are confused on what it means.. It means "unimportant, trifling, or petty..."

Bgood wrote:Me - This is exactly what the scientists did. They surmised that dolphins once walked on land because of structural homologies. And to clarify the dolphins ancestors once walked on land, not walked on fins.

No... Again they are were associating this fins to the remains of back legs.

Quote: "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."

Bgood wrote:GMan - Yeah, but you omitted that part that they associated these fins to legs..
Me - That goes without saying, structural homology connotes just that.
GMan - I hope you understand that now because when it comes to function, the back fins found on the dolphin appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals.
Me - How is this analogous? They have different functions.
GMan - And why are those functions different? Also I thought you said that functionality is insignificant to homology..
It is, we are talking about analogy. Look what you wrote below.

As you can see you stated that the back fins of dolphins are analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals, I was correcting you. They are homologous.

Correcting me? And why aren't the back fins of dolphins analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals?

Because they have different functions. It will be proposed that the back fins of this particular dolphin and hindlegs of terrestrial mammals are Homologous.

Also note that analogy does not lead to the conclusion of common descent, so pointing out an analogy does nothing to backup the statement "may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."

Here's a definition of analogy from your link.
Analogy - Two structures in biology are said to be analogous if they perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism.

What function does the back fins of this dolphin serve?
Does it perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism to hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals?
Are you sure that this dolphins back fins and the hind legs of terrestrial mammals of are analogous?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:]They have different functions but similar structure.

From your link.
"Homologous structures may retain the function they served in the common ancestor or they may evolve to fulfill different functions for example, the wings of birds versus the forelimbs of mammals."

But you said that functionality is insignificant to homology...

"Homologous structures may retain the function they served in the common ancestor OR they may evolve to fulfill different functions"
If it may or may not retain the same function, using your esteemed judgement how significant is function to homology.

Lets restate this using alternative terms.
The color you choose may be the one I chose, or may be a completely separate color, as long as it's oil based. So tell me is color significant here?

Gman wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:]

Gman wrote:And then you kept on saying that there was a "functional homology." Since we are using previous statements, remember this statement? Quote Bgood: "Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence."

This was a term you and angel was tossing about. See the first page of this thread.

Gman Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 am wrote:Can you show me the reference where evolution is mainly concerned with homology of structures and very little with functional homology?

And I already explained that this term was "coined" to describe your misuse of the term analogy.

You didn't think I saw that before? That is why I posted it as a question to angel... Because it was an upsurd question... Nice try.. By the way your time is wrong..

In any case we both agree that there is no such a thing as functional homology. And having said that that using functions to argue against homology is absurd. Would you agree? Then as a result the argument you posted from AIG is completely devoid of any persuasive statements. Because AIG basically argued that homology was impossible due to functional differences.

Gman wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:]Angel stated - The discussion started on homologies in evolution.
You posted a quotation (from answers in genesis).
I just pointed out that in THAT quotation they mixed functional homologies and structural homologies. It is my opinion that functional homologies are very misleading.
Gman said - Then why were scientists claiming that dolphins had once WALKED on earth with legs as once the land mammals did? Isn't walking a FUNCTION?
I replied - The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?
Gman said - Oh, so you do agree that there can be a functional homology?

Hold it right there... You are taking things out of context...

Before I stated that last post of mine you stated this...

Bgood said: The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?

After that I stated this..

Gman said - Oh, so you do agree that there can be a functional homology?

So you agreed at this point that there was a functional homology.. Don't blame Angel or me...

No again, I explained before, I was using this term to describe the attempt to use function in a discussion of common descent. Read carefully.
"What use would functional homology be to any discussion?"
Translated - it's a worthless term.

You think I am promoting something by declaring it useless?
For example if I said what use would astrology be in any discussion, am I giving it my full support?

And for those interested here is the full quote.

Bgood wrote:The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?
Would it be helpful to say tigers walk so they must have once walked? Spiders walk too so they must be closely related?
Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence.
Yet that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Gman wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:]To which I replied NO
Then Gman said - Let me ask you this.. What use would structural homology be to any discussion without functional homology? What good are legs if they are not used to walk? Do you suppose they are used simply for looks or pantyhose??
I replied - Function follows structure. So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined.

As you can see whole conversation stems from when you posted that quote from Answers in genesis. That quote confuses readers by introducing function to try to discredit homology. This makes absolutely no sence, because it is the similarity of the basic structures, which leads one to conclude common ancestry despite differences in function.

Who's confused? Why did you state ""Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence." Here you are again stating it again...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We begin the conversation with functional differences and structural similarity.

The reason the homology argument is so strong is simply as follows. There are many solutions to a problem, why would the solution to the dolphins flipper be so similar to that of a cows forelimbs? It certainly does not need to be.

The forelimbs of a cow and the dolphins fin have no resemblance whatsoever.... But again in dreamland anything is possible...

Your source states otherwise.

AIG wrote:"It should be noted that the pectoral fins or flippers of the dolphin contain bones that are homologous (similar) to those of the human arm and hand (as well as the forelimbs of other mammals). The pectoral fin of the dolphin, for example, contains a short bone similar to the humerus (upper arm bone) of land dwelling mammals which is attached by a ball socket type joint to a scapula (shoulder blade). The humerus in turn articulates with a pair of side-by-side short bones similar to the radius and ulna (lower arm bones) of other mammals. Finally, the fin contains small bones roughly comparable to wrist bones and linear rows of bones that superficially resemble fingers."

In any case it brings us back to one of the earlier observations, dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish. Why?
A dolphin needs to breath air, it seems a handicap for a marine creature, do you see any reason for this?
What about the elbow joint? Why have a joint if it's just fused?
These are but a few of the questions which quickly arise from a cursory study of dolphin anatomy.

Gman wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Introducing functionality to the equation after estabilishing homology is simply muddying the waters.

That's right it muddies up the water for your common ancestor theory even more... That's why you despise it..

No, it muddies up the waters because the impetus for investigation began with "different functions yet similar structure". Then to reintroduce function to question conclusions represents a mental derailing.

See below.

Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Common Ancestry could be a possible explanation.
But the functions are different!
Yes the functions are different, those doing the investigating knew this all along. Thus the reason for the investigation!

As you can see this is mudding the waters.
If you like detective novels try this one.
The suspect is not a copper miner yet there is copper sulfide ore residue on the murder weapon.
How did it get there?
Wasn't the victims brother a mine worker, perhaps the victim borrowed his brothers coat.
But the suspect is not a copper miner!
Yes the suspect is not a copper miner, those doing the investigating knew this all along. Thus the reason for the investigation!

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to another thread

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Of course it does, but however much you disagree with evolution we need to agree on what it means, don't you think?
It's similar to a Muslim comming into a Baptist church and having a different definition for the trinity.

Bgood wrote:The point is that a muslim who is studying Christianity needs to understand the Christian definition of trinity in order to discuss it's merits. And similarily you need to understand what homology and analogy represent within the paradigm of evolution.

Are you kidding me?? The point of my statement is that they DON'T have another definition of the Trinity because it is evil to them... They reject the Trinity.. The Trinity has no other definitions except one... Both Muslims and Christians have the same definition of it and agree on what it stands for. That is why Muslims don't believe in it. It is not a debatable theology, Muslim's do NOT have a different definition of it as you stated...

Exactly, which is why I would like you to use the term analogy correctly, and understand under which circumstances analogy is used to contrast with homology.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:And similarily you need to understand what homology and analogy represent within the paradigm of evolution.

And the more you explain it to me the more I see it as bunk...

Fair enough.
Let's continue this particular discussion in this thread if we must.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps this discussion should be moved to another thread

Well I want to post it here as well so that it will get more exposure...

Bgood wrote:I did not state that analogy is insignificant, read more carefully what I am agreeing with here. Functionality is insignificant to homology. I am agreeing with your statement that FUNCTIONALITY is insignificant to homology.

This is where we disagree... Again the statement from Answers.com says that analogy is CONTRASTED with that of homolgy.... It is NOT insignificant to homology....NOWHERE in the statement does it say that it is insignificant to homology...

Here is the statement again from Answer.com..

"The concept of analogy is contrasted with that of homology, which refers to two structures that share a common ancestor and share basic structure. Homologous structures may retain the function they served in the common ancestor or they may evolve to fulfill different functions for example, the wings of birds versus the forelimbs of mammals."

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/analogy-biology

Do you know what the word "insignificant" means? Again it means "unimportant, trifling, or petty." If you are confused on what it means please look it up in the dictionary..

You are saying that you agree with the statement?? Then please read it...

I'm sorry for being forward about this but I grow tired of having to repeat myself every time...

Bgood wrote:Because they have different functions. It will be proposed that the back fins of this particular dolphin and hindlegs of terrestrial mammals are Homologous.

Also note that analogy does not lead to the conclusion of common descent, so pointing out an analogy does nothing to backup the statement "may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."

Here's a definition of analogy from your link.
Analogy - Two structures in biology are said to be analogous if they perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism.

What function does the back fins of this dolphin serve?
Does it perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism to hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals?

Bgood wrote:Are you sure that this dolphins back fins and the hind legs of terrestrial mammals of are analogous?

Yup.. As sure as the Iowa State Daily news... Perhaps you would like to debate some of the Iowa State University folks over there....

Their statement claims that MOST biologists believe that the back fins found on the dolphin appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals.

"Most biologists say the dolphin's front fins correspond structurally to the arms and forelegs in other land-based mammals; the back fins found on the animal appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals.

Sorry....

Source

Bgood wrote:In any case we both agree that there is no such a thing as functional homology. And having said that that using functions to argue against homology is absurd. Would you agree? Then as a result the argument you posted from AIG is completely devoid of any persuasive statements. Because AIG basically argued that homology was impossible due to functional differences.

Hmmm perhaps... I wonder what they meant though....

Bgood wrote:No again, I explained before, I was using this term to describe the attempt to use function in a discussion of common descent. Read carefully.
"What use would functional homology be to any discussion?"
Translated - it's a worthless term.

You think I am promoting something by declaring it useless?
For example if I said what use would astrology be in any discussion, am I giving it my full support?

And for those interested here is the full quote.

But you missed your other statement in there... You said "Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sense." In other words, you can MAKE other conclusions on functional homology alone...

Bgood wrote:Your source states otherwise.

You took that source out of context..

Bgood wrote:In any case it brings us back to one of the earlier observations, dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish. Why?
A dolphin needs to breath air, it seems a handicap for a marine creature, do you see any reason for this?
What about the elbow joint? Why have a joint if it's just fused?
These are but a few of the questions which quickly arise from a cursory study of dolphin anatomy.

You keep saying that over and over again but the evidence shows that dolphins flippers do NOT resemble the forelimbs of a cow...

Bgood wrote:No, it muddies up the waters because the impetus for investigation began with "different functions yet similar structure". Then to reintroduce function to question conclusions represents a mental derailing.

Only yours... Just kidding...

Bgood wrote:See below.

Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Common Ancestry could be a possible explanation.
Exclamation But the functions are different! Exclamation
Yes the functions are different, those doing the investigating knew this all along. Thus the reason for the investigation!

In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure, but that doesn't matter because we are investigating it.. And if we are investigating it then it is ok to the common ancestor explanation?

Bgood.. I don't want to be rude but are you ok?

Bgood wrote:As you can see this is mudding the waters.
If you like detective novels try this one.
The suspect is not a copper miner yet there is copper sulfide ore residue on the murder weapon.
How did it get there?
Wasn't the victims brother a mine worker, perhaps the victim borrowed his brothers coat.
Exclamation But the suspect is not a copper miner! Exclamation
Yes the suspect is not a copper miner, those doing the investigating knew this all along. Thus the reason for the investigation!

Yes an investigation that has been going on for decades now... The suspect died many years ago but the cops are still in the chase!

Bgood wrote:Exactly, which is why I would like you to use the term analogy correctly

Exactly?? Ah excuse me Bgood...How is your Trinity statement similar to the analogy/homology terms? Again there is NO different definition for the Trinity. Muslims and Christians have the EXACT same definition of it....

However the homology and analogy definitions are different... They are NOT the same....

Here is the correct statement of homology: "Homology is different from analogy; for instance, the wings of insects, the wings of bats and the wings of birds are analogous but not homologous."

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/homology-biology

Bgood wrote:and understand under which circumstances analogy is used to contrast with homology.

That's right Bgood. You got it... Analogy is used to contrast with homology.

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:

Bgood wrote:I did not state that analogy is insignificant, read more carefully what I am agreeing with here. Functionality is insignificant to homology. I am agreeing with your statement that FUNCTIONALITY is insignificant to homology.

This is where we disagree... Again the statement from Answers.com says that analogy is CONTRASTED with that of homolgy.... It is NOT insignificant to homology....NOWHERE in the statement does it say that it is insignificant to homology...

Look at my statement again I stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. I never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology.

GMan - I hope you understand that now because when it comes to function, the back fins found on the dolphin appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals. (Here you are talking about analogy)
Me - How is this analogous? They have different functions. (Here I am asking how structures with different function can be analogous.)
Gman: And why are those functions different? Also I thought you said that functionality is insignificant to homology..
(Now you switch the topic to homology)
BGood: It is, we are talking about analogy.
(Here I reply that functionality is insignificant to homology, but we were talking about analogy.)

Gman wrote:Here is the statement again from Answer.com..

"The concept of analogy is contrasted with that of homology, which refers to two structures that share a common ancestor and share basic structure. Homologous structures may retain the function they served in the common ancestor or they may evolve to fulfill different functions for example, the wings of birds versus the forelimbs of mammals."

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/analogy-biology

Do you know what the word "insignificant" means? Again it means "unimportant, trifling, or petty." If you are confused on what it means please look it up in the dictionary..

You are saying that you agree with the statement?? Then please read it...

I'm sorry for being forward about this but I grow tired of having to repeat myself every time...

I will state it one last time, I have never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology. I clearly stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. Functionality and analogy are not the same thing.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Because they have different functions. It will be proposed that the back fins of this particular dolphin and hindlegs of terrestrial mammals are Homologous.

Also note that analogy does not lead to the conclusion of common descent, so pointing out an analogy does nothing to backup the statement "may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."

Here's a definition of analogy from your link.
Analogy - Two structures in biology are said to be analogous if they perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism.

What function does the back fins of this dolphin serve?
Does it perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism to hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals?

Bgood wrote:Are you sure that this dolphins back fins and the hind legs of terrestrial mammals of are analogous?

Yup.. As sure as the Iowa State Daily news... Perhaps you would like to debate some of the Iowa State University folks over there....

Their statement claims that MOST biologists believe that the back fins found on the dolphin appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals.

"Most biologists say the dolphin's front fins correspond structurally to the arms and forelegs in other land-based mammals; the back fins found on the animal appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals.

Sorry....

Source

This is clearly a mistake. I have emailed the author and will keep you abreast of any replies.

And if you are uncertain that is is an error here is the reasoning why.

Analogy - Two structures in biology are said to be analogous if they perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism.
Homology - In biology, two or more structures are said to be homologous if they are alike because of shared ancestry.

So as an example the wings of a butterfly and that of a bird are analogous.

Now look at the article.
"the back fins found on the animal appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals."
And the title of the article in question.
"Dolphin's unusual fins hint at evolutionary past"

Do you think if the author really meant analogy that the fins would have any significance in terms of evolution?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:No again, I explained before, I was using this term to describe the attempt to use function in a discussion of common descent. Read carefully.
"What use would functional homology be to any discussion?"
Translated - it's a worthless term.

You think I am promoting something by declaring it useless?
For example if I said what use would astrology be in any discussion, am I giving it my full support?

And for those interested here is the full quote.

But you missed your other statement in there... You said "Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sense." In other words, you can MAKE other conclusions on functional homology alone...

Let me qualify this statement then. You cannot make any conclusions based on functional homology. Because the term is an oxymoron. In other words the two terms function and homology are contrasted to show emphasis on the absurdity of the idea of using function to argue against homology.

Gman wrote:The forelimbs of a cow and the dolphins fin have no resemblance whatsoever.... But again in dreamland anything is possible...

Bgood wrote:Your source states otherwise.

You took that source out of context..

Did I?
What about this comment?

Gman wrote:5. The dolphin fin resembles an arm better than a leg. See example of a whale fin..

An anatomical analysis of the forelimb of the mammals suggests that they are homologous structures.

Thy have the same number of arm bones, why not just have one or a pair of bones connecting the shoulder to the hand? Why have three bones with the elbow joint fused?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:In any case it brings us back to one of the earlier observations, dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish. Why?
A dolphin needs to breath air, it seems a handicap for a marine creature, do you see any reason for this?
What about the elbow joint? Why have a joint if it's just fused?
These are but a few of the questions which quickly arise from a cursory study of dolphin anatomy.

You keep saying that over and over again but the evidence shows that dolphins flippers do NOT resemble the forelimbs of a cow...

Comparisons are relative, thus your statement is vacuous. Read my question more carefully please, more carefully.

Do dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:See below.

Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Common Ancestry could be a possible explanation.
Exclamation But the functions are different! Exclamation
Yes the functions are different, those doing the investigating knew this all along. Thus the reason for the investigation!

In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure, but that doesn't matter because we are investigating it.. And if we are investigating it then it is ok to the common ancestor explanation?

No.

What we realize is that structure is surprisingly similar even though function is markedly different. And contrasting homology cases with analogy cases we further realize that there is no reason that structure follows from function. Thus why the similarity in structure, when a multitude of other structures would suffice. Thus the investigation turns to why the structure is similar.

Gman wrote:Bgood.. I don't want to be rude but are you ok?

I said - Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Gman replied - In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure

This is a severe logical error, structure is the same regardless of function not vise versa as you stated. Function does not determine structure.

Take the following.
Smell is different yet the color is the same, why do they have the same color?
Gmans reply - In other words we realize that smell is a problem to color.

No. The color is the same regardless of smell. Smell does not determine color.
Our search must now turn to finding another reason for the similarity in color.

Bgood wrote:Look at my statement again I stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. I never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology.

GMan - I hope you understand that now because when it comes to function, the back fins found on the dolphin appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals. (Here you are talking about analogy)
Me - How is this analogous? They have different functions. (Here I am asking how structures with different function can be analogous.)
Gman: And why are those functions different? Also I thought you said that functionality is insignificant to homology..
(Now you switch the topic to homology)
BGood: It is, we are talking about analogy.
(Here I reply that functionality is insignificant to homology, but we were talking about analogy.)

No... We have already looked at your statement many many times.. I understand what you are saying about your term analogy (maybe)... What I'm stating here is that analogy includes (or refers) FUNCTION... In fact many people use the term functional analogies together. Let me show you these other quotes then to clarify...

"Not all similar structures are homologous; the alternative is that the structures are analogous. When two structures are analogous, it means that they evolved independently, but perform the same functions."

Source: //virtuallaboratory.net/Biofundamentals/lectureNotes/Topic1-5_Evo.htm

In fact even you in your other statements said the following..

Quote Bgood: "Explain to me why functional analogy is better at determing common ancestry."

Or

Quote Bgood: "So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined."

Again when you are talking about analogy you can refer FUNCTION... Even you agreed with the statement.. And functions contrast with homology...I don't know what to say more here... And function is different from structure...

Bgood wrote:I will state it one last time, I have never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology. I clearly stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. Functionality and analogy are not the same thing.

Your other statements (above) contradict what you are saying...

Bgood wrote:This is clearly a mistake. I have emailed the author and will keep you abreast of any replies.

And if you are uncertain that is is an error here is the reasoning why.

Analogy - Two structures in biology are said to be analogous if they perform the same or similar function by a similar mechanism.
Homology - In biology, two or more structures are said to be homologous if they are alike because of shared ancestry.

So as an example the wings of a butterfly and that of a bird are analogous.

Now look at the article.
"the back fins found on the animal appear to be analogous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals."
And the title of the article in question.
"Dolphin's unusual fins hint at evolutionary past"

Those darn Iowans... Always popping off the mouth...

Hmmm... While you are at it you better contact National Geographic as well and ask them why they were saying that these extra fins (or their ancient ancestors limbs) were once used to WALK on the earth... Unless you don't think walking is a function..

"Japanese fishers have found an unusual bottlenose dolphin with an extra set of fins that could be an evolutionary throwback to the time when the marine mammals' ancient ancestors walked on land."

Source: //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061106-dolphin-legs.html

Bgood wrote:Thy have the same number of arm bones, why not just have one or a pair of bones connecting the shoulder to the hand? Why have three bones with the elbow joint fused?

This is HORRIBLE!!! I see absolutely no similarities here... The size, shape, the number of digits, the structures are COMPLETELY different except that they are bones... They only thing some scientists did here was call them the same things... "IF" that...

Bgood wrote:Comparisons are relative, thus your statement is vacuous. Read my question more carefully please, more carefully.
Do dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish?

These comparisons are only relative to your common ancestry theory... Not mine nor the majority of Americans...

Bgood wrote:I said - Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Gman replied - In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure

This is a severe logical error, structure is the same regardless of function not vise versa as you stated. Function does not determine structure.

Take the following.
Smell is different yet the color is the same, why do they have the same color?
Gmans reply - In other words we realize that smell is a problem to color.

No. The color is the same regardless of smell. Smell does not determine color.
Our search must now turn to finding another reason for the similarity in color.

No.... It's not a severe logical error because I don't agree with you about structure... That's the problem. Get it??? We do NOT agree on one color in this argument.. They are not the same colors or structures... There are different structures they are NOT all the same...

It's only in YOUR theory or in your mind... Nice try though.

In other words we don't agree on anything....

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Look at my statement again I stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. I never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology.

No... We have already looked at your statement many many times.. I understand what you are saying about your term analogy (maybe)... What I'm stating here is that analogy includes (or refers) FUNCTION... In fact many people use the term functional analogies together. Let me show you these other quotes then to clarify...

I never refuted that analogy includes a discussion of function. In fact describing analogy is completely dependent on function. It seems as if you are moving the target, and because of this, this may be my last post in this thread. Not because I am frustrated, but because earnest discourse cannot be acheived thus an excersize which bears no fruit.

Gman wrote:"Not all similar structures are homologous; the alternative is that the structures are analogous. When two structures are analogous, it means that they evolved independently, but perform the same functions."

Source: http://virtuallaboratory.net/Biofundame ... -5_Evo.htm

In fact even you in your other statements said the following..

Quote Bgood: "Explain to me why functional analogy is better at determing common ancestry."

Or

Quote Bgood: "So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined."

Again when you are talking about analogy you can refer FUNCTION...

Where have I ever stated otherwise? However the term function is not synonymous with analogy.

Gman wrote:Even you agreed with the statement.. And functions contrast with homology...

No. Analogy can be contrasted with homology. You cannot replace analogy with function. Thats like replacing acceleration with speed. Analogy is a derivative with respect to similarity of function.

Contrasting of analogy with homology refers to two different examples. For example analogy is defined by two organs with similar function while homology is defined by two organs with similar structure. See how the terms are contrasted?

Analogy as a concept is contrasted with homology, but individual cases are usually one or the other. You seem to be conflating the concepts being contrasted in the study of biological forms with actual contrasting within this specifc case. If this is the case show me how this particular example can be seen as an analogy. Use the definitions and fit the example to them, if you please. And then show how a contrast is made.

"When two structures are analogous, it means that they evolved independently, but perform the same functions."".

Gman wrote:I don't know what to say more here... And function is different from structure...

Yes function is different from structure.
However, the argument you were putting forward before the startling redefinition of your position was that, I stated that analogy is insignificant to homology.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:I will state it one last time, I have never stated that analogy is insignificant to homology. I clearly stated that functionality is insignificant to homology. Functionality and analogy are not the same thing.

Your other statements (above) contradict what you are saying...

How are they contradicting each other, you musn't continue to state things without explanation, it is unkind, to say the least. Please expand.

Gman wrote:Hmmm... While you are at it you better contact National Geographic as well and ask them why they were saying that these extra fins (or their ancient ancestors limbs) were once used to WALK on the earth... Unless you don't think walking is a function..

"Japanese fishers have found an unusual bottlenose dolphin with an extra set of fins that could be an evolutionary throwback to the time when the marine mammals' ancient ancestors walked on land."

It's a simplification, email them yourself for clarification. May they have the patience to respond to you. It may be the case that information still exists in the dolphins genetic code which encodes for this feature. In most cases this development does not occur, however the fact that it may still exist would add to the evidence that dolphins have terrestrial origins.
Which brings us back to the original purpose of this thread which Angel can expound upon if he so wishes.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Thy have the same number of arm bones, why not just have one or a pair of bones connecting the shoulder to the hand? Why have three bones with the elbow joint fused?

This is HORRIBLE!!! I see absolutely no similarities here... The size, shape, the number of digits, the structures are COMPLETELY different except that they are bones... They only thing some scientists did here was call them the same things... "IF" that...

That is your expert opinion? Very well then. This is not the main point. In any case I was unable to find a full picture of the cows front limbs. Only the part which is homologous to the wrist.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Comparisons are relative, thus your statement is vacuous. Read my question more carefully please, more carefully.
Do dolphins flippers more closely resemble the forelimbs of a cow than it does the fins of a fish?

These comparisons are only relative to your common ancestry theory... Not mine nor the majority of Americans...

A dolphin has a Scapula(shoulder), Humerous, Radius, Ulna, wrist bones and phalanges in a similar arangement to that of terrestrial mammals. All of these features are absent in fish. Do you disagree with the above statements?

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:I said - Function is different yet Structure is the same?
Why is the structure the same?
Gman replied - In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure

This is a severe logical error, structure is the same regardless of function not vise versa as you stated. Function does not determine structure.

Take the following.
Smell is different yet the color is the same, why do they have the same color?
Gmans reply - In other words we realize that smell is a problem to color.

No. The color is the same regardless of smell. Smell does not determine color.
Our search must now turn to finding another reason for the similarity in color.

No.... It's not a severe logical error because I don't agree with you about structure... That's the problem. Get it??? We do NOT agree on one color in this argument.. They are not the same colors or structures... There are different structures they are NOT all the same...

I was pointing out your logical error. It has nothing to do with opinions. That's why I used colors.

I was only explaining why your comment
"In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure, but that doesn't matter because we are investigating it.. And if we are investigating it then it is ok to the common ancestor explanation?"
is a non-sequitor and an illogical deduction from my detective example.

Additionally, clearly examples of analogy shows one that function does not determine structure. So even directly looking at the physical evidence you cannot state "In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure".

Bgood wrote:I never refuted that analogy includes a discussion of function. In fact describing analogy is completely dependent on function. It seems as if you are moving the target, and because of this, this may be my last post in this thread. Not because I am frustrated, but because earnest discourse cannot be acheived thus an excersize which bears no fruit.

That is, if it bears no fruit to your whole homology/analogy belief system...

Bgood wrote:Where have I ever stated otherwise? However the term function is not synonymous with analogy.

Hmmm, you see by you using or fusing the two terms together into one term called "functional analogy" seems to contradict that... That was why I responded the way I did because that is what you have always been stating before... Functional analogy... Remember?? You see even you can give function credence..

Bgood wrote:It's a simplification, email them yourself for clarification. May they have the patience to respond to you. It may be the case that information still exists in the dolphins genetic code which encodes for this feature. In most cases this development does not occur, however the fact that it may still exist would add to the evidence that dolphins have terrestrial origins.
Which brings us back to the original purpose of this thread which Angel can expound upon if he so wishes.

Simplification?? Well if it's all a matter of making things simple then here is my simple interpretation of your "so called" facts... Baloney!!!

Bgood wrote:That is your expert opinion? Very well then. This is not the main point. In any case I was unable to find a full picture of the cows front limbs. Only the part which is homologous to the wrist.

My expert opinion? Do you have 20/20 vision??

Bgood wrote:I was only explaining why your comment
"In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure, but that doesn't matter because we are investigating it.. And if we are investigating it then it is ok to the common ancestor explanation?"
is a non-sequitor and an illogical deduction from my detective example.

You keep twisting my words... It wasn't a comment... It was a question... Again nice try....

Bgood wrote:No. Analogy can be contrasted with homology. You cannot replace analogy with function. Thats like replacing acceleration with speed. Analogy is a derivative with respect to similarity of function.

Contrasting of analogy with homology refers to two different examples. For example analogy is defined by two organs with similar function while homology is defined by two organs with similar structure. See how the terms are contrasted?

Analogy as a concept is contrasted with homology, but individual cases are usually one or the other. You seem to be conflating the concepts being contrasted in the study of biological forms with actual contrasting within this specifc case. If this is the case show me how this particular example can be seen as an analogy. Use the definitions and fit the example to them, if you please. And then show how a contrast is made.

"When two structures are analogous, it means that they evolved independently, but perform the same functions."

Oh, is that what this is all about?? Concepts and terms? I thought you said before that all you were talking about was facts??

Homology and analogy only exist in your theory or a-priori belief... And what does homology state? Again do you think it has something to do about a common ancestor? And where do you think the common ancestor theory comes from? Do you think it has anything to do with the THEORY called Darwinian evolution?

Bgood wrote:So even directly looking at the physical evidence you cannot state "In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure".

How could it have any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? Because it doesn't even have any BIOLOGICAL CHEMICALS!!!

Remember this exchange?

Gman: Does your population consist of chemicals?
Bgood: No my population consists of an ancestral population.

Your argument holds no water!!! It is just a feeble attempt or straw man to erase functionality out of your homology beliefs.. Because most normal people (not being brain-washed) can understand simple concepts devoid of any evolutionary meaning...

You see I have a concept and a theory as well.. I haven't shared it yet with you yet... Do you know what I call it? I call it "Intelligent Design."

And it shares a similar word in your common ancestor terminology. Do you want to know what it is called?


COMMON SENSE!!!

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Where have I ever stated otherwise? However the term function is not synonymous with analogy.

Hmmm, you see by you using or fusing the two terms together into one term called "functional analogy" seems to contradict that... That was why I responded the way I did because that is what you have always been stating before... Functional analogy... Remember?? You see even you can give function credence..

Using the terms together doesn't mean they are synonymous.

Gman wrote:Simplification?? Well if it's all a matter of making things simple then here is my simple interpretation of your "so called" facts... Baloney!!!

Yes, the one who wrote this statement is a journalist writing for the benefit of the public. Not a scientist.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:I was only explaining why your comment
"In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure, but that doesn't matter because we are investigating it.. And if we are investigating it then it is ok to the common ancestor explanation?"
is a non-sequitor and an illogical deduction from my detective example.

You keep twisting my words... It wasn't a comment... It was a question... Again nice try....

Twisting your words? I am sorry, your question does not logically follow from the discussion.

Gman wrote:"When two structures are analogous, it means that they evolved independently, but perform the same functions."

Oh, is that what this is all about?? Concepts and terms? I thought you said before that all you were talking about was facts??

The fact is you are incorrectly applying the terms.

Please note that your source has corrected the error.

"the back fins found on the animal appear to be homologous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals."

Gman wrote:Homology and analogy only exist in your theory or a-priori belief... And what does homology state? Again do you think it has something to do about a common ancestor? And where do you think the common ancestor theory comes from? Do you think it has anything to do with the THEORY called Darwinian evolution?

When discussing the merits/drawbacks of evolution you should use the terminology correctly, and have sufficient understanding of the theory, otherwise you are attacking a strawman.

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:So even directly looking at the physical evidence you cannot state "In other words we realize that function is a problem to structure".

How could it have any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? Because it doesn't even have any BIOLOGICAL CHEMICALS!!!

lol
Is this is a joke? A population consist of individual organisms.
This is an utterly nonsensical argument.

It's like asking if my dog bites. I of course would reply no.
Then saying, well how can it eat then!?!
This is plain silly, I sincerely hope you realize this.

Gman wrote:Remember this exchange?

Gman: Does your population consist of chemicals?
Bgood: No my population consists of an ancestral population.

When you ask someone if something consists of chemicals this usually conotes an image of discrete collections of chemicals, not a full organism.

Gman wrote:Your argument holds no water!!! It is just a feeble attempt or straw man to erase functionality out of your homology beliefs.. Because most normal people (not being brain-washed) can understand simple concepts devoid of any evolutionary meaning...

What is that simple concept? Most of your comments are simply assertions and are devoid of any persuasive, or explanatory meaning.

Homology by definition does not concern function. Do you reject this definition?

Here is the reason why.
Studying the animal kingdom one finds that a problem has many solutions.
For example flight.
Now all of the different mechanisms of flight found in the animal kingdom are analogousto each other.

However they use different structures to acheive these results.
We can induct from this that structure is independent of function.

Now a quick analysis of animals one one can see quite easily that animals can be grouped according to structural commonalities.

Doing a quick sort one would group all the insects together, and then all the fish, and all the mammals etc.

A dolphin is a mammal, just like a dog and a cat.
Why?
They share the same structures, mammary glands, hair, skeletal structure and so forth.

Now the question arises why do they share these structures? Shouldn't the dolphin, clearly a marine animal and superficially resembling fish have more features atuned to aquatic life?

It is as if someone had taken a terrestrial mammal and modified it for marine life. And because of this (among many other reasons) we term the structural similarities homology.

Bgood wrote:Yes, the one who wrote this statement is a journalist writing for the benefit of the public. Not a scientist.

Oh, so then statements can be subjective then... Interesting.... And scientists are part of the public too..

Bgood wrote:Twisting your words? I am sorry, your question does not logically follow from the discussion.

And your little discussion only follows your belief system... An illogical conclusion which I don't believe in... Get it now?

Bgood wrote:The fact is you are incorrectly applying the terms.

Please note that your source has corrected the error.

Interesting that you actually went that far to correct that. Almost at a paranoid level... The point of my whole argument was that most normal people use "common sense" as their directive. That was probably why she was associating function to structure...

Bgood wrote:When discussing the merits/drawbacks of evolution you should use the terminology correctly, and have sufficient understanding of the theory, otherwise you are attacking a strawman.

You are right... I shouldn't have used the word "straw man" because then you would have something.. The correct phrase for your theory should be "invisible man."

Gman wrote:How could it have any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? Because it doesn't even have any BIOLOGICAL CHEMICALS!!!

Bgood wrote:lol
Is this is a joke? A population consist of individual organisms.
This is an utterly nonsensical argument.

No... Again you have no organisms because you have no chemicals... You have NOTHING!!! Just sticky notes...

Bgood wrote:When you ask someone if something consists of chemicals this usually conotes an image of discreet collections of chemicals, not a full organism

No.. There are no images because there are no discreet collections of chemicals... The only collections you have are collections of PAPER!!!

Bgood wrote:What is that simple concept? Most of your comments are simply assertions and are devoid of any persuasive, or explanatory meaning.

Homology by definition does not concern function. Do you reject this definition?

Yup.. Why? It's not real... You only have theories to the homology myth...

Bgood wrote:Here is the reason why.
Studying the animal kingdom one finds that a problem has many solutions.
For example flight.
Now all of the different mechanisms of flight found in the animal kingdom are analogousto each other.

However they use different structures to acheive these results.
We can induct from this that structure is independent of function.

Now a quick analysis of animals one one can see quite easily that animals can be grouped according to structural commonalities.

Doing a quick sort one would group all the insects together, and then all the fish, and all the mammals etc.

No... You don't understand... I don't believe in your homology/analogy argument at all... I never have this whole time because I don't believe it exists... To me the terms mean chicken noodle soup... Get it now? Why? Because your theories promote the theory of Darwinian evolution... And I don't believe in it nor promote it. Like I was saying before, I promote ID and common sense. You see what good are legs if you don't use them for walking on land. What good are fins if you don't use them to swim in the ocean? Why? Because that was what they were designed for... In other words structure and function work together.. For a REASON....

Bgood wrote:A dolphin is a mammal, just like a dog and a cat.
Why?
They share the same structures, mammary glands, hair, skeletal structure and so forth.

That's almost like saying that since they have two eyes they must be the same... No...They are NOT the same structures.. Nor skeletal structure... Nor hardly even any other of your characteristics..

Again what more you would want God to do to make the differences more pronounced between land and aquatic animals. Would you suggest that God implant laser beams on the heads of the dolphins so that they could target their food sources better? This is an utterly senseless argument...

Which brings up another question.. Why exactly are you posting here on this web site? This is a "God and Science" website not an "Evolution and Science" website.. We are here to learn about how God made things not your evolutionary theory...

Do you have something to say about God??

Gman wrote:

Bgood wrote:Twisting your words? I am sorry, your question does not logically follow from the discussion.

And your little discussion only follows your belief system... An illogical conclusion which I don't believe in... Get it now?

Yes I get it.

Gman wrote:Interesting that you actually went that far to correct that. Almost at a paranoid level... The point of my whole argument was that most normal people use "common sense" as their directive. That was probably why she was associating function to structure...

Where does she mention function? Anywhere?
"Most biologists say the dolphin's front fins correspond structurally to the arms and forelegs in other land-based mammals; the back fins found on the animal appear to be homologous to the hind legs of terrestrial mammals."

I had this changed because it's simply wrong.
You were using this typo as part of your argument. And instead of an apology I get accusations of paranoia.

Gman wrote:Like I was saying before, I promote ID and common sense. You see what good are legs if you don't use them for walking on land.

Here are legs for swimming.

Gman wrote:What good are fins if you don't use them to swim in the ocean?

Here are fins for walking.

Gman wrote:Which brings up another question.. Why exactly are you posting here on this web site? This is a "God and Science" website not an "Evolution and Science" website.. We are here to learn about how God made things not your evolutionary theory...

Do you have something to say about God??

So now you resort to this? All I was doing was trying to get you to use the terms analogy and homology properly. And understand the usage of these terms in science. Look back at all our posts, I believe I maintained a civil discussion. Yet you continued to misread between the lines.

I have posted on God in the past, but my main reason for being here is to help keep the facts straight and you sir have not.

It is clear that you have no intentions of examining the facts nor discussing their merits in any reasonable manor. Although I will not ignore you, I will no longer entertain the posibility of having a serious thoughtful conversation with you.


Please forgive me.
Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Bgood wrote:I had this changed because it's simply wrong.
You were using this typo as part of your argument. And instead of an apology I get accusations of paranoia.

And how can I be wrong about something that doesn't exist?

Gman wrote:You see what good are legs if you don't use them for walking on land. What good are fins if you don't use them to swim in the ocean? Why? Because that was what they were designed for.

Bgood wrote:Here are legs for swimming.
Here are fins for walking

Everything is subjective to you... Even the Trinity!!!

Nice twisting of my words again. But since we are on the subject about dolphins I was talking about DOLPHIN FINS not otters or fish!! Nice try again...

Here are fins for walking and legs for swimming using your examples of dolphin flippers and horses legs before a few slides up ...

Bgood wrote:So now you resort to this? All I was doing was trying to get you to use the terms analogy and homology properly. And understand the usage of these terms in science. Look back at all our posts, I believe I maintained a civil discussion. Yet you continued to misread between the lines.

I resorted to this because your so called science is devoid of any God.. According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, Darwinian evolution made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.. Darwinian evolution is devoid of ANY spirituality... All you have is materialism... Unless you believe in theistic evolution..

Bgood wrote:I have posted on God in the past, but my main reason for being here is to help keep the facts straight and you sir have not.

It is clear that you have no intentions of examining the facts nor discussing their merits in any reasonable manor. Although I will not ignore you, I will no longer entertain the posibility of having a serious thoughtful conversation with you.

Posting on God is not the same thing as BELIEVING in God.. Also sir you HAVE NO FACTS!!!! When you plant your evolutionary flag it isn't in the ground.. It's on someone's desk filled with papers... Don't forget to turn the light out when you leave...

And don't forget this famous quote by Alfred G Fisher. Maybe you could debate him in his statement..

“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown” Alfred G Fisher, Evolutionist. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998

Bgood wrote:Please forgive me.
Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Hmmm, can't take the heat?? Oh this isn't about any compassion or kindness... We are in the middle of a WAR!! This is a battle against principalities, against powers, and your evil theory... I would suggest you suck it up like I have been with you and your little feeble put down word salads... I'm attacking your THEORY!!!

Remember this verse??

Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

And this picture sums up your theory in one FUNCTION!!!