Skip to comments.Donald Prothero’s Imaginary Evidence for Evolution (yet another evo hoax!)
Posted on 12/01/2009 6:39:06 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Next will be a video, discovered embeded in the rocks of the Chinese desert.
It's simply beyond their comprehension that someone could consider the ToE and decide against it.
And dissent is NOT allowed.
So much for objectivity.
Stephen Meyer, historian.
.......................No they were not, they ate themselves out of house and home, took about 30,000 years..................
Nah! Can’t be!
Earth is only about 6 thousand years old!
So, you’ve been passworded and you decided to set up a new account?
What’d you do to earn that?
“.......................No they were not, they ate themselves out of house and home, took about 30,000 years..................
Nah! Cant be!
Earth is only about 6 thousand years old!
So how about that fake dragonfly you evolutionists created? Got anything to say about that or are you just here because the personal religious beliefs of some people threaten you?
By the way...when did you personally determine the age of the Earth? You didn’t you say? You read it in a book? Sounds like you have a lot of faith in something that you only read in a book. Or should I call it your Book?
I'm calling Bullsh!t. Would you care to explain how this posting is a defense of religious freedom and not a defense of specific church doctrine that Jim Robinson says belongs in the Religion Forum?
You neglected to ping jim to your assault on his policy.
Actually I was commenting on the abuse of his policy. His words, even as posted by GGG, are very clear and pretty damning of threads like these existing in the News / Activism forum.
So much for objectivity.
That's what bothers me the most which is telling. I've got a reading list compiled, starting with the Catholic biochemist Behe who had believed it was true since his Catholic school days without questioning and on into his career, then started belatedly questioning and felt alone for some time.
So far I've got Donald Prothero, "Imaginary Evidence for Evolution"; Siegfried Scherer; Jon Wells (Embryologist); Michael Denton, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis"; Phil Johnson, and Richard Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker" (pro evo). Some of the afore-mentioned may not have written articles or books.
I started asking myself some serious questions about what Jesus and the NT writers said. I'm really not prepared to argue it one way or the other at this point but am going to try to track down some of those books, probably better read Darwin, too.
Your irrelevant opinion.
His policy covers all attacks on creation.
Darwin is DRY.....
So you mean I should ignore what JimRob actually wrote and go with what you think he meant? Really? I should have expected that those who take so much liberty with science, law, scripture, and what I have posted would do the same thing with what Jim Robinson posted.....
Maybe you could explain how your post is a defense of the ToE and not an attack on GGG.
And while you’re at it, would YOU care to comment on the article and absurd speculations in it, like about 18 winged dragonflies for which there’s no evidence and yet is being used to bolster this guy’s theory.
And how a book with made up creatures, science fiction at the least, is considered by Shermer [who] wrote the foreword to Protheros book, calling it the best book ever written on the subject. In fact, Dons visual presentation of the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution is so unmistakably powerful that I venture to say that no one could read this book and still deny the reality of evolution.
Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is “powerful”?
And evos mock creationists for believing *fairy tales* and the ramblings of bronze age goat herders? And this book is any better?
No doubt which is why I never bothered to read it. But I need to start at Ground Zero; I can skim through it as I'm not studying for a grade now.
I did take a course in Anthropology years ago, don't have good long-term recall but remember some of it. It was unsettling to my faith at the time, but I have to come to terms with it.
At least we agree on one thing, Johnathan Wells' article is full of absurd speculations. However, Prothero's book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, has a lot of valid information when not taken out of context for partisan purposes.
By the way, how much of Prothero's book did you actually read? Yeah, I thought so.
Ten bucks says the book doesn't claim that an 18-winged dragonfly ever existed, and that this is just another example of creationists taking things out of context. I've ordered the book from the library, and I'll post some of the relevant text when I get it.
“Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is powerful?”
Prune juice is powerful too so a person should be careful how much of it they swallow.
It is a random process, right?
Wrong. Mutation is random, selection is non-random.
So where are all of evolutions failures(thats the one sentence, btw)? Show me the fossil of just one impossible creature. There should be an entire branch of science dedicated to them. For every random success...there should be a billion, a trillion, a gajillion failures.
Any organism, because it is in constant competition with others for scarce environment resources, mating opportunities, etc, will only be able to depart a small distance from a well adapted state before it is unable to successfully contribute its genes to future populations (or until it just dies directly). There's no opportunity to get anywhere near an advanced stage of maladaptation, i.e. being an impossible creature.
I mean, what are you even thinking here? Sorry to be blunt, but this is one of the dumbest antievolution arguments I've ever read. The whole idea of Darwinian evolution, after noting that organisms vary, is that survival and reproductive success depends on how well the particular mix of variations an organism possesses adapts it to these purposes.
But you're suggesting exactly the opposite: that evolution instead requires organisms to survive, successfully reproduce (and therefore be available to be preserved as fossils) even if, or without regard to whether, they are monstrously maladapted?! Where do you get this bizarre notion?
This guy is completely incorrect on haltares. Guess he never actually took entomology while in the seminary.
His discussing the haltares and the controlling ultrabithorax gene is severely lacking.....and 180 degrees from reality.
Yes, if they deactivate the gene, it will develop wings that do not function normally. Friggin’ D’UH.....that’s because those wings will only have the muscles necessary to flap tiny haltares, not large wings, you friggin’ idiot. You’d have to develop the wings AND the muscles to have functional wings.
This is what happens when theologists stray into the science world.
The 18 winged dragons fly is merely an illustration showing that with very few mutations in very few Hox genes, an insect can grow wings on each thoracic segment.....or have any number of major bodily changes.
.....not that the 18 winged insect actually existed.
Did you ever take genetics at the graduate level? you know, the level that actually discusses specific genes at length.
The 18-winged dragonfly was merely an illustration of major changes that will occur with few changes in a Hox gene. That with few mutations in a Hox gene, a dragonfly can grow wings on every thoracic segment.
It was never a claim that they ever actually existed.....but go ahead and beat that drum with ‘mom while those of us that have actually taken graduate level genetics and etomology can sit back and laugh.
It’s online. You can read it that way instead of getting it out of the library, if you can find one that way.
The "guy" ONLY uses the 18-winged dragonfly as an illustration of how small changes in Hox genes generate major changes in phylogeny, nothing else.
Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is powerful?
No, the actual science behind the "major changes in phylogeny with minor changes in Hox genes" is "powerful."
The strawman is dead...poking it with a stick doesn't make it more dead.
The pressures exerted on the organism are what then? Planned? Designed? Controlled?
The whole idea of Darwinian evolution, after noting that organisms vary, is that survival and reproductive success depends on how well the particular mix of variations an organism possesses adapts it to these purposes.
And explain how that process is not due to random influences.
But you're suggesting exactly the opposite: that evolution instead requires organisms to survive, successfully reproduce (and therefore be available to be preserved as fossils) even if, or without regard to whether, they are monstrously maladapted?!
It doesn't read that way, not that there should be lots of examples of a mutation that doesn't work because they were maladapted. But there appear to be no examples of failed mutations, monstrosities, as it were, in the fossil record. Could you explain how all the fossils that are found are found in their complete and fully functional form?
Nobody said God is in danger from the ToE much less anything. What it comes down to is whether you choose to believe that God created man and animals fro the dust of the earth, as separate creative acts or not, like it says in His word.
Those who claim that all dinosaurs died because of a cataclysmic event are conveniently omitting the species that arose and died out prior to the cataclysmic even and after the cataclysmic event. (Very similar to the climatologists "trick".)
Maybe you need to tell that to other evolutionists then. That's THEIR explanation if you research it.
I personally believe that God gave me a brain with the intent that I use it for more than reading the bible and repetitive quotation from it.
Ah, the old *anyone who disagrees with my opinion is stupid mentality*, again.
Evos are soooo hung up on how much smarter they are than anyone else just because of an opinion they have about a scientific theory. The biggest insult an evolutionist can made towards someone is to call them stupid, simply because they disagree on an issue.
That's a really great criteria for determining intelligence.
I wasn’t addressing the Hox gene concept. I was addressing the fact that he had to make something up to support his contention.
Did you ever take grammar at the grade school level? /also rhetorical question.
You need some reading comprehension lessons.
Why didn’t he just go ahead and use a REAL example from REAL life, instead of making something up? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Wouldn’t that have given him more credibility?
A real example from real life would have been far more effective and made him look like less of an idiot.
It looks like evos grasping at straws again to find something, anything, somewhere, anywhere to bolster their explanations for the ToE.
And you going on to defend it,....
Well,.... it’s not impressive, to say the least.
There is nothing an evolutionist can say do that’s too stupid for FR evolutionists to not defend it. It would do you guys a lot of good PR wise to look at some of this stuff and admit that the person’s judgment was poor, they spoke to soon, they presumed too much, they used a bad example, whatever.
But to just knee jerk defend anything without regard to how it looks to others, puts you in the same boat.
The number of times those in the evolutionary world have jumped the gun about some new discovery and had to eat those words, has done more to cut into their credibility than ANYTHING a creationist has had to say.
In their haste to find support for the ToE, or manufacture it for that matter, evolutionists are their own worst enemy.
That’s basically what evolution is - make it up as you go along “science.”
I know YOU weren’t addressing the Hox gene.......HE was addressing the Hox gene.
YOU were creating a strawman to kick around.
And dissent is NOT allowed.
Dissent is the essence of science. The problem creationists have is that on a scientific level the dissent has to be on the same level.
It's always hard to engage a well established theory. Best way to do it is to offer some better results for observations.
Next problem is for several not so scientifically skilled people to understand even though one theory might be wrong (By the way, that can't be true for a scientific theory!) that another theory therefore is true. There are endless ways to describe nature.
Why a scientific theory can't be wrong at all is quite simple. To reach status of a theory a hypothesis has to fulfill several logical requirements.
- Comply within it's range to observations
- Prohibit possible observations
- and therefore has to be refutable
Therefore Beheism or is it called IDism is not scientific. Until now a DESIGNER(TM) is allowed to do everything therefore it is not limited by any prohibitions.
Newton “laws” are still usable although they are not correct in all ways. You have to keep in mind the limitations. So there is still truth within these “laws” but limited.
Until now I'm not aware of any limitation of the theory of evolution except the limitations implied within the theory.
Yeah....making an illustration of what tweaking a Hox gene will do......soooooo “stupid”.....kick the strawman around some more.
There was a real example....fruit flies that grew wings instead of haltares when the gene was tweaked.....telling what the gene does.
Only those ignorant of modern genetics must rely on calling into question someone’s grammar or reading comprehension.....it’s an old tactic.
I “comprehend” quite well that you have no clue what was being illustrated and feel like using your ignorance and that of others in your echo chamber of dinosaurs to kick around a strawman of the point of the illustration, the point of which went right over your uneducated-in-the-matter head.
“Did you ever take genetics at the graduate level? you know, the level that actually discusses specific genes at length.
OK...you’re an expert. So you’re completely right about the unknowable and we’re completely wrong about the unknowable.
The real question is...what did they teach you in your graduate level “global warming” classes? You know, the level that actually discusses global warming as if it were a proven fact. This isn’t a rhetorical question.
Because science is infallible, right? lol
Can you explain how a “random” process doesn’t produce at least as many failures as successes? And that would be if the odds were 50/50. I’d say the odds of “randomly” developing a biological electric motor is pretty slim, wouldn’t you?
Let’s say mutation A is a viable mutation and is represented by heads.
Mutation B is a non-viable mutation and is represented by tails.
Is it then your contention that “evolution” always comes up heads?
Let’s say that you could fit enough scrabble game pieces into your hand to represent “a mutation,” in code.
Is it your contention that every time you threw these pieces against the wall, they would produce a viable mutation, such as an electric motor, an airfoil, or visual processing devices with far more horsepower than even the best cameras we can currently produce?
Where are the fossils of the failures? Produce one. Or please explain how “evolution” never regresses. Doesn’t science say that all of creation is trending towards chaos? How exactly then is our little planet trending towards order?
I never said I expected anything to survive. In fact, I said the opposite. But feel free to believe in your miraculous unknown force that never fails, only succeeds. If only we could tap into it so that we could make it our leader.
Where do you get the bizarre notion that “random” means always succeeding?
How did “evolution” discover, mathematically, the concept and application of a straight line? How about a parabolic curve? How many times did “evolution” cause a plant to grow in a completely erratic fashion, because it hadn’t yet discovered the engineering concept of a straight line? Oh, a straight line is nothing, you say? Then lets see you produce one...from nothing, with no knowledge. Lets see you build a biological machine capable of using math during its growth.
Ignoring all that...what came first? The hardware or the software?
Did “evolution” create the genome before the first life? Or did life spring into existence without the benefit of an operating system? If so...how did it pass its non-existent genes on? While we’re on that...why isn’t the genome itself evolving? Why does all life use the same basic operating system that it has for billions of years? Can you point out DNA version 2.1? No? Well, that truly is a miraculous, mysterious force.
Pick wisely, it has to be one or the other.
The pressures exerted on the organism are what then? Planned? Designed? Controlled?
The pressures are.....environmental. If you want the environment to be controlled, designed, or planned....exit the science world.
And explain how that process is not due to random influences.
....explain how it IS due to random influences. The process is what it is. The stimulus is random and not random. As in, once in a while a big freakin' meteor hits Earth randomly or a caldera erupts randomly.....random environmental stimulus. Generally it is non-random stimulus....as in, not much changes in the short-term.
It doesn't read that way
It reads EXACTLY that way....the guy's looking for fossils for a pterodactyl with bricks for wings as proof of evolution.....like there should be fossils all over the place of monstrocities and failed mutations.
But there appear to be no examples of failed mutations, monstrosities, as it were, in the fossil record.
....and why would there necessarily be fossils of failed mutations or monstrocities? First, there has to be the failed mutation/monstrocity....then the liklihood that the conditions were right for fossilization.....then a scientists 50 million years later stumbling upon it. The lack of monstrocity or failed mutation fossils says nothing about monstrocities existing or not. There are monstrocities and failed mutations RIGHT NOW....and they will never fossilize for future scientists to discover because the conditions are not right for them to fossilize.
Could you explain how all the fossils that are found are found in their complete and fully functional form?
....because they were completely functional animals when they died and conditions were right for fossilization. If transitional fossils are presented but you broad-brush claim they are bogus because they are fully functional, that does not mean they do not exist.....it means you will not believe they do and must stick to "everything that is fully functional must've always been exactly that way from the beginning" mentality. There are numerous transitional fossils in multiple layers of taxonomy....all fully functional...some with very clear gradual changes.
Whether you believe they are transitional or not is as irrelevant as them being fully functional.
False claim #1. Nope...I'm an expert in the immunology of infectious diseases. I'm "educated" in genetics...though much of the specifics have been replaced with immunology.
So youre completely right about the unknowable and were completely wrong about the unknowable
Ya just don't mix science and theology.....especially if that theology puts Man living with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. Gimme a time machine and I'll get you all the data you want. You wanna claim that "God did it"....have at it...more power to you. Ends the discussion right there. Just don't pervert multiple fields of science to claim it all shows God did it....and most certainly don't claim that ANY science proves that Man lived with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs 4,352 yers ago.
The real question is...what did they teach you in your graduate level global warming classes?
Irrelevant red herring #1. BUT, they taught me, in my 6 climatology-related classes needed to get a minor in climatology.....to look at the raw data and to look for trends based ON the raw data taking into account any one of 16 major and uncounted thousands of minor factors for a specific piece of data.
You know, the level that actually discusses global warming as if it were a proven fact.
Never took a class that claimed global warming was a proven fact.....and I took my 6 classes from '97-'00 I took real classes on the real science that ManBearPig twists to suit his wallet, not poli-sci classes.
Because science is infallible, right?
Wrong question to ask. Real "science" actually is only infallible in the same vein as "If you make a proper logical argument, you are never technically 'wrong.'" is true. Doesn't mean that science cannot be wrong, twisted, manipulated, politicized, a farce, or any other thing you can come up with. BUT, if the science follows the proper methods, it self-corrects, bends to fit new data, adapts to new understandings.
This is exactly why science and rigid theology doesn't mix well......and why attempts to pervert entire fields of science in an attempt to prove that Man walked the Earth with dinosaurs 4,352 years ago are met with resistance from those IN the sciences.
Yeah, and it will probably be BETAMAX, another evolutionary dead-end.
No, the confabulated summary by Johnathan Wells is on line. The actual book by Prothero will cost you about $25 from Amazon.com.
Another fiction of evolution. Has anyone ever seen any fossils of a strawman?
Yes please explane if all creatures were created fully formed in a six day creation event why do we not find mammals in the Cambrian strata
Your post #86 is one of the best, most provocative messages and challenges I have read on this "topic" here on FR.
Would the scraps of bone called the Millennium Man do?
Not quite straw but not of much substance either.
No, this one.
A word about the dragonfly. I kind of skimmed over that, but it's not impossible. The problem would be rewiring the brain to coordinate that many wings at the same time, and a lot more. I'm always on the lookout for anomalies in nature and my garden. I'll just cite a couple examples, and there must have been a recessive gene to have caused it, not necessarily a whole new genome. On my garden group, we were talking about various Asian lilies. They have six petals. One person posted a photo, and I'm sure it was genuine, of a perfect, symmetrical, 8-petalled, beautiful lily. I told her to let it go to seed and save the seeds, but she had deadheaded it! That might have been worth some bucks if she could have gotten it to breed true for a few generations, takes time and patience.
You should see some of the amazing crosses passionate-but-amateur hybridizers do. I've watched some on a daylilies forum, also one who did zinnias. This all has to do with hybridizing which is cross pollinating, but it's related. From one batch of seeds where there has been something unusual, only a few come true with a lot of others with different attributes from the same seed pod.
I'd better quit talking about that. Will just say that a seed company had introduced a new rudbeckia which caused a stir because people weren't getting ones like the picture and were disappointed; only one had some pretty ones like the promo photo. It takes several generations to select out for the traits you want and even then, some will exhibit regressive forms. I ordered the same flower as a plant, and it was supposed to be single like those who had grown theirs from seed, think there was just one source for those seeds last year. Got 3 plants. Two were single, and one turned out double/triple/multiple. So it's fun when it happens. That one rudbeckia of mine (I saved a lot of seed) with all the extra petals make me believe that a dragonfly they're bickering about is possible, just more complex.
Now rudbeckias don't have brains, but something has to be triggered to tell them how many petals to make. I'm guessing that my odd one got open pollinated by some different variety of doubles growing in the same field.
“Can you explain how a random process doesnt produce at least as many failures as successes?
I would expect a lot more failures, actually.
Do you understand the difference between mutation and selection? Stultis explained it quite well in an earlier post, yet you seem to have not assimilated the information.
I agree with the assessment that this is argument stands among the dumbest in opposition to evolution. That’s quite an accomplishment in a GGG thread!
I was responding to Alkisa’s comment about reading Darwin. She mentioned getting hold of it to read and I gave her that link so she didn’t have to find it at the local library.
First, Welcome to Free Republic.
Second, I detect a great deal of animosity in your posts. If you wish to debate please make a point, support the point and defend your point. This is preferable to sarcasm, cynicism, attack, sneer, etc etc... There are well educated people here on both sides of the debate and (with some success at times)we try to keep it lively, yet, civil.
Comparison between ToE and AGW are not accurate nor are they inherently helpful to the discussion.