How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

two non-Archaeoraptor liaoningensis pieces of scientific evidence to supplement JD's post

Archaeopteryx - once thought t be the first bird, now shown to have more in common with coelophysids and coelurosaurs

Syntarsis - once thought to be a dinosaur, now shown to have much in common with pre-ostrich aviformes

both are neither bird nor dinosaur, where does this fit in?

Although most schools of thought now class aves (birds) as a sub-class of the class dinosauria, dinosaurs having been proven to not fit into the class reptilia

i seem to have been missed

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i seem to have been missed

Actually I saw that. I'm not supposed to be in the conversation though anymore. Rian and Jonathan just want to have a nice friendly little chat among themselves about creationism only (except of course when it's convenient for Rian to bring Evolution into the picture). And as it supported my argument - it didn't seem like I should respond. But thank you for pointing it out.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I moved your typing monkey analogy here for reference: (btw, did you see my typing monkey joke? I think it's hysterical! )
...
Here's where I disagree with what you're saying - and perhaps it's because I don't fully understand it, so please help me out here - you say that these molecules "remember" their beneficial foldings and structures. However, I don't see how there's any "remembering" involved in the masses and masses of new and unrelated beneficial mutations involved in going from one-celled-prototype to human. When you talk of "remembering", are you talking merely of a cell retaining its mutation? Or are you saying that it "remembers" a general trend towards a goal of increased surviveability and somehow directs the subsequent mutations towards that goal? Or are you saying something entirely different?

Yes! I'm saying that proteins retain - "remember" - their structure. There is no goal for the proteins, except striving to attain the most stable structure. Basically everything in nature strives to obtain stability, since that is less energy-consuming than instability, and biomolicules are no exception.

I'll have a hard time explaining the procedure but I'll do my best. You see proteins tend to stabilize one another. If you have a number of folded proteins and unfolded proteins of the same kind, the folded ones can make the other proteins fold in the same way - especially if the folded state is more stable than the unfolded state. This is called cooperative transition.

See, if a protein in an organism undergoes a change (e.g. gets a new amino acid) and becomes more stable, by cooperative transition it will make it easier for the other proteins to undergo the same change. And since the new structure is more stable and requires less energy, it is more likely that the proteins will retain their new "look" instead of reverting back to their old form.

Was that somewhat clear? . So - there is no "goal" that biomolecules try to reach. It's all about energy and stability, like everything else in nature. The theory goes: Organisms that get new stable proteins that are more useful than their old counterparts, will survive more easily than their cousins without these new molecules - survival of the fittest.

About your typing monkey joke - yes, I've seen that joke before, it's funny

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Um... you could try not reading the thread...

No, because there are things discussed in this thread that I'm very interested in.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, because there are things discussed in this thread that I'm very interested in.

Your just not interested in anything that questions Rian and forces her to actually post a simple explanation of her belief in creationism without bringing evolution into the picture or her belief in the bible. I really just want a simple explanation of CREATIONISM - not with evolution mixed in or religion - I don't think it's that hard of a request here.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

two non-Archaeoraptor liaoningensis pieces of scientific evidence to supplement JD's post

Archaeopteryx - once thought t be the first bird, now shown to have more in common with coelophysids and coelurosaurs

Syntarsis - once thought to be a dinosaur, now shown to have much in common with pre-ostrich aviformes

both are neither bird nor dinosaur, where does this fit in?

Although most schools of thought now class aves (birds) as a sub-class of the class dinosauria, dinosaurs having been proven to not fit into the class reptilia

I saw this, Chrys, but some of JD's caustic statements about this thread and changing its title made me hesitate to address it I'm a person, and I get hurt sometimes, especially if I think something is unfair and inaccurate. However, I need to get over that and just do what I think is right, so I will, and it's fine with me if the thread title gets changed to "Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution"

As far as Archaeopteryx - it has fully formed flying feathers. Period. How can that be a transitional form? There's some odd ducks in the animal kingdom, such as the platypus, but saying a fossil with fully formed feathers is some kind of bridge between dinosaurs and birds, merely because it has some features like teeth, just doesn't make sense to me. A number of extinct birds had teeth, and many reptiles don't have teeth. If you like, I can give more info later on - gtg pick up the kids now!

I wasn't able to find much info on the other one so I won't comment.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I notice that the title has been changed...
EDIT: OK, saw Rian's post

I haven't mentioned transitional forms, I just cited 2 animals which had common factors with both aviformes and the dinosauria, and (please dont take this as arrogance on my part) what has the presence of "fully formed flying feathers" got to do with what the animal is? although it hasn't been proven that archaeopteryx did fly, and most palaeontologists theorise that it sprinted along the ground, in much the same way as a ceolophysid, or compsognathid.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I saw this, Chrys, but some of JD's caustic statements about this thread and changing its title made me hesitate to address it I'm a person, and I get hurt sometimes, especially if I think something is unfair and inaccurate.

Where was I inaccurate? You have been twisting what I've said left and right - but you want address my one comment which is "Give me a simple explanation of Creationism" but you can't and you won't. The only way it seems that you can defend creationism is by knocking down evolution.

However, I need to get over that and just do what I think is right, so I will, and it's fine with me if the thread title gets changed to "Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution"

Go ahead and have the title changed then.

As far as Archaeopteryx - it has fully formed flying feathers. Period. How can that be a transitional form? There's some odd ducks in the animal kingdom, such as the platypus, but saying a fossil with fully formed feathers is some kind of bridge between dinosaurs and birds, merely because it has some features like teeth, just doesn't make sense to me.

It also has the shape of dinosaurs. See to you everything is "it just doesn't make sense to me" when you try to say why something doesn't work in evolution.

A number of extinct birds had teeth, and many reptiles don't have teeth.

We're talking about a particular fossil at a particular period in time.

Here is bird fossil sequences...

Evolutionary Transitionals: From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds

In recent years dinosaur and avian taxonomy has benefited immensely from the extremely detailed fossils unearthed in the fine sandstones of the Liaoning province of China. This cladogram shows the evolutionary relationships within the Theropod Dinosaurs which, along with the Sauropod and Ornithischian Dinosaurs, make up the great class of Earth's dominant animals that went extinct 65 million years ago. That is, all except for the Euornithes, the only group to survive the environmental disaster resulting from the impact on Earth of an immense asteroid or meteor. These have evolved to become our 10,000 species of living birds -- our modern dinos.

All of the individuals and groups shown here are transitionals between the reptilian Dinosaurs and modern birds. Asterisks indicate fossils for which primitive (*) or modern (***) feathers are now known. As paleontologists find additional new species, and better examples of presently known ones, it may be anticipated that the great majority, if not all, of the Theropods will prove to have been feathered creatures in transition.

The evolution of modern birds is not just the story of the development of feathers. Many parts of the avian anatomy have changed from those of ancestral forms. By studying the bones of fossils, such as the series of pelvic bones shown below, scientists can determine changes in the size of muscles and their attachment points. In feature after feature the anatomical changes observed are consistent with theories of speciation and descent with modification from common ancestors.

You can go to this site -
Dinosauricon
Sinosauropteryx

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You can go to this site -
Evolutionary Transitionals: From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds
Dinosauricon
Sinosauropteryx

nice table JD, and what a nice picture of Avimimus, one of the more famous "bird or dinosaur" cases

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as Archaeopteryx - it has fully formed flying feathers. Period. How can that be a transitional form? There's some odd ducks in the animal kingdom, such as the platypus, but saying a fossil with fully formed feathers is some kind of bridge between dinosaurs and birds, merely because it has some features like teeth, just doesn't make sense to me. A number of extinct birds had teeth, and many reptiles don't have teeth.

Not merely because it has teeth and featheres. All theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs) have skeletons that are remarkably similar to those of today's birds. Paleontologists have long believed birds evolved from these creatures. Dinosaurs that have been proved to have had feathers have only got the evolutionists some wind in their sails but the main argument that birds came from dinosaurs are the similarities in skeletons - not feathers.

Of course, similarities in bone structure doesn't mean evolution is true but still it fits very well with the theory. To a creationist, maybe similar skeletons doesn't mean anything, but - if evolution exists, theropods' skeletal resemblances to birds (and our own resemblances to apes) would be a result of it. So the resemblances are evidences for evolution.

As far as I recall, it has never been proved that avimimus had feathers. But it was more than a decade since I read about it (I devoured dinosaur books as a kid!) so there may have been some new finds lately.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

nice table JD, and what a nice picture of Avimimus, one of the more famous "bird or dinosaur" cases

Thanks - I edited my post a bit so it now includes the write up about it and I sepecify where the picture comes from.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Not merely because it has teeth and featheres. All theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs) have skeletons that are remarkably similar to those of today's birds. Paleontologists have long believed birds evolved from these creatures. Dinosaurs that have been proved to have had feathers have only got the evolutionists some wind in their sails but the main argument that birds came from dinosaurs are the similarities in skeletons - not feathers.

Of course, similarities in bone structure doesn't mean evolution is true but still it fits very well with the theory. To a creationist, maybe similar skeletons doesn't mean anything, but - if evolution exists, theropods' skeletal resemblances to birds (and our own resemblances to apes) would be a result of it. So the resemblances are evidences for evolution.

As far as I recall, it has never been proved that avimimus had feathers. But it was more than a decade since I read about it (I devoured dinosaur books as a kid!) so there may have been some new finds lately.

un-bury

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Of course, similarities in bone structure doesn't mean evolution is true but still it fits very well with the theory. To a creationist, maybe similar skeletons doesn't mean anything, but - if evolution exists, theropods' skeletal resemblances to birds (and our own resemblances to apes) would be a result of it. So the resemblances are evidences for evolution.

Well you aren't supposed to talk about how evolution makes more sense now - the title of the thread has been changed and is now only how evidence proves Creationism and against evolution. So let's just let Rian talk here. We wouldn't want to get off subject.

[Rían]

I have no problem discussing what Jonathan brought up. I enjoy good, thoughtful, intelligent, considerate discussions very much!

I see someone changed the title of the thread already! Wow!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I summarized the theory of evolution in one post. Laid out how it was very simple for fish to evolve to land based mammals.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find your post - could you please tell me where it is?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I have no problem discussing what Jonathan brought up. I enjoy good, thoughtful, intelligent, considerate discussions very much!

You just don't like conflict or where someone pushes an issue you don't want to discuss. You want to talk about politeness while adding your little digs at me in your post. That is fine - but don't be hypocritical.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't totally get the renaming of this thread. Personally I think it's a tad misleading. Points that outline a failing in the theory of Evolution don't necessarily prove that Creationism is right. Creationism has to prove its validity in itself as well.

For all we know there could be some other theory that no one has discovered yet that is closer to the truth than both our theories. Thus, disproving ToE would merely mean that it isn't true (I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether or not you can do this), it would not automatically mean that Creationism is true. Obviously, the reverse also applies.

If you need me, I'll be lurking in the corner.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You just don't like conflict or where someone pushes an issue you don't want to discuss. You want to talk about politeness while adding your little digs at me in your post. That is fine - but don't be hypocritical.

You do not have authority to speak for me. You are dead wrong about my underlying attitudes. I repeat - please stop saying what I "like" and what I "want" and what I "don't like", etc. You have no right to speak for me, and if you do, I will object Of course you may keep trying to speak for me, but I think that's pretty unfair. I think people should speak for themselves.

Now back to the topic - could you please find your post I asked about, if you don't mind?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry, I couldn't find your post - could you please tell me where it is?

Happily - 2 and half years later we are still here at the same spot...

Novemebr 9, 2002
http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.ph...797#post143797

This is one way evolution works...

Say there was a lot of competition for food in the early oceans with most fish swimming in the middle depths - but nothing really occupying the lower depths. Some fish start to swim down to the ocean floor and pick up the scraps. After some time they really don't need their fins anymore - and the fish that are born with flat fins that would have been considered deformities and would have died in the upper depths, survive better on the floor of the ocean. Through successive generations these deformaties become more pronounced because having flat fins on the ocean floor allow them to walk which is better for life down there - but now they can no longer swim.

This new flat finned fish eventually migrates to the shore and starts to move up through the low surf. Some of them walk out of the water - but they can't survive - because they still have gills. Some of these fish can develop a deformity that allows them to breath for a short time on land - through successive generations this "deformatity" gets passed on to it's offspring and becomes a standard part of the fish. These new fish evetually are able to crawl out of the water and live. You can see this fish today called a lung fish.

There is another fish that was very scary this summer in Maryland called the Northern Snakehead - ABCNews - They're Here... Two Unusual Fish Invade U.S. Waters. (I had several Lion Fish - they're a really cool fish, I especially like the Fu Man Chu Lion Fish.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't totally get the renaming of this thread.

I do

Personally I think it's a tad misleading. Points that outline a failing in the theory of Evolution don't necessarily prove that Creationism is right. Creationism has to prove its validity in itself as well.

You're absolutely right! I totally agree.

For all we know there could be some other theory that no one has discovered yet that is closer to the truth than both our theories. Thus, disproving ToE would merely mean that it isn't true (I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether or not you can do this), it would not automatically mean that Creationism is true. Obviously, the reverse also applies.

I think where it is related is this : As I stated before, the ToE relies on the assumption of non-directed, non-goal-oriented processes. Conversely, creationism relies on the assumption of directed, goal-oriented processes in the initial act of creation (the minor variation of species after the initial act is "non-directed"). So if the ToE is shown to be non-proven or indicated against in its most elemental and necessary features (macroevolution and beneficial mutations), then it is likely that its underlying assumption is false, too. Does that make sense?

If you need me, I'll be lurking in the corner.

I always need you, Nurvi I could use a Moothug from you right now! *hugs Nurvi* Let's go find a lovely virtual tree and our virtual selves will enjoy some tea and scones and a chat!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You do not have authority to speak for me. You are dead wrong about my underlying attitudes. I repeat - please stop saying what I "like" and what I "want" and what I "don't like", etc. You have no right to speak for me, and if you do, I will object Of course you may keep trying to speak for me, but I think that's pretty unfair. I think people should speak for themselves.

Am I really wrong? You haven't indicated that with your posts to me. You say one thing and act a different way.

Now I want to ask again - can you do a SINGLE post that shows why you support creationism without bringing evolution or god into it. That is the one thing i keep asking for that you will not do.