Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Like the ever popular coelacanth, a lobe finned fish 'believed' to have gone extinct over 65 million years ago but in 1938 fishermen off the east coast of South Africa caught one and now they can be found in captivity in aquariums around the world. It is the same as the supposed 65 millionn year old fossil ones. What happened to that fella? Someone forgot to tell him to 'evolve'? He fell of the 'evolutionary' ladder?

I do not think the continued existence of a species or a few species over a long period of time without mutations that generate a new species is any thread the the theory of evolution as I understand it. My understanding of the theory of evolution is that it states that a species will evolve if mutations occur and there is a selection process that favors those organisms with the mutation or mutations. As far as I know, there is nothing stating that mutations must occur within any given length of time, so I'm not sure why the prolonged existence of a species that has not undergone mutation should bear any weight on the validity of the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

you are saying that it is more likely the result of some INTELLEGENT design rather than an accident of evolutionary history?

You do know about Natural Selection right? I take it you're making a more subtle point about the plausibility of a magic being in the sky designing things?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

So, you know someone who believes that? What religion is that? He didn't die for anyone. and he didn't do anything for anyone.

CF1, didn't you get any education? Can't you do a single Google search on your own?
Prometheus gave man fire and, as his name suggests, was Greek first, but Roman too.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Really X? Go ahead and tell us which one died FOR ANYBODY. Or DID anything FOR ANYBODY.

I don't understand the importance of dying for anyone or doing anything for anybody. How is that related to the discussion at hand? Was that about the gods X referenced or the fossils?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

I wonder why all birds didn't evolve into woodpeckers?

Why just birds? I wonder why we all didn't evolve into woodpeckers.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

How young or old are the lowest metamorphic layers in the Grand Canyon?

Why are they in layers?

How come some are not nice and level? What deformed them? How long did it take?

Is the Colorado river there because there is a canyon or is the canyon there because there is a river? How long did it take the river to erode away that much rock? How will it look in a million years? Ten million? A hundred million? Can we extrapolate backwards in time?

Is degree of curiosity a limiting factor?

You do realize that the rim of the canyon is almost a mile higher than where the river enters it. That river didn't flow up and over hills for millions of years. It also has unique characteristics which does not indicate this 'carving' through rock, it changes its direction of flow, it doesn't flow backwards or uphill but it turns and flows in the opposite direction.
We can extrapolate back in time, and there is no limit on curiosity - it produced all the good science that we have.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

You do realize that the rim of the canyon is almost a mile higher than where the river enters it.

Are you Kent Hovind?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

That particular one is the European Green Woodpecker. Woodpeckers in general are very fascinating, their beaks, feet, skull, tail feathers, and of course tongue are different and unique from other birds. I wonder why all birds didn't evolve into woodpeckers? Their tongues are not only long, some up to 10 inches, where most other birds tongues only go to the end of their beak, it has little barbs on it to help when they stab their little bug meals and it also has a little 'glue' factory to help hold the little bug meals that it stabs and of course it also has another little factory built into it so that when it retracts the little bug meal on the end of it's tongue back into it's mouth it desolves the 'glue' that it manufactures. Their skull is the heaviest and thickest of any animal compared to it's size and has built in 'shock absorbers' to protect the contents of its head, in fact brain surgeons study these little creatures to help them in dealing with patients who have suffered head trauma in order to repair them as best as they can. Very fascinating creatures. If some one wants to believe that they just evolved all of their incredible systems then ok. But like other creatures the creatures in the fossil record are either extinct or THEY STILL EXIST TODAY. Like the ever popular coelacanth, a lobe finned fish 'believed' to have gone extinct over 65 million years ago but in 1938 fishermen off the east coast of South Africa caught one and now they can be found in captivity in aquariums around the world. It is the same as the supposed 65 millionn year old fossil ones. What happened to that fella? Someone forgot to tell him to 'evolve'? He fell of the 'evolutionary' ladder?

Yes that is interesting. Aside from a few sites that have an ax to grind, this woodpecker's tongue is considered remarkable but not outrageously so. Here is a quote from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...odpecker.html:

The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the following information shows, however, the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection.

None of the other sites I found that give the various characteristics of that species of woodpecker bother to mention the tongue as a distinguishing feature, other than its length. This is because the rest of the description you give is "creative elaboration" to make it seem odder than it really is.

What we can read at the above link is that although that woodpecker's tongue is unusual it is no more than an "elongated version of that found in all birds" and has an obviously useful application -- getting insects out of deep holes.

There are many astonishing and unusual life-forms and of course not all of them are well understood. But the ones I've seen promoted by Creationists as refuting evolution usually rely on creative elaborations with a humorous tone in an attempt to make evolution seem silly.

The eye is a one of features presented in the past as being impossible. This has been so thoroughly explained by evolutionists (including examples of the "impossible" intermediate forms) that creationists no longer bring it up. As I hinted at above the mammalian eye is actually kind of a broken design. The nerves that come from the rods and cones project into the eye (!) instead of hanging off the back of it. This can be show to be a result of evolution where the intermediary stages this made sense but we are now stuck with this broken design.

I wonder why all birds didn't evolve into woodpeckers?" Two ways to answer:
1) God likes diversity so he,
2) Put many birds in many different ecological situations so they would adapt in diverse ways.

Not everyone agrees that 1) adds much to the hypothesis but it certainly doesn't detract from it. Nor does 2) make 1) any less viable.

Lots of animals (think insect eating lizards) have sticky or barbed tongues. Not hard to see how that could have evolved.

Originally Posted by xman

CF1, didn't you get any education? Can't you do a single Google search on your own?
Prometheus gave man fire and, as his name suggests, was Greek first, but Roman too.

Man already had fire, so what. Who's following or believes or has their faith resting in Greek mythology today. I'll try to spell things out better for you so maybe you can understand. Were you born like that or did you have to work at it X? No, you're the missing link.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

You do realize that the rim of the canyon is almost a mile higher than where the river enters it. That river didn't flow up and over hills for millions of years. It also has unique characteristics which does not indicate this 'carving' through rock, it changes its direction of flow, it doesn't flow backwards or uphill but it turns and flows in the opposite direction.
We can extrapolate back in time, and there is no limit on curiosity - it produced all the good science that we have.

I wonder how long it took for the geological plate to rise that high?

I'm not sure how "flowing backwards" is relevant. Ever seen the Mississippi from the air?

You can respond to this if you want, but I am signing off on this discussion.

You know I'm sure there are hundreds of things you and I would agree on. It simply mystifies me that you (and so many others) think that the Good Lord, responsible for all of creation, is limited to such inelegant boring methods and has apparently made so many silly little errors. Let's hope He is not done with his work and will evolve his creation into something even finer. Perhaps he has been doing so for a while now. Hey, Creation is hard work! Let's give the Guy a chance!

Thanks for the discussion -- signing off.