Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by kester99 View Post
    Any test that validates that the earth is globe-shaped falsify the earth being flat.
    Any test that validates the earth being flat will falsify that the earth is globe-shaped.

    Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. ....yet this is exactly what people like
    Henry the Navigator (including many academics and scientists and cartographers) do. It's nuttiness.

    Flawless logic FTW.

    The logic shows that one or the other can be true, but not both....all I'm saying.
    Your problem is a common error people make. You assume that ideas which have been falsified no longer qualify as science. That is incorrect. These ideas are classified as failed hypotheses.

    Both the notion that the Earth globe-shape and that the Earth is flat are science, it's just the former is a directly-observed fact, while the latter has been falsified.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      I don’t believe the theory of Evolution.

      When listening to Evolutionary scientists speak, or when reading their descriptions of how Evolution works, if you really pay attention you soon realize their theory of how life begin is mostly hypotheses, not real science.

      Charles Darwin himself said, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. *Letter to Asa Gray, June 18, 1857.

      It’s been over 150 years since Darwin published his book, The Origin of the Species, (Nov. 1859), and even though it’s taught in classrooms it’s still the unproven theory it started out as. The fact is Evolution as Darwin imagined it is dead. However other scientists are still championing the theory.

      The problem they have is each new idea of how Evolution works soon gets shot down by other scientists as unworkable for one scientific reason or another. It’s like they are moving their own goal posts. They have come up with so many ideas and discarded them that some Scientists are now giving credence to life coming from outer-space.

      The most popular theory however still seems to be that life arose from a primordial soup. Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene, speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of amino acids gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

      [Amino acids are molecules made out of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen atoms . Proteins are large complex molecules composed of one or more long chains of amino acids. Proteins play many critical roles in the body. They do most of the work in cells and are required for the structure, function, and regulation of the body’s tissues and organs. In the case of Evolution though there’s no body .]

      Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.

      [q] What suddenly makes it a living cell though? It seems to me that all that would be there are the parts of a cell, something akin to the Frankenstein monster. Like the monster in the movie it would still need to be energized. The law of biogenesis, which is real science, and is attributed to Louis Pasteur, says that “living things only come from other living things.” Thus this cell would need energy right from the start for it to be alive, otherwise it would be like a car engine with a dead battery.

      There are many more problems with Evolution. Dawkins grosses over how this primeval soup would form. Again, he says. “Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids and gradually accumulated in the sea.”

      One problem with this way of forming amino acids is the same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed.

      This is shown by the famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953. Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. In his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

      For arguments sake however let’s bypass those problems and go on with Dawkins story and say the amino acids somehow reached the ocean, what then?

      Dawkins speculates that after reaching the water another exceedingly improbable accident occurred. Similar molecules clustered together and then wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane.

      [q] Since an ocean is rather big what would cause them to cluster together? And then instead of clustering together and forming a bigger cluster like they had been doing, why did they suddenly wrap another group of molecules around themselves for protection. What caused that? And how did they do it? It’s just a simple cell and it doesn’t have a genetic code to tell it what to do.

      Another question is how would they stay alive long enough to cluster together and then wrap a protective membrane around themselves? I ask this question because other scientists say this soup would never form.

      Evolutionist Francis Hitching says in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe, p65, says, Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions: water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules. (So how would Proteins form?) So once amino acids are in the water , they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”

      Other scientists say much the same thing. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p 75.

      Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].” Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

      However lets say the amino acids somehow stay alive when the reach the ocean. There’s another problem with how they would form the necessary molecules needed for life.

      At present, science says there are over 500 amino acids which come in fairly equal amounts in right handed and left handed shapes. However only 20 specific amino acids are used by living things. And get this, all 20 amino acids needed for life are left handed.

      This seems to me to be evidence of a creator. However, if you rule out a creator, the obvious question is, how is it that only the 20 left handed amino acids that are needed for producing life would be united in the soup? Physicist J.D. Bernal acknowledges, “We may never be able to explain it.” The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p 144.

      To demonstrate the problem think of a bath tub full of different types of beans. The beans are going to represent amino acids. Now what you have to do is blindfold yourself and then pick out 20 different type of beans. For example, a red bean, then a navy bean, then a pinto bean, then mister Bean . . . whoops where did he come from? Anyway you get the point, you need to pick 20 different beans. In the world of amino acids however not only do you have to pick 20 specific amino acids, they all have to be left handed.

      What are the odds of that happening by chance?

      Now add those odds to the chance of everything else happening to produce life and the odds become truly impossible.

      You don’t think so? Even Evolutionary scientists think the odds impossible. George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, 1954, said, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

      Why do scientists persist in believing the theory of Evolution when they think it's impossible? Because the creation account found in the Bible is the only other explanation of how life got here. For varies reasons the Bible account is not acceptable to some people even though the creation account fits the facts whereas the theory of Evolution never has.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Seriously, just read this book and see if you still think exactly the same way about how open-minded all of the scientists are:

        http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Univ.../dp/0061778990

        Don't read some cynic's refutation of the book, don't read a fanboy's praise of the book, just read the book and let it speak for itself.
        I've given similar advice about the Bible.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

          What are the odds of that happening by chance?

          Now add those odds to the chance of everything else happening to produce life and the odds become truly impossible.

          You don’t think so? Even Evolutionary scientists think the odds impossible. George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, 1954, said, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

          Why do scientists persist in believing the theory of Evolution when they think it's impossible? Because the creation account found in the Bible is the only other explanation of how life got here. For varies reasons the Bible account is not acceptable to some people even though the creation account fits the facts whereas the theory of Evolution never has.
          Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.

          The Bible's version has no facts. It doesn't even had a shred of logic to it. There are literally no details in Genesis that are remotely provable as fact. A book many thousands of years old that tells a story that is many thousands of years older than that. That is what you are referring too as the other possible explanation. Great piece of literature to live your life by? Sure....Explanation on how the world came to be? No.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            So are you suggesting that the only answer is because they share a common ancestor? There isn't a single reason other, than a common ancestor that is possible?
            That's not the only possible reason. It is one reason for an observation that was predicted to exist long before it was found, which is one powerful aspect of any scientific theory- to predict things not yet even looked-for. And the whale fins do not just look a little like an arm, wrist, and hand. There is in fact a 1-to-1 correspondence of every single bone: a humerous, a radius, an ulna, phalanges (including distal, intermediate, and proximal), carpals, metacarpals. In the same numbers! You see the same setup in a bat's wings as well.


            Where is the fossil record of our tail progressively getting shorter?
            Soft tissue (tails, skin, cartilage) is not typically found in the fossil record. I am not sure which pre-human ancestor was the first to totally lack a tail or if that is known, or not. One might imagine that a tail can confer an advantage to a tree-dwelling animal as a means of balancing, but would confer a strong disadvantage to a land-dweller as an appendage easily grasped by predators. Thus some offspring had tail-producing genes not expressed and were somewhat more successful going froward. Hence they carried the genes to have a functional tail but they lay dormant. As they do today, for you and me.

            Or are we to believe that our tails just one day up and fell off?
            If by one day you mean gradually over several million years, I suppose so, though I suspect that the tail was de-selected before homo sapiens arrived on the scene.

            If you believe in ID, the answer could just very well be that's how that animal was designed.
            That is of course the unprovable fall-back answer. "A designer made it to look that way, to test us"

            where we are talking about photons from far-away galaxies reaching our eyes today after a trek of billions of years

            "well, the designer made those galaxies, and made the light, and the light didn't ever come from those galaxies, but the creator made the photons in space made them streaming toward us making them appear as if they come from those galaxies, to our ability to figure out his greatness"

            or talking about the age of moon rocks

            "well, the designer made the rocks appear billions of years old to us, only thousands of years ago when he made them, because of course he can do that and he is testing our faith"

            Those to me seem like fanciful faith-based (or in GRH's case, apparently, paranormal-based) hand-waving explanations of things that are more simply, accurately, and logically explained by science. The light coming from the galaxy 10 billion light years away left there 10 billion years ago, and the moon's crust was formed from portions of the earth's crust about 4.5 billion years ago, and by current models one explanation is that it was shed off after some type of impact event"

            I have no problems with people having faith in a creator. I do not feel that evolution leaves no room for a God. I just have a hard time when people apply the God-reason for things that are quite well-explained without it, and especially if they have the gall to call those God-reasons a science and insist that they teach their God-reasons to kids as being fundamental principles of science.
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 09:40 AM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              That's not the only possible reason. It is one reason for an observation that was predicted to exist long before it was found, which is one powerful aspect of any scientific theory- to predict things not yet even looked-for. And the whale fins do not just look a little like an arm, wrist, and hand. There is in fact a 1-to-1 correspondence of every single bone: a humerous, a radius, an ulna, phalanges (including distal, intermediate, and proximal), carpals, metacarpals. In the same numbers! You see the same setup in a bat's wings as well.
              So because it was predicted, it means that it's true?

              And that's not true that it's a 1-to-1 correspondence, because the wrist bones aren't even close to being the same. We have like eight bones in our wrists, it looks like there is one single one for a whale's "wrist." Take a look at your fingers, count the number of joints. Which one of your fingers have five joints? None? Okay so the phalanges don't match up either.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 09:53 AM.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Your two diagrams don't even match up, to start off with. And it still doesn't address the extra bones/joints in the phalanges. You said it was a 1-to-1 correspondence, so maybe the fact that it's not 1-to-1 should be addressed, no?

                  EDIT: And again, if similar bone structures suggest common ancestory, then how does dissimilar structures not suggest the opposite? Our hands and a whales flipper look similar, so we share common ancestory, while the other 99% of us look nothing alike but yet we're related just because of our hands? That's a pretty big stretch without any other evidence to go along with it, whether it was predicted or not.
                  Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013, 10:06 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    I was off in the "every single bone has an 1-1 correspondence", as it seems some longer bones divided into smaller ones, perhaps with a flexibility benefit, at least for the particular whale shown (there are many species of whales).

                    The overall morphology of the bone structure is consistent with a common ancestry, and is IMO fairly obvious in a picture, but the larger body of evidence is the fossil record, which has has several animals that represent a transition between mainly land-dwelling creatures like Pakicetus and our modern whales, with gradual changes in morphology and lifestyle towards a fully marine animal. They lose their hind legs, they gain front flippers, and they grow longer spines and tails that show various paddles and flukes. All of these changes show up gradually on the 50 million year timescale of evolution from carnivorous artiodactyl to marine cetacean.

                    Sometimes whales are taken that have tiny hind legs! They serve no function and are often developmentally stunted, and unevenly grown so that there is just one leg or one is longer than the other. They do nothing but drag along at the whale’s rear end; most whales of the same species do better without them. Why do they even HAVE hind legs at any point in their lives? What does that say about the “design” of whales versus the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals? Why would a Designer allow legs to develop in utero only to be reabsorbed long before birth, and then sometimes the reabsorption process isn't complete and they carry around these useless appendages?

                    If whales were designed from the ground up for marine life, why give their embryos useless hind leg buds at any point? Or maybe that's what they had to work with, and made the most of it in order to adapt.

                    Seems kind of similar to the occasional surgery that a delivery room doctor must perform to remove a vestigal tail, generally manifesting itself as a cartilagenous bump protruding from the tailbone of the newborn homo sapien.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 10:26 AM.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Seems kind of similar to the occasional surgery that a delivery room doctor must perform to remove a vestigal tail, generally manifesting itself as a cartilagenous
                      bump protruding from the tailbone of the newborn homo sapien.
                      Going back to the human tail, you said the fossil records don't show soft tissue, well tails have bones in them. Where is the fossil record showing our tail shortening up?

                      If evolution is about tiny steps turning into big steps, shouldn't we have the fossil records of the tiny steps instead of seeing the vast differences with similiarities and then connecting them together?
                      Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013, 10:49 AM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        I just don’t understand why creationists prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is, all of the amazing adaptations that are far more interesting than just throwing up your hands and saying "it's all a trick!" because they "know" a designer really just poofed things into existence whenever it was needed, micro-managing all of the details.

                        Nobody can logically look at the warm-blooded air-breathing whale as it suckles its young and say it has any close connection to any fish. The fact that it's an ancient cousin of the giraffe, that it's a mammal that made the most of what it had on hand to adapt to the water over 50 million years, is truly amazing and inspiring.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Going back to the human tail, you said the fossil records don't show soft tissue, well tails have bones in them. Where is the fossil record showing our tail shortening up?
                          As I said, I doubt that homo sapiens ever had tails (I am not a palentologist in the least).

                          Chimps don't. Gorillas don't. The great apes have tail bones similar to those of humans.

                          We and they have the tail bones to support a tail structure. Maybe those bones even elongate in their/our distantly-related tail-bearers? A common tree-dwelling ancestor of great apes an man may have at some point had a tail. It would make sense, as I believe the genes to control tail development in species such as lemurs have been identified and compared with moderately homologous genetically inactive DNA sequences in man.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            I just don’t understand why creationists prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is, all of the amazing adaptations that are far more interesting than just throwing up your hands and saying "it's all a trick!" because they "know" a designer really just poofed things into existence whenever it was needed, micro-managing all of the details.
                            So in order to acknowledge how amazing the history of life is, you have to believe in the evolutionary theory? Hardly.


                            Who has said anything about micro-managing? I've already admitted that I believe in micro evolution as a natural occurance, so why would I think that the design of God was micro-managed and that we came down looking exactly like we did today, or that any animal looks the exact same?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              I also don't understand the acceptance of microevolution paired with the rejection of macroevolution. A plus a huge abundance of time equals B. Is it just because you can see microevolution on time scales of weeks, days, or even hours (as in the microbial world)?

                              I hate to keep coming back to the time element, but it is a unifying variable that seems to be the source of so much misconception. An ape didn't one day turn into a man, a tail didn't one day "fall off", and a hoofed land mammal didn't one day turn into a whale. Each can be understood in the context of multi-million year processes, but yes I guess each is a bewildering "act of magic" when shoe-horned into a tiny time frame dictated by some ancient decree of a council of men.

                              To me the theory that all species were created at once to be what they are today (never mind that all land species that ever lived would not fit on any existing Earth land mass, let alone on any boat) is one of micromanagemant on the part of that creator. It denies the amazing tapestry of the trees of life and poses much of science as a sideshow "test of faith" that a creator (apparently) demands must be summarily ignored.

                              I have probably said enough, and saying any more at all in this thread seems unproductive. I hope, as a practicing scientist, to at least shed a little light onto the idea/reality that science has nothing to do with any organized scheme serving to deny God, or some other evil pursuit. Science requires an open mind. Faith and science can coexist despite whatever wars are declared by close-minded folks claiming to be on either side.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 11:47 AM.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                To me the theory that all species were created at once to be what they are today
                                WHERE has that been said? I just posed a question that should have suggested something different.


                                "Who has said anything about micro-managing? I've already admitted that I believe in micro evolution as a natural occurance, so why would I think that the design of God was micro-managed and that we came down looking exactly like we did today, or that any animal looks the exact same?"

                                I think more than half of my posts in this thread have been addressing straw men arguments.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X