Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[Zakuska]

And to drive the point home even further.... here is the documented theory of whale evolution... in which a carnivorous land mammal "magically" turns into a whale.

http://coast.noaa.gov/psc/sea/content/whale-evolution

Except for the fact Rodhocetus never had flippers, a fluke or a blow hole like the forged fossils show.

http://creation.com/rodhocetus

http://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Edited November 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Don't take my word for it... the scientists contradict your claim...

 

To be honest I am not even reading your long messages. I am tired of debating you, just a wast of my time. 

 

There is no need to debate you, many online LDS do take Evolution seriously. 

[Zakuska]

To be honest I am not even reading your long messages. I am tired of debating you, just a wast of my time. 

 

There is no need to debate you, many online LDS do take Evolution seriously.

Yep as predicted...

http://recruitingdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/09/ostrich-in-sand.jpg

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yep as predicted...

 

I am simply tired of debunking everything you say. 

[Zakuska]

You haven't debunked a single thing I've said. You've just buried your head in the sand and failed to engage.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You haven't debunked a single thing I've said

 

LOL 

[ERayR]

I am simply tired of debunking everything you say. 

 

To simply state someone is wrong is NOT debunking.  Its called stating your opinion.

[Zakuska]

To simply state someone is wrong is NOT debunking. Its called stating your opinion.

Even a third grader can understand what macroevolution is. In the case of whales, a cat or dog like creature, depending on which paleontologist you ask, turning into a whale.

For some reason TSC just can't get it.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

Even a third grader can understand what macroevolution is. In the case of whales, a cat or dog like creature, depending on which paleontologist you ask, turning into a whale.

For some reason TSC just can't get it.

 

Its not that he can't.  He won't because if he did it would destroy his carefully crafted illusion of what the world is really like and then where would he be?  He can't see colors or shades.  To him it is or it isn't there is nothing else.

Edited November 1, 2015 by ERayR

[Teancum]

Its not that he can't.  He won't because if he did it would destroy his carefully crafted illusion of what the world is really like and then where would he be?  He can't see colors or shades.  To him it is or it isn't there is nothing else.

Are you and Z proposing that macro-evolution is a false scientific theory and that most biological scientists don't believe there is loads of evidence for it?

[jkwilliams]

Are you and Z proposing that macro-evolution is a false scientific theory and that most biological scientists don't believe there is loads of evidence for it?

Maybe I am not very smart, but I don't understand the objection to macroevolution. It just seems kind of arbitrary to say there are certain random lines that evolutionary processes can't cross.

[Zakuska]

The only evidence I've seen for macro-evolution (aka Darwinian Evolution) has been forged. (Eg whales, archeoptrix)

Can you show us one single transitional fossil that shows one species turning into another? Ie an intermediate fossil that shows trates of both target and pre-evolved species?

Darwin claimed there should be thousands of such fossils and complained that the fossil record he had to work with was full of holes. Here we are 200 years later and palentoligists say we are even further away than Darwin was from proving his theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Looking on Wikipedia the authors are blissfully unaware of the piltdown in their midst. Both archaptrix [sic] (proven a fraud by national geographic magazine) and the forged whale fossils (a cat like creature turning into a whale) are listed as "transitional fossils".

Edited November 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Even a third grader can understand what macroevolution is. In the case of whales, a cat or dog like creature, depending on which paleontologist you ask, turning into a whale.

For some reason TSC just can't get it.

 

please read post 120 and tell me if that is macroevolution,

[Zakuska]

please read post 120 and tell me if that is macroevolution,

You mean the photo from your last family reunion?

I'll let the paleontologists answer your question.

Transitional versus ancestral

A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups.

Just because we have a bunch of fossils that share general characteristics doesn't an ancestor make.

Your picture doesn't show macroevolution. It just shows some really old monkey skulls and a modern human skull.

Speaking about 'lucy', the suppossed great grand mother of our species. One scientist said:

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“

lucy might not be our mum

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/lucy-may-not-be-our-mum-say-scientists/ar-BBkjzeb

Edited November 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

Are you and Z proposing that macro-evolution is a false scientific theory and that most biological scientists don't believe there is loads of evidence for it?

Wrong questions.  First what is a false scientific theory?  I believe it is a theory that hasn't been demonstrated as accurate.  Second I am aware of what a lot of biological scientists believe but belief does not equate to proof.  If it did then we would all be Buddhists or Chinese Religion.   

[halconero]

Stephen J. Gould is not a good theory to defend your position. The guy's work on exaptations alone blows away the cherry picked quote you used.

With regards to transition species, may I suggest the Australopithecine foot, the transition from a sagittal crest to keel, the shifting of the Foramen Magnum, as well as gut evolution as well.

[halconero]

Lucy isn't generally argued as an ancestor, but a stem species.

[Teancum]

The only evidence I've seen for macro-evolution (aka Darwinian Evolution) has been forged. (Eg whales, archeoptrix)

Can you show us one single transitional fossil that shows one species turning into another? Ie an intermediate fossil that shows trates of both target and pre-evolved species?

Darwin claimed there should be thousands of such fossils and complained that the fossil record he had to work with was full of holes. Here we are 200 years later and palentoligists say we are even further away than Darwin was from proving his theory.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Looking on Wikipedia the authors are blissfully unaware of the piltdown in their midst. Both archaptrix [sic] (proven a fraud by national geographic magazine) and the forged whale fossils (a cat like creature turning into a whale) are listed as "transitional fossils".

I am not that well read on theories of evolution. But a book that I did read that I think explains macro-evolution well is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. I recommend it to you.

[Zakuska]

please read post 120 and tell me if that is macroevolution,

So TheSkepticChristian if nobody believes that a cat turned into a whale through macro-evolution why does the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration have on their web site curriculum geared for 3rd graders teaching our impressionable young-lings that a cat turned into a whale?

http://coast.noaa.gov/psc/sea/content/whale-evolution

The Smithsonian teaches a similar theory... that a wolf like creature turned into a whale.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/?no-ist=&page=2

Of course genetics tells us that hippos are the closest match.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

I think the real macroevolution is germ > fish > mermaid > man.

 

http://videosift.com/comedy/video/Karl-Pilkigton-and-Ricky-Gervais-discuss-evolution

[TheSkepticChristian]

So TheSkepticChristian if nobody believes that a cat turned into a whale through macro-evolution why does the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration have on their web site curriculum geared for 3rd graders teaching our impressionable young-lings that a cat turned into a whale? match.

 

because you don't understand what they are saying 

 

 

Of course genetics tells us that hippos are the closest match.

 

great point. The hippos are the Closest Living Relatives to the whales. DNA predicts that whales and hippos should share a lot of unique similarities, and they do. 

 

Similarities between whales and hippos  

1. internal genitals

2. nurse their juveniles while in the water

3. send handy vocal messages to each other while submerged

4. do not have sweat glands

5. barely any hair on their bodies

6. Thick Bones

 

Similarities are not impressive, but predicted similarities are. How do you explain that? 

A fossil known as Epirigenys lokonensis confirms that whales and hippos are closely related. 

 

 

As you can see there is no such thing as a walking whale. The so-called walking whale is the pakicetus. 

 

Now you have a lot of explaining to do 

 

Edited November 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Stephen J. Gould is not a good theory to defend your position. The guy's work on exaptations alone blows away the cherry picked quote you used.

With regards to transition species, may I suggest the Australopithecine foot, the transition from a sagittal crest to keel, the shifting of the Foramen Magnum, as well as gut evolution as well.

Word is Stephen J Gould didn't know what he was talking about. Check out what some of his peers say about him.

 

If you've read anything Stephen J. Gould has ever said about evolutionary biology, I have some bad news for you. In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould's reputation is mud. Not because he was wrong. Many honest scientists have made honest mistakes. What Gould did was much worse, involving deliberate misrepresentation of science.

...

From a Peer, John Maynard Smith:

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

...

John Tooby speaks:

"Although Gould characterizes his critics as "anonymous" and "a tiny coterie," nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with. The point is not that Gould is the object of some criticism -- so properly are we all -- it is that his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know...

These [major evolutionary biologists] include Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Brian Charlesworth, Jerry Coyne, Robert Trivers, John Alcock, Randy Thornhill, and many others."

...

One way or another, knowingly or unknowingly, Gould deceived the trusting public and committed the moral equivalent of deliberate scientific fraud.

His peers don't seem to think much of his "work".

http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_fudge_hi.html

Edited November 2, 2015 by Zakuska

[Meadowchik]

How does one reconcile a no-macro/micro evolution stance with the fact that we all have Neanderthal DNA?

I'm not asking as any kind of expert, I'm just thinking that an explanation might be educational for we who are less knowledgeable on the topics.

Any takers?

[jkwilliams]

How does one reconcile a no-macro/micro evolution stance with the fact that we all have Neanderthal DNA?

I'm not asking as any kind of expert, I'm just thinking that an explanation might be educational for we who are less knowledgeable on the topics.

Any takers?

 

What I'm wondering is where the boundary lies between microevolution and macroevolution. To me, any boundary one might impose is arbitrary. For example, recently I was reading about the evolution of lice:

 

http://www.livescience.com/41028-lice-reveal-clues-to-human-evolution.html

 

Pubic lice are quite different from head lice and clothing lice, yet they spring from a common ancestor. They are different species and have quite different morphological features. Where does one draw the line between micro- and macroevolution?

[jkwilliams]

As for transitional fossils, are all of these fake?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils