Evolution

[Achilles]

partly but if you look at the picture closely you'll notice that the "tail" is of centered and that happens when the fat from the spines is pushed out

Where else would the tail be? It's at the same place on every animal that has one

 

also on wikipedia the "More on human tails" article talks about the "tail" when we are embrios is the fat that is pushed into the spine

Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been a very few documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae.

No mention of "fat" here.

 

And also what is the missing link? what all of the other "links" half of them where found with human bones the scientists just never say that

"Missing link" for what?

[Rev7]

Yep. If the right (or should I say "wrong") genes are activated then that could absolutely happen (I provided a picture of a human born with a tail above).

Okay. That 'tail' certainly does look like just fat. Don't tails have muscle to them? <EDIT> sorry, you posted before me. <EDIT 2>"It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." ????

They are the same thing. "Mutation" is what it is. "Defect" is the label that we assign to it. Every human born has undergone "mutations" (as they are not an exact DNA replica of either parent but a unique combination of both parents' DNA). Most are common or otherwise unnoticeable.

I thought that is what you would say.

[M@RS]

Where else would the tail be? It's at the same place on every animal that has one

 

No mention of "fat" here.

 

"Missing link" for what?

 

oops I ment not centered I'm tired and am going to turn in have fun prooving evolution Achilles, I hope you eventually know the truth...

[Achilles]

Okay. That 'tail' certainly does look like just fat. Don't tails have muscle to them?

See my response to M@RS.

I thought that is what you would say.

I say it because it's true

[M@RS]

if you know that baby in the picture ask it to move it's tail, if it can than it is a tail if not it's fat like I said or watch him and see if he moves his tail

[Rev7]

See my response to M@RS.

See my edit.

 

I say it because it's true

 

In your opinion of course. How do you you know what truth is?

[Achilles]

I don't know the baby in the picture, so I can't carry out your experiment for you. I am glad that I was able to answer your question regarding human tails.

 

See my edit.

Okay

"It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." ????

Right. Muscles attach to bone and contracting them is what allows us to move. When you move your arm up and down it's because the muscles connecting to your upper arm and lower arm (called your bicep and tricep) is contracting. The muscle that allows your upper leg to move back and forth (like when you walk or climb stairs) is (primarily) your gluteus maximus and it connects to your thigh bone and a bunch of other bones in your lower back, including your coccyx (aka your tailbone).

 

In your opinion of course. How do you you know what truth is?

In this case it's easy because we're talking about a word:

 

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion

Pronunciation: <snip>

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

 

1: a significant and basic alteration : change

2: umlaut

3 a: a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b: an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

Emphasis added.

 

By way of comparison:

Main Entry: birth defect

Function: noun

Date: 1971

 

: a physical or biochemical defect that is present at birth and may be inherited or environmentally induced

All they are talking about here is a mutation, however by labeling it as "a defect" they are placing a value on it (i.e. "bad" mutation as opposed to "normal" mutation or even a "good" mutation).

[M@RS]

YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?

[Achilles]

YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?

These cases are well documented. See I have objective evidence on my side.

 

How do you know that Kent Hovind and all your creationist influences weren't lying to you? You don't have objective evidence to show otherwise.

[Rev7]

^

Regardless, you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

 

I am really sorry that I am going off topic...

[Achilles]

Regardless, you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

Apologies. I didn't realize that you meant that in a context that had nothing to do with the part of my post that you were quoting

 

We can "know" things as much as the evidence allows us to "know" them. We know that the Theory of Evolution is "real" because of the predictions that have been independently confirmed, the evidence that has been gathered, etc, etc.

 

We can say thing like, "If ToE is an accurate model, then we should be able to find a fossil that has characteristics of this species as well as characteristics of that species. Because we found this there and that there, we know that we should look in this area. And because we know that this species lived during this time period and that species lived during that time period, we have to dig down about that far".

 

Everytime we do that and find what we are looking for, we gain that much more confidence that the ToE is accurate. And that's just paleontology. That says nothing about genetics, animal husbandry, etc, etc, etc. Each of these branches have their own predictions and there own mountain of evidence supporting the ToE as it relates to them.

[ET Warrior]

you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

Playing semantic games won't gain you much ground here... Mutations and Defects are the same because the English language has been defined in such a way that they are literally talking about the same thing. If you want to redefine words to fit your preconceived notions then you'll have a hard time communicating with a lot of people.

 

M@RS: You have been repeatedly warned, so pay attention. If you want to discuss something that is not evolution, there are a lot of threads in the Senate that you can bring up, or you can start a thread about it. Do not derail the topic of this thread.

 

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.

[Acrylic]

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.

 

I believe that evolution is indeed something that is true, but I would like a source for that, please?

[M@RS]

Achilles can you answer me this, what about Carbon Dating or any other type of dating? It's about evolution and I'll show you how.

[ET Warrior]

I believe that evolution is indeed something that is true, but I would like a source for that, please?

Fossils

Mountain of Evidence

 

Achilles can you answer me this, what about Carbon Dating or any other type of dating? It's about evolution and I'll show you how.

As opposed to baiting out answers from the people opposing you, perhaps you could just make an entire post explaining why you obviously think carbon dating, and I assume other radiometric dating is incorrect? I'll supply you with a couple of links explaining why they are

Radiometric Dating

Carbon Dating

I realize that most of my links are to talkorigins, but that is because it is written in a way that is easy for the layman to understand, and provides plenty of sources for all of their claims.

[M@RS]

The reason why no dating is correct is because the atmosphere was different in the past scientists have found pieces of amber with 32% oxygen instead of 25%, also the pressure was different in the past, causing the amount of carbon or anything else to be wrong because the scientists today judge the date on how everything is today not back then...

[M@RS]

Ding Ding Ding

End of round one! We should all calm down a bit especially me (sorry)

[ET Warrior]

The reason why no dating is correct is because the atmosphere was different in the past scientists have found pieces of amber with 32% oxygen instead of 25%, also the pressure was different in the past, causing the amount of carbon or anything else to be wrong because the scientists today judge the date on how everything is today not back then...

First of all, what are you defining as 'the past'? It is well known that the composition of our atmosphere has undergone quite a large number of changes over the course of our planets existence. However, atmospheric pressure has little to no effect on radiometric dating

(from )

A great many experiments have been done in attempts to change radioactive decay rates, but these experiments have invariably failed to produce any significant changes. It has been found, for example, that decay constants are the same at a temperature of 2000°C or at a temperature of -186°C and are the same in a vacuum or under a pressure of several thousand atmospheres. Measurements of decay rates under differing gravitational and magnetic fields also have yielded negative results. Although changes in alpha and beta decay rates are theoretically possible, theory also predicts that such changes would be very small (42) and thus would not affect dating methods. Under certain environmental conditions, the decay characteristics of 14C, 60Co, and 137Ce, all of which decay by beta emission, do deviate slightly from the ideal random distribution predicted by current theory (5, 6), but changes in the decay constants have not been detected.

 

Also, take the time to read a long series of step by step debunking of Hovind's arguments

[M@RS]

Remember Evolution is a theory it wouldn't be the first time a scientists lied to match their theory with "real" science

 

and Dr. Hovind doesn't rely on that one statement his other statement comes from the Bible "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let all truth be established and every man a liar" (or something like that)

[Achilles]

Remember Evolution is a theory it wouldn't be the first time a scientists lied to match their theory with "real" science

What evidence do you have to support that all that evidence has been falsified? Yes, individuals have been known to falsify "evidence" in order to further their own celebrity, but they have always been revealed as frauds by other scientists who are actually interested in furthering knowledge and understanding.

 

To get to the place that you're suggesting would require a vast global conspiracy that spans generations. So we're back to operationally defining "fairy tale" again.

 

In other words you're grasping at straws and they aren't even very good ones.

[M@RS]

I didn't say all evidence quit twisting my words I said some and yes scientists have been caught lying but look at this: They still teach this in the textbooks even though it has been falsified.

 

http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/darwins-embryo-drawings-flawed/

 

this spans the generations so they aren't straws they're strong walls

[Achilles]

Then I'm not understanding what your contention is.

 

Hekel's drawings are still used? Please provide evidence (not hearsay) to support your assertion.

 

As far as their usage, yes, they were supported for as long as they were believed to be accurate. As soon as other scientists were able to falsify Hekel's drawings they were pulled.

[M@RS]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg

 

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

 

Look at both of these...

[ET Warrior]

Dr. Hovind doesn't rely on that one statement his other statement comes from the Bible

Indeed, perhaps you should actually take the time to read the link I provided, they show why over 30 of Hovind's points against evolution are misinformed at best.

[M@RS]

But not all of them, I'm going to be gone for awhile so don't do anything while I'm gone

try not to strangle any other creationists either