Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Guppy on December 26, 2005, 06:06:45 PM
-
what do you think came first the fish or the fish egg. ???
-
Voted fish egg, fish as we know them today are the product of evolution (given I believe the theory of evolution). Through different stages of evolution, the eggs are what carried desired traits from one generation to the next, therefore, the fish as we know them today should technically be diferent from previous generations of the same species, meaning that the eggs of present generations came before the fish that hatched from them... 8) :-\
Wow...that was deep, need to get away from the bio textbooks... ;D
-
The trouble is, how can there be an egg without a doe to carry it & nourish it to maturity in the body? ;D
Can there be an ovum without the mother? So if an egg happens to become a fish by itself w/o a male party to fertilize it, a miracle, how is it going to produce again? By itself? ;D
How did it happen to reproduce the first time around?
Too deep. It borders on the religious realm. Sorry I am not too convinced on darwinism. Too many instances of intellectual designs in nature for this to happen on the basis of cosmic chaos.
-
The fish.. its like the story of god.. except only fish style.. :D
-
The fish.. its like the story of god.. except only fish style.. :D
Agreed!! If you believe in creation and God, then the fish came first, if you believe in evolution, then you could make a case for the egg!! I believe in creation, one of the reasons is because I don't believe a work of art like the Steelhead could have been a fluke!!
-
The fish.. its like the story of god.. except only fish style.. :D
Agreed!! If you believe in creation and God, then the fish came first, if you believe in evolution, then you could make a case for the egg!! I believe in creation, one of the reasons is because I don't believe a work of art like the Steelhead could have been a fluke!!
Or any other living thing for that matter or the world or the universe.
-
makes your brain hurt
-
I think first came two fish, because a fish egg needs to be "fertilized" before it can become a fry.. No?
-
Ya Chris, from the macro (fish, Earth, Universe) to the micro (cell, molecule, atom, electron, quartz), everything functions within each's own set of laws and order. I rather take creation (intellectual design) than Darwinism. Why think we started off as amoeba in some form of cosmic chaotic event, or begat by monkeys/chimps? Yeuk! Should thank the Lord for evey fish delivered to your hook. ;D
-
I think everyone needs a steelhead fix !
-
I think everyone needs a steelhead fix !
you got that right
-
GO evolution GO!! "a chemist is just a bunch of atoms that has evolved to study atoms" ...........oooooh smoke another one ..eh?
-
Ah its pretty obvious what came first! THE ROD!
-
Quote from a book on creation about the probability of proper protien to make a part of cell
"17 What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?
18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”"
now try to come up with a egg by chance.
-
"God is as real as I am." said the old man. I was greatly relieved as I knew Santa Claus would never lie too me. Only sheep need a shepard.
-
since everything in nature is advancing,a fish is more advanced than an egg,therefore an egg came first.(although perhaps not in the form as eggs are now)....e.g...which came first ,brit,s or canadians.
-
Some awesome points Fishinfever. Interesting stuffs. What is the name of that book? I always thought how ridiculous some scientists could come up with the theory that life forms as complex as us humans is just a result of some pointless, unintentional, unintelligent & chaotic cosmic event cooked up by some organic soup. Man, just think how human bio processes are so complex and using so many principles of physics & chemistry. How the brain works, memory, emotion, thought processes, body functioning. Every thing is so well co-ordinated and planned. It is so unimaginable to think that the beauty that we all behold every day is just a result of purposeless chaos. Fish first, of course.
-
This subject is very interesting. I guess your answer to the question depends on whether you are religious or not. Since I am a sworn atheist and a microbiologist it is not surprising that I do not agree with what fishingfever wrote, and find it very much taken out of context and highly unscientific.
Try to come up with a fish egg by chance? I do not think any scientists will claim that the fish egg popped out of thin air, like fishingfever suggests. The fish egg is the result of many millions of years of evolution. Evolution does not explain how it all started. It tells us how life evolved since the beginning and follows very simple rules. In sexual reproduction genes from both parents get mixed up to create offsprings. This mixture is as far as we know more or less coincidental. The selection pressure will then kill off all the offsprings which do not possess the right qualities to survive in a given environment. These survivors will then pass on their slightly changed genes to their offspring and this will go on for many generations creating a cumulative change in a population. This process is not a theory but what actually happens.
Typing this up, Rodney and I just had an argument on what evolution actually is. He says it is a theory while I claim it is a fact. I guess we wont agree on that any time soon...... ::)
How it all started is of course theory from all parts. I do believe that it is pure coincidental. The micro organisms I work with are biologically very simple compared to a fish egg. It has been proven if gaseous mixtures resembling those thought to be present on primitive earth are irradiated with UV light or subjected to electric discharge (i.e. lightning) in the laboratory, a wide variety of biochemically important molecules can be made, such as sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, various nucleotides and fatty acids. All these compounds are building blocks of life. Some of these biological building blocks have also been shown to polymerize (gather) under prebiological conditions creating important macromolecules such as polynucleotides (backbone of RNA and DNA). This is of course in the lab and there is still some way to go from these macromolecules to the formation of simple RNA. One theory suggests that exposed surfaces such as clay or pyrite out in nature can have acted as support for these prebiotic polymerization reactions. Such surfaces would have provided a stable, relatively dry environment for the synthesis and accumulation of macromolecules into organic films from which primitive, self-replicating structures could have emerged. This is of course all theory and there are many more out there. But this is one of the things I like about science; you actually make an effort to find out what went on back then, instead of just brushing it of as “Intelligent Design” and thereby overlooking what could possibly be the next major medical breakthrough.
“Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution”
Dobzhansky
-
The evidence supporting Darwin and Wallace's theories on the process of natural selection are so overwhelming that no credible scientist would challenge them. Evolution is indisputable. Only the actual mechanics of processes involved are in question. As for so called intelligent design perhaps fishinfever would apply his mathematical skills too calculating the odds of an omnipotent deity creating not just an egg, but the entire cosmos.
-
I think mytocondria in living cell is also one sample how new 'higher' biological form is created.
-
Nature itself tells you there is a GOD. Eveything is too perfect.
-
Nature itself tells you there is a GOD. Eveything is too perfect.
What is your definition of perfect? Nature is far from perfect. An organism might seem perfectly adapted to an environment, but why is that? Evolution! There is no perfect organism out there; there are always tradeoffs to each advantage. Nature is ruthless, killing off everything which does not posses the qualities to fit in a given environment. Is that what you call perfect?
-
The following are Quotes with a narrative.
All Quotes are from scientist that claim to be Evolutionists.
Let the facts speak.
The Primitive Atmosphere
8 In 1953 Stanley 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. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
9 Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”7
19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! “An outrageously small probability,” asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”13
20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”14
Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. 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.”10 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.”
The Remarkable Genetic Code
21 More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.”15
22 Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”17 In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”18
23 Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”19 But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”20 And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”21
24 Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
The numbers after the quote refer to references below
4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68.
5. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.
6. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.
7. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.
11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.
12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
13. Evolution From Space, p. 24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
15. Evolution From Space, p. 27.
16. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66.
17. Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73.
18. The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.
19. Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.
20. New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
21. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 71.
22. The Plants, by Frits W. Went, 1963, p. 60.
23. Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.
24. Ibid., p. 130.
25. The Selfish Gene, p. 14.
26. Evolution From Space, p. 31.
27. Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.
28. The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200.
29. Ibid., p. 199.
This is my last post on this subject because to easy to start preaching and this is not the site to do that on.
If you really want more than PM me.
Fishinfever
-
Hi All,
I felt I wanted to put my 2 cents into this debate as I strongly believe one way but I may not be able to to get my point across as elogently as some of you. I don't believe that scientifically either side of the aurgument enough strenght to be proved either way, it would then be "fact" not theroy.
Anyways I believe in intelligent design or that someone has had a hand in the process. the biggest thing that no one has been able to explain is when and how "life" started...even an amebia is alive it just is very simple. I see the complexitiy of life and just can't believe that is is some big mistake.
The other reason I believe this is that i believe in the spiritaul world and I believe in a God. i have seen and have expirences that are unexplainable, but yet very real.
I'm not trying to win anyone over to my way of thinking, because you are entitled to your own beliefs, but the spiritual world and this argument go hand in hand and science is just a part of it.
Tim
PS. Nina you seem quite knowledgable about this and I would be curious to hear your answer to the beginning of life question.
-
How do you explain evolution where did it start ? You can't get something out of nothing. Ok where did the atoms come from?
-
Ok Nina what I mean is for example the rotation of the earth, earths orbit around the sun, moon controling tides, 4 seasons every year, trees giving oxygen some just to name a few.
-
What no reply?
-
I have a life, you know..... ;)
How do you explain evolution where did it start ?
See my first post in this thread.
You can't get something out of nothing.
So true, one of the corner stones in physics. But you just contradicted yourself; something out of nothing? Isn't that what a God would have done?
Ok where did the atoms come from?
You are talking about physics and I am no expert there. If you wanna know where atoms and neutrons came from I suggest you look it up in a high school text book. There you can probably find a scientific time line stating what happened right after Big Bang and how the different parts of atoms were created. If not, go to the library or better yet, look it up on the net.
Ok Nina what I mean is for example the rotation of the earth, earths orbit around the sun, moon controling tides, 4 seasons every year, trees giving oxygen some just to name a few.
Rotation of the planets around the sun is again governed by the laws of physics. No hokus pokus there. Trees producing oxygen is a biochemical pathway called photosynthesis. No hokus pokus there either.
And, to fishinfever, I respect your point of view but I disagree with it. Everything in nature is an upgrade of something else. The same goes for the electron transporters in cell membranes and the cell membranes themselves. They didn't pop out of thin air as modern electron transporters or modern membranes, and therefore calculating what the chances are of a modern eukaryotic cell to come together by itself is inappropriate.
The only question that remains is how did life start? In my oppinion neither religion or science have answered that question satisfactorily.
-
Of coarse GOD made something out of nothing because he is all power he just said the word and it came to be, it is that simple. I know about physics and even all scientific explanations have absolutly no sense. Like I said you can't get something out of nothing that simple. ;) And it is not about being religous it is a plain fact. ;D
-
I see intelligent design even in our body organs, say, our eyes and our ears. The eye has an organic lens which is shaped in a convex form. At a certain point of focus, photo receptor sensory cells are located to receive the focussed light rays. I always thought why we have a convex lens in our eye. Then in physics, we study the law of refraction, in which, as a property of light, light waves converge after passing a convex transparent object and the clearest image is obtained at the point the light waves are focussed. If we were all a product of some cosmic chao event, made up of some subatmic particles that happen to form a protein, how in the world these randomly formed molecules, even after million of years, will come to know to use a basic law of physics to design our eyes this way.
Now take the ear. The ability for us to hear sound depends on the design of the inner ear exploiting another basic law of physics in regards to sound waves - resonance, objects of the same natural vibrating frequency vibrates in resonance of each other. For specific wavelengths, resonance occurs on violin strings, in organ pipes, etc. The inner ear is comprised of two main sections. The semi-circular canals, utricle and saccule make up the vestibular system and are involved in balance. The scala tympani, scala media and scala vestibuli make up the cochlea which is involved in hearing. Sound waves of different wave length enter the ear and through a series of hydraulic processes, trigger resonance in some organic fibres of varying length with varying natural frequency of vibration. My point is, again, how in the world some chaotically created protein molecules eventually will, through million of years, know enough about this law of physics in sound waves, to design the ear in such a way to effect hearing.
I agree that natural selection processes do occur, and that evolution does occur among species by adaptation. But to rule out intelligent designs in face of so much intelligence in life forms, or for that matter the biological, chemical, and physical processes of nature around us, is quite a difficult one to accept. Like other posters say, the existence of the spiritual world is one to be experienced by those who has the faith or fortune to experience it. I have talked to quite a few people who had near-death experiences and the consistency of their experiences cannot be ruled out simply by calling it 'unscientific'. Perhaps science has its limitation at this stage to explain many things. Them guys are still trying to work out the 'string theory' and the origin of the universe, and even Einstein admited that the Creater is playing joke with us with the deep mystery of how everything works in nature.
In the end, like fishing ethics, it is up to the individual how he/she wants to perceive things that make sense to the individual. The truth will come when our time is up on this earth. ;D
-
What no freedom of speech? Thats pretty bad Nina.
-
What no freedom of speech? Thats pretty bad Nina.
Huh? ???
-
I don't think Nina means anything like that. This is an open forum. Every one gets a chance to express one's opinion. Lets stay with the intelligent discussion and don't get personal, especially if she is Rod's lady. ;D Seriously, no one needs to get upset and respect that every one has the right to speak one's mind. We can respectfully disagree, and not agree to disrespect. :)
-
Well.. considering the religion that has given the title "God" to a man... was infact made up by a man trying to stay in control of his kingdom... I hold little belief that "God" the man did any such thing as create something out of nothing.
However, nothing is by chance I think.. I think a variation of said egg was developed as a pre-fish species swam near a changing underwater land mass, exposing it to different food sources and toxins which over time and many generations later created the fish that is continually changing - as are we.
Fish are taking in more toxins from a variety of different sources, thus 'evolving' to adapt. Through the cycle of spawning the eggs are imprented with this new bit of survival information and the next generation mutates to become more adaptable.
Same thing goes for people. We are exposed to radiation levels on a daily basis that - back in the 30's or something, they figured we would be dead from exposure.. but.. we too are mutants as well..
The design scheme of some man who doesn't really exist or a higher power that cannot be labeled because no one is quite sure of what 'it' actually is.
-
The argument from personal incredulity,ie. (I can't believe anything that perfect could be anything other than the work of an omnipotent Deity.) is weak. Carl Sagan likened it too a puddle of water deducing the existence of a creator based on how perfectly it fits the hole it finds itself in.
Perfection in nature doesn't exist. The human eye, while supremely adapted to fulfill human needs doesn't see infrared or ultraviolet ends of the spectrum. The nerves that transmit from the photoreceptors too the brain run directly through the line of sight resulting in a blind spot. Examples of poor engineering can be supplied for every other organ.
Fishinfever,s mind boggling numbers were calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle, a brilliant astronomer with no background in biology. They were part of a critique of the chemical synthesis theory for the origin of life that Hoyle mounted in support of his own theory that life arrived on earth aboard a comet. Hoyle succeeded in displaying a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory by assuming that it works randomly and his numbers have long since been dismissed.
Fishinfever,s entire post is an excellent example of how a body of scientific knowledge is acquired. Any theory that cannot withstand PEER review and critique is either abandoned or modified to better describe the phenomena it attempts too explain.
If you only read one book in your entire life read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. If you'd like to read two add Richard Dawkin,s The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene, listed but not quoted by fishinfever.
and in the words of that champion of atheists everywhere Douglas Adams...so long, and thanks for all the fish.
-
I do respect Carl Sagan and his Cosmo series. I don't think he is representative of all the scientists out there, nor is he an authority on the origin of life. There are famous scientists, even Nobel Price winners who harbour strong faith. Any search by search engine with 'scientists faith in God' will yield links after links of sites, listing famous scientists by names and their position in regard to science & religion. Here is an example:
http://www.sciencetruth.com/noted_scientists_who_believe_in_.htm
In the end, as I state before, it is up to the individual how they want to view life and the things around them, to make themselves comfortable with their experiences or knowledge they are endowed with. There are many areas in science that are still theories. Many so call laws of science have been challenged and fail to stand up to the passage of time. So, to make fundamental conclusion based on science alone can have its faults. On the other hand, many claims of religion cannot be proven by the strict requirements of science. Religion must be lived to be felt. Therefore, to each its own. :)
-
I put a post and you delete mine but you keep yours thats rather hipacriticle.
-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think for my one post to get taken off is double standard. ???
-
Mark, when did you make the post?
The last post you made in this thread is this one (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9316.msg88457#msg88457). If you made one after that, it probably did not go through (did you check it after you just posted it?). Nina didn't delete anything. She usually discusses with me first before deletions or edits are made, and those are usually done by me... because she doesn't want to be the dictator... ;D
-
No matter Rod its ok lets just get back to fishing. ;)
-
Some clarification was needed, just wanted to make sure no one was hipacriticle... ;)
-
As part of the last link posted, here is a link that tells of what can happen if you are in the academic world and dare to speak of doubt about darwinism. I am surprised that there is so much pressure in that world whereby people can be penalized when they speak their mind and conscience contrary to the view that is politically correct in that world. This happened to an early proponent of darwinism, Dr. Dean Kenyon, who later changed his view after much consideration. Here is the link:
http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=18&id=3
So much for academic freedom or freedom of expression. Sorry to say, that is intimidation, period!
And before you think Darwin's theory of evolution is gospel for all scientific minded people, better check this out:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
-
Hey Fishinfever,
Unfortunately for you, the book from which you are quoting (LIFE: How Did It Get Here) is merely a collection of unadulterated lies.
I’ve been meticulously researching the references in the text by the Watchtower Society (W.S) that you faithfully quoted above (Life: How Did It Get Here). The problem you have is that the W.S. authors (They don’t give their names.) did not, themselves, faithfully quote these authors (like Jastrow, Stanley, and Hitching). Further, many of the quotes are brazenly taken out of context. Further, some of the claims made by the W.S. in their text are brazen lies. I have the text and the original articles referenced right here on my desk as I type this. I am currently itemizing the references in Chapter 4 so I can go look them up.
Notably, many of the comments ascribed to the various authors are only introductory in nature and appear in initial chapters wherein the cited authors, such as Jastrow and Hitching, were simply laying the landscape within which they would then pursue the answers that were the subject of the writings. They faithfully explained the pros and cons to their readers. Then, they set about presenting the evidence thus far collected. Many of the quotes that appear in the W.S. text, and which you cite, are from these introductory commentaries, but are presented by the W.S. as though they were the cited author’s conclusions. If you want to know what Hitching, Stanley, Jastrow, Dawkins, and others truly thought, you’ll need to read the referenced material.
Here is Jastrow’s conclusion from his work “The Enchanted Loom” (Cited by the W.S. and source of the quote you wrote above), page 101, “As with all historical evidence, the proof of man’s animal origins is circumstantial, but its cumulative impact is overwhelming. The fact of evolution is not in doubt.” Query: Why didn’t the W.S. include this quote in its own text, LIFE?
This is what Hitching said on p. 12 of the same text you cited, The Neck of the Giraffe, “Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this [evolution] (including about half the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.” Query: Why didn’t the W.S. include this quote in its own text, LIFE?
As an example of the brazen lies told by the W.S., go to page 20 of the LIFE text. There you will find the following quote beneath a graphic depiction of three extinct species, the Eohippus (common name North American Horse), Archaeopteryx, and Lungfish.
“Some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record … have had to be
discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” — David Raup,
Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History.
The actual quote, however, from Raup’s original article reads as follows:
“The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer
examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean
that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the
evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a
result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression
when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and
much less gradualistic.”
Nowhere in Raup’s article does he suggest that evolution was no longer a viable theory. He was outlining the distinctions between two competing evolutionary theories: The Darwinian model of gradualism, and a newer theory whereby there are spikes in evolutionary advances, called Punctuated Equilibrium. Nowhere in Raup’s article did he state that there were no longer any known examples of transitional species.
The graphic depictions that appear above the misquote in the LIFE text, however, all have large X’s through them, indicating that they all are no longer considered transitional species. Problem is, Raup never mentioned Archaeopteryx or Lungfish in the cited, five-page, article. Why not? Because, to this day, those two species are still considered examples of transitional species. How do we know that the W.S. knew this when they published LIFE and decided to mislead their readers? Because in one of the very next references they cite, that by Steven Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, there is a graphic depiction of Archaeopterxy, p. 76, being identified as an example of a transitional species between reptile and birds. The Stanley citation referenced by the W.S. is on p. 77 of Stanley’s book. Are we to understand that the anonymous writers at the W.S. didn’t notice that picture on the opposing page right next to the quote they were mining? Important note here: Raup’s article was written in 1979; whereas Stanley’s book was published in 1981.
I have found dozens of misquotes, which are frankly just lies, in the LIFE text. Query: If what the W.S. has to say is true, what are they hiding with these misquotes and lies? Why are they brazenly lying to their readers?
I suggest you do as I have done and take these people at the W.S. to task by diligently researching each and every citation they have included in their LIFE text. I am only up to Chapter 4 in that text and I have convincing evidence that the reason the authors of that text do not identify themselves is because they knew they were publishing lies. Good Luck.
-
well to sum it all up, you could say who created god?
-
well to sum it all up, you could say who created god?
Nice one! ;D
I think the the egg came way before the fish... Organisms more primative than fish have been making eggs for the past few billion years... It would only be logical to predict that the fish evolved from an egg bearing ancestor.
Anyways, I work with biologist who believe in creationism. Its fun to discuss these things with them, but I am still far from convinced that there was ever anything more than a random event that made life. I tend to think there is enough evidence that we did just evolve from a chance event.
-
A mountain of evidence supports theory A. None supports theory B. However, theory A is missing one piece of the puzzle. Therefore, the answer must be theory B (intelligent design)? That makes no sense. I'm not a philosopher but that is not logical thinking.
-
Evolution in the Darwin sense seems to me to be the equivalent of looking at the the exit doors of an automotive manufacturing plant and exclaiming "Isn't it amazing how through the process of chance, that plant was able to build such a well engineered automobile?"
Of course we all know that a head designer did a lot of engineering before that automobile could be manufactured in the plant.
While the analogy is very simplistic it seems to me that the theory of evolution is making the same claims. Suggesting that chance could create the millions of life forms on the planet seems absolutely absurd to me. Like the automobile, earth must have had a master designer, with a master plan that initiated the creation of life as we know it.
My vote is the fish, designed and created by a master designer. 8)
-
Does it really matter? We are where we are, and it is what it is.
-
Egg came before fish.
Fish came before fish egg.
-
Guess it comes down to whether you live in Chilliwack or not ::) ::) ::)
Ahh The Intelligent Design Theory....Christianity Light, wasn't sure anyone had even heard of it before The Da Vinci Code :D
Based on evolution, the child will always be different than the parent, therefore THE EGG.
-
Where does the chicken fit in all this? ;D
-
On the side of those who believe in the creation idea......... For me it is FACT & KNOW SO ..... like 1000%. ---------- I too was a skeptic once..... but no more. ------- I just "prayed" & asked the GOOD LORD directly. ( Williams Lake City in 1973) A powerful presence of GOD came upon me... ( nearly crapped my pants ha ! ---- No I'm not "crazy or was stoned on some drug) so..... my vote is 2 FISH came 1st then the eggs .............. ( main answers for me are answered but alot of smaller ones are not answered............. but one day in Heaven they will be) ........ Like alwaysfishn post.......... "right on".
-
Until some one shows me another god, i will have to take the word of Miss C. B. who cried out "oh my god " at an appropriate time. Since then I have always considered myself GOD. ;D