God, Darwin, and Design 4 – Ken Miller
Posted by James on June 16, 2011 · 25 Comments
Part 4 from Ken Miller’s “God, Darwin, and Design- Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial” lecture at U of Texas- Austin.
Comments
25 Responses to “God, Darwin, and Design 4 – Ken Miller”Speak Your Mind
Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
lol your inner fish, this worth double-d favourites
OMG! where DO breasts come from!?
We don’t have the ID card, we just have the DNA, the evidence of mutations, changes in phenotype, compared anatomy, time record, paleogeography, paleostratigraphy, fossil record, etc… and present speciations at short scale!
It is like asking your family tree without reference! How can you say it is your grand parents, you share only 25% of his DNA…. Yep you have a picture, but it does not mean it is your grand parent! if you can”t find the parent in between, it does not count!
@LoricaLady That’ is called the truth of naturalistic science! I mean who on Earth is enough stupid to believe that we are able to gie pure evidence that an animal is linked to another one with just fossils?
Paleontology, geology and genetic are combined to give the maximum relationship between time and life form. But of course “we can’t say the grand grand father of this amphibian charly is the fish albert for Ohio”?
Your quotes are just the reflect that they are real objective scientists!
@LoricaLady Patterson did not say, in short or in any other way, that transitional forms is not science. He was saying it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. The fact that paleontology will always be inconclusive does not mean it’s not science. It just means it’s not dogma. The nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows is the best evidence for evolution. Along with evolution being observed. The fossil evidence supports that.
TO ANY INTERESTED: If you see me ignoring posters below, they know they’re on ignore. I do not “debate” with people who follow me from vid series to vid serires, & use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying, &, like Foxlake – sexual harrassment & felling someone who worte me a pure porno post, “Good job.” Such behaviors interfere with the true purposes of science. I am happy to debate with those who are civil & obejctive.
Cont: Here is another great quote re the fossil record, from Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. He is referring to the so called Cambiran Explosion where highly complex animals just “show up” fully formed. “And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolutoin, the first time they appear.” That is a faith based statement. If only found in an admittedly advanced state, where’s the scientific evidence that they have evolved? & we have many billions of those fossils. Cont
Cont. Continuing on with quotes by JohnHorner in his book, Dinosaur LIves, 1997, p.19, “These days it’s easy to go through school for a good many years [I believe mostly all of them for mostly all people] without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusvie.” Ahem. Yet evo-ites constantly say Well, if you accept rocket science & medicine, etc., then you must accept eovlution as all of it is science. Only a very rare few like Horner explain that misconception. Cont
Cont. Every time I have referred to Colin Patterson who said, in short, that claiming transitional forms is not science because “it can never be put to the test” – which of course it cannot – people accuse me of quote mining there too. Yet when I ask them to show me where Patterson ever retracted that, & even worse things said about evolution they just say “Read such & such book or link” or ignore me. They never show a quote that indicates his words are out of context, but act as if they can.
Cont. “…a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions….” How convenient. So then why are we being told over and over by evolutionists that this & that fossil IS a “transitional form”, rather than WE THINK MAYBE it is one? What happened to scientific integrity? Google Colin Patterson That Quote to see more debunks of claiming transition, by a former head paleontologist at the Brit. Museum of Nat’l History. Some tell the truth.
Cont. Here is a post by John H. Horner, a paleontologist & evolutionist, who was portrayed as a paleontologist in Jurassic Park. Now before I get accused of doing a “quote mine”, i.e. misquoting someone, I invite any such accusers to show me a quote, in context, that refutes what I have included. “Paleontolgy is a historical science [i.e. it is not an operational science like medicine, rocket science, computer science etc. which relies on what is observable, testable & repeatable]…” Cont.
@LoricaLady Instead of looking at the picture on the cover of “Your Inner Fish” why don’t you try reading the book? It’s an interesting read and not “fancy words” at all. He uses layman’s terms and makes it easy to understand. If you pay attention to what he was saying here, instead of trying to distort it, you would see he is showing the morphology from fish to amphibian. He is describing how, in his expert opinion, Tiktaalik fits the transition nicely. Others have been found too.
Cont. Remember, Miller says in this vid that the fossil of Tiktaalik is “As good as it gets” for showing that there are transtional fossils. To be cont. on Vid. 5.
Cont. Compare the actual fossil fin at 1:24, the 3D replica fin behind the fossil at 1:33 & the drawing at 1:44. You can Google Your Inner Fish to get a more complete view of the cover art work of Tik. Lol! All 3 “fins” are different! So which one is correct? The fossil of course. And it does NOT match the drawings! ITS fins couldn’t stand or walk! Most folk see all this going by quickly & are impresed by the “scientists” & their fancy words, so don’t notice the sleight of hand.
Cont.
Cont. Here is an attempt to go lower than “You’re just a modified ape” to “You’re just a modified fish.” Folks, people who lie to you, & present phoney art work to fool you, who use logical fallacies & call it science, aren’t trying to help you! 4:23 Here is someone trying to get you to believe human anatomy shows an “inner fish.” From the time there is a human zygote, all parts are unique to humans. There are not, as taught, gill slits, for ex. Embrace you inner dignity & use YOUR mind.
Cont. Here again is their continuous use of the logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Just because some fragment of a fish fin looks, to their desperate minds, like it has some similarities to an amphibian, we are to accept it as a “transition.” Once again we are to fill in the blanks with our imaginations and faith in the “scientists” and just belieeeeve those fossilized fish popped out progeny that turned into amphibians – leaving about a gazillion “missing links.” Cont.
3:10 Having shown us a fossil of Tiktaalik which does not match its phony art replica or the phony cast, we are next being told they have found a fish with fingers.
What nonsense! Fish have bones inside their fins, some may look more like “fingers” than others because there is incredible diversity in nature, but none of them, of course, have “fingers”! Next we see these so called examples of “transitions.”
They are just more bones inside of fins, some different from others. Cont.
@MattleSystem If I could provide pictures they would just say I used Photoshop to edit them. It really doesn’t matter what evidence they are given. Their minds are made up. Dogma is what they will believe and the evidence must be twisted and distorted to match their storybook.
@foxlake02 you need to provide the ID card of all fossil you find. Otherwise how can you hope that creationist will understand one day that amphibian are linked to fish… You need the ID card, with picture of grand parents and also the certificate of birth with all signature from authorities…. This is the only evidence they need…
What? aaaah, it is not possible! so creationist will never understand a piece of Evolution…. So sad….but so laughable! 😉
@foxlake02 For the 11th time for any it might help. I do not respond to posters, like FL, who engage in these kinds of behaviors: Personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying, sexual harrassment, telling someone who sent me a porno post w/0 about anything science, “Good job.”
@LoricaLady According to Wikipedia, a transitional form is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. On a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a “transitional fossil” will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge. For our discussion (that we are not having) the key word here is NEAR. I have recommended a book to you that explains it better than I can.
@LoricaLady I told you before, it IS a transitional form. That does not mean they know it was a direct ancestor to any modern tetrapod. In fact, given that most species have eventually gone extinct, it is statistically probable that it was NOT a direct ancestor. It has the morphology required if this particular transition occurred. That qualifies it as a transitional species. Please look up the meaning of the word as used in paleontology. It’s your side that claims “divine knowledge”.
@LoricaLady You misinterpret my meaning here. I am saying that if tetrapods evolved from fish, it would be necessary to see this type of combination of traits. That is what was predicted and that is what was found. Exactly in the strata predicted too. I know it does not prove evolution happened by itself. The best evidence for that is the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows. It is just additional evidence that this is how the transition occurred. Stop playing word games sweetie.
@foxlake02 “Fish would have had to evovle such a combination…
This is a typical faith based evo statement. “It would have HAD to have happened! So therefore it DID happen! So, tho we show lying replicas & have 0 evidence that Tik’s progeny became more amphibian like, we’re gonna declare flatly, with Divine “knowledge” & authority that it is part of the process! We’re don’t say it MIGHT be a transitional form. We say IT IS. (Uh ignore the “creative” artists behind the curtain.”) Cont.
Cont. It is laughable. As usual the so called evidence for evolution, if you look at it analytically & critically, is showing the exact opposite of what they claim. As usual we are to fill in the blanks, i.e. between Tik & amphibians, with our imaginations, or rather faaaith. Though there is no evidence Tik ever had any descendants even slightly different from itself, and isn’t even that much of an anomaly, we are told to accept it as scientific evidence for a transition. What a scam. Cont.