Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Seeking message debate on evolution

RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 8:11:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(by evolution I mean all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor)
I am not an evolutionist and I am looking for an evolutionist to debate. But I want to do it through messaging because the formal debates are only focused on convincing the judges that their side is right. I am open minded and would love to hear convincing evidence I am unaware of and I am looking for someone else who is also. Hopefully this will allow us to get closer to the truth whichever side that is.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:36:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 8:11:53 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
(by evolution I mean all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor)
I am not an evolutionist and I am looking for an evolutionist to debate. But I want to do it through messaging because the formal debates are only focused on convincing the judges that their side is right. I am open minded and would love to hear convincing evidence I am unaware of and I am looking for someone else who is also. Hopefully this will allow us to get closer to the truth whichever side that is.

Were you wanting private messaging or public forum posts? I am always looking for discussion on evolution.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:53:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

I call people who believe in science "scientists" -- seems fair.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:43:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:53:42 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

I call people who believe in science "scientists" -- seems fair.

So why not use scientists instead of Evolutionist?

Evolutionist and Evolutionism used as a perjurative term normally by Creationist organisation to make it "sound" like evolution is a religion, or a beleif.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:53:42 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

I call people who believe in science "scientists" -- seems fair.

Oh, and actually you would be wrong. As "Scientist" means a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.


Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

I would call it a ridiculous straw man.

But hey, if you were able to represent evolution honestly, you wouldn't be a creationist.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:22:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:17:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.


Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

I would call it a ridiculous straw man.

But hey, if you were able to represent evolution honestly, you wouldn't be a creationist.

Then explain the steps of inventing, assembling, and sustaining an organ of your choosing and the mechanisms involved in your own words.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:25:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.

Well, yeah, nothing that is "non-occurring" can be demonstrated. Otherwise it would have had to occur, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.

It's not invisible. It's just gradual.

Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

That's not miraculous, that's selection.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The rate at which a adapted sub-population overtakes the general population is directly related to the magnitude of advantage conferred by the adaptation. It's irrational to suggest anything otherwise.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

No one asked you what you called it. I'm just calling into question the need for a name for people that accept science.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:46:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:25:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.

Well, yeah, nothing that is "non-occurring" can be demonstrated. Otherwise it would have had to occur, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

Obviously. Note that by evolution, I mean "Darwinian evolution", which is the topic's definition that includes common ancestry and being responsible for all the diversity of life.

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.

It's not invisible. It's just gradual.

So you have blind faith that utilitarian tissues gets created constantly?

Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

That's not miraculous, that's selection.


Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The rate at which a adapted sub-population overtakes the general population is directly related to the magnitude of advantage conferred by the adaptation. It's irrational to suggest anything otherwise.

But what happens to the corpses of the specie that didn't inherit that advantage? Think of it this way: Did the eye evolve in one species and then spread to other species, or did the eye evolve in numerous species all in unison at about the same time? Explain how this took place.

Why don't individual species show gradual change overtime, like growing wings, eye sockets, or bone structures? Species simply stay virtually the same for millions of years (some time hundreds of millions) before they disappear and be replaced by other species, in an automobile model fashion. T-Rex fossils millions of years about are the same, and yet gradual change some time brings sudden change? This is a basic form of a bad ad-hoc.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

No one asked you what you called it. I'm just calling into question the need for a name for people that accept science.

This [Darwinian evolution] is a historical hypothesis at best, one that does not include observable or repeatable scientific experiments based on the scientific method.
In order for me to concede that it is plausible, provide a reasonable scenario of the invention and assembly of an organ of your choosing via. evolutionary mechanism, detailing the steps of the process.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:22:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:17:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.


Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

I would call it a ridiculous straw man.

But hey, if you were able to represent evolution honestly, you wouldn't be a creationist.

Then explain the steps of inventing, assembling, and sustaining an organ of your choosing and the mechanisms involved in your own words.

The swim bladder on a lobe finnied fish has a small mutation that thins the bladder wall. When air enters the swim bladder, this allows small amounts of oxygen to permeate the walls and enter the blood stream. This conferrs a small selective advantage as the fish has a higher ability to obtain oxygen in a multitude of different situations such as feeding, escaping predators in very shallow water, making it more able to survive longer out of water during lower tides, etc.

This mutation fixates, and is followed by subsequent small mutations that increase the size of the blood vessels to the swim bladder further increasing O2 capability.

Additional mutations for increased gradual thinning of the lining of the swim bladder, combined with subtle development changes to increase the surface area including but not limited to additonal folding, increases in size of blood supply and additional blood vessels are added.

Lungs.

Darwin also did a pretty good explanation of the eye 150 frickin years ago.

In reality, the majority of orders, in conjunction with the fossile record show the fairly gradual progression over significant amounts of geological time; but when it boils down to it, there is not much difference between any two mammals that can't be really boiled down to effectively size, shape and the types of mutation we see happening now that cause no ill effects. Going further still, going back to fish, the overwhelming majority of differences between all these forms are pretty much the same type of changes almost all the way back to the cambrian.

In fact in the whole history of life, there are not actually that many big leaps that are not explainable; with innumerable examples of things that have been explained in the last decade.

The bottom line, however, is even if we knew none of it; life is still all related. the validation is in comparative genomics matched with phylogeny, chronology and geography.

The fossile record shows a clear progression of forms over billions of years matched with extant life whose DNA shows changes that matches almost identically with that chronology, and phylogeny in a very specific way that shows it's been copied over and over again.

My inability to explain the specific genetic and protein changes required for the formation of the first rudimentary heart pump (although from that state we have significant evidence of how the heart is how it is now) does not change that evidence, and that evidence proves that all life is related beyond reasonable doubt.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:16:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:46:43 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:25:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:07:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

Gravity is constantly demonstrable from the dawn of history.
Genetic inheritance, including mutations and natural selection, is constantly demonstrated from the dawn of history.

Non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection have never been demonstrated.

Well, yeah, nothing that is "non-occurring" can be demonstrated. Otherwise it would have had to occur, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

Obviously. Note that by evolution, I mean "Darwinian evolution", which is the topic's definition that includes common ancestry and being responsible for all the diversity of life.

That's just called "evolution."

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.

It's not invisible. It's just gradual.

So you have blind faith that utilitarian tissues gets created constantly?

I don't have blind faith. Utilitarian tissues get created constantly all the time. It happens every time an organism is born.

Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

That's not miraculous, that's selection.



Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The rate at which a adapted sub-population overtakes the general population is directly related to the magnitude of advantage conferred by the adaptation. It's irrational to suggest anything otherwise.

But what happens to the corpses of the specie that didn't inherit that advantage?

They decompose, just like every other corpse.

Think of it this way: Did the eye evolve in one species and then spread to other species, or did the eye evolve in numerous species all in unison at about the same time?

The similarities of eyes suggest a common origin though it's possible that early eyes (in the form of photoreceptive cells) arose across multiple organisms at different points.

Explain how this took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't individual species show gradual change overtime, like growing wings, eye sockets, or bone structures? Species simply stay virtually the same for millions of years (some time hundreds of millions) before they disappear and be replaced by other species, in an automobile model fashion. T-Rex fossils millions of years about are the same, and yet gradual change some time brings sudden change? This is a basic form of a bad ad-hoc.

You're right. It is ad-hoc. But not in the way you seem to indicate. The ad-hoc aspect comes from our classification system. Life exists on a spectrum, as evolution demonstrates. All life is gradually changing over time. It happens with every cycle of generation. The reason why groupings of species don't seem to exhibit that change is because we specifically group organisms into species by similarities! It's not that species don't change, but rather we divide the history of organisms on this planet such that sufficiently similar organisms are identified as the same species.

Our classification system has known flaws, as is specifically evidenced with ring species. But all that means is that reality doesn't always neatly fit the discrete labels we invented for it.

Ironically, it is precisely because evolution is true that we run into these issues.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

No one asked you what you called it. I'm just calling into question the need for a name for people that accept science.

This [Darwinian evolution] is a historical hypothesis at best, one that does not include observable or repeatable scientific experiments based on the scientific method.
In order for me to concede that it is plausible, provide a reasonable scenario of the invention and assembly of an organ of your choosing via. evolutionary mechanism, detailing the steps of the process.

Evolution does not posit the "invention" and "assembly" of organs so I'm not sure why that would prove anything to you.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.

Do you have a problem with bronies?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:41:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:30:33 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.

Do you have a problem with bronies?

While not a brony myself, I do think they are a cool bunch o' people; I can respect their lifestyle.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:30:33 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.

Do you have a problem with bronies?

Yes, I am a Bronyphobe.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:41:49 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:30:33 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.

Do you have a problem with bronies?

While not a brony myself, I do think they are a cool bunch o' people; I can respect their lifestyle.

I wouldn't exactly consider brony to be a lifestyle; it is just a fandom. But I appreciate your respect.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:46:50 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:41:49 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:30:33 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 4:53:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I considered it for a moment, but then I saw your profile picture and username.

Do you have a problem with bronies?

While not a brony myself, I do think they are a cool bunch o' people; I can respect their lifestyle.

I wouldn't exactly consider brony to be a lifestyle; it is just a fandom. But I appreciate your respect.

Hush, lifestyle sounds so much cooler. ;D
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 8:10:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:43:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:53:42 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

I call people who believe in science "scientists" -- seems fair.

So why not use scientists instead of Evolutionist?

Evolutionist and Evolutionism used as a perjurative term normally by Creationist organisation to make it "sound" like evolution is a religion, or a beleif.
was joke
lol.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 8:44:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:57:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:22:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:17:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would call it a ridiculous straw man.

But hey, if you were able to represent evolution honestly, you wouldn't be a creationist.

Then explain the steps of inventing, assembling, and sustaining an organ of your choosing and the mechanisms involved in your own words.

The swim bladder on a lobe finnied fish has a small mutation that thins the bladder wall. When air enters the swim bladder, this allows small amounts of oxygen to permeate the walls and enter the blood stream. This conferrs a small selective advantage as the fish has a higher ability to obtain oxygen in a multitude of different situations such as feeding, escaping predators in very shallow water, making it more able to survive longer out of water during lower tides, etc.

And where did the swim bladder come from? Did we have a leaky swim bladder become a functional swim bladder? Whatever, lets just assume it existed there magically.
So a hypothetical type of mutation somehow thinned the swim bladder, and despite this causing less gas gland cells and reducing the efficient buoyancy this somehow does not reduce overall advantage. But that is nothing to be surprised about, for the "small mutation" created a leaky swimmer blade, preventing the fish from controlling it's buoyancy while making it impossible to stabilize pressure! There is no advantage as you can't just absorb "air" underwater, that is what gills do. And that it is not all, it also made a membrane that allows air to pass, but prevents liquid to do so (We don't want a bloody swim bladder) all in one swift mutation! Hallejuah. Who cares about oxygen being leaked? Who cares about not being able to stabilize pressure and prevent a collapse? It is somehow an advantage!

This mutation fixates, and is followed by subsequent small mutations that increase the size of the blood vessels to the swim bladder further increasing O2 capability.

Additional mutations for increased gradual thinning of the lining of the swim bladder, combined with subtle development changes to increase the surface area including but not limited to additonal folding, increases in size of blood supply and additional blood vessels are added.

Lungs.

Oh, the lethal problems in the previous mutation somehow gets fixed, thank goodness!
Just asking, but wouldn't bigger blood vessels with the same leaking amount provide less oxygen concentration and makes the pressure difference even bigger, thus making the magical organ less effective? Having the same amount of blood would cause hypotension/low blood pressure.

The fish sacrifices more gas gland cells and efficient buoyancy, yet the very few fish that carry this mutation somehow survive and breed more. More blood for a pitiful (we don't want the fish to die too early) amount of oxygen leaked...

An extraordinary story indeed! Lets summarize it:

1- A thinner wall for the swim bladder somehow evovled.
2- The thinner swim bladder somehow evolved the ability to absorb oxygen from air (which have less pressure than water) in the very rare circumstance the fish brings it's mouth over the water surface.
3- At the same time, the fish somehow evolved a membrane or a mechanism that allows oxygen to leak into blood while preventing blood to leak, no matter the change in pressure conditions. The fish's loss of ability to control buoyancy is somehow neglectable.
4- The size of the blood vessels somehow evolve to increase, which somehow increases O2 efficiency while having less concentration.
5- A thinner wall somehow evolve, and bigger blood vessels somehow evolve too. This is all normal, nothing new here.

Also, I thought lungs supposedly came before fish bladders?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

An amusing story, reminds me of the story of genesis in it's scientific pursuit.

Darwin also did a pretty good explanation of the eye 150 frickin years ago.

Darwin thought the cell was as simple as a grape. No evidence, but an explanation? I am interesting in hearing about it.

In reality, the majority of orders, in conjunction with the fossile record show the fairly gradual progression over significant amounts of geological time; but when it boils down to it, there is not much difference between any two mammals that can't be really boiled down to effectively size, shape and the types of mutation we see happening now that cause no ill effects. Going further still, going back to fish, the overwhelming majority of differences between all these forms are pretty much the same type of changes almost all the way back to the cambrian.

Of course there is no proof that the later fossils were progeny of the earlier, or that the organs and structure of the later fossils were random mutations of the earlier fossils.

Sure, mutations contribute to the diversity, but it's contribution is minimal and can't be used as the ultimate explanation until evidence of it's mechanism becomes available.

In fact in the whole history of life, there are not actually that many big leaps that are not explainable; with innumerable examples of things that have been explained in the last decade.

Look at the cambrian explosion. You had 3.5 billion years of nothing but single-celled life. Then suddenly at the Cambrian explosion all but one type of phyla suddenly appeared in a period of 5-10 million years all around the world. You'd expect that a phyla or two appear, and then it would branch into other types of phyla. It"s bacteria to fully-formed and functional bodies.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net...

It is not just about the Cambrian explosion. Te fossil record shows mass extinction and sudden appearance of species.
http://www.baylor.edu...

Thus, the evidentless ad hoc of punctured equilibrium. Why not just be honest and admit that no model humans came up with can provide an explanation yet?

The bottom line, however, is even if we knew none of it; life is still all related. the validation is in comparative genomics matched with phylogeny, chronology and geography.

The fossile record shows a clear progression of forms over billions of years matched with extant life whose DNA shows changes that matches almost identically with that chronology, and phylogeny in a very specific way that shows it's been copied over and over again.

My inability to explain the specific genetic and protein changes required for the formation of the first rudimentary heart pump (although from that state we have significant evidence of how the heart is how it is now) does not change that evidence, and that evidence proves that all life is related beyond reasonable doubt.

Life is undoubtedly biochemically related, we live in the same planet, we drink water, we need other life to feed. But that is all what the evidence demonstrates: A biochemical relation, nothing more.

Organs of current species show different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that the organs evolved from nothing to complex organs. It only proves that there are different types of organs of current species.

That is all there is to it. Trying to infer more than that is begging the question, as evolution have not shown anything remotely close to the ability to create hearts, eyes, lungs, and brains.

How can a non-sealed heart, effectively a tumor, be useful? How did it "gradually" grow blood vessel and connect them to the brain? What did the heart pump? Kool aid? What did the blood come from?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:08:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:16:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:46:43 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Obviously. Note that by evolution, I mean "Darwinian evolution", which is the topic's definition that includes common ancestry and being responsible for all the diversity of life.

That's just called "evolution."

Or slow creationism.

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then they are invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.

It's not invisible. It's just gradual.

So you have blind faith that utilitarian tissues gets created constantly?

I don't have blind faith. Utilitarian tissues get created constantly all the time. It happens every time an organism is born.

You say that you don't have blind faith, and then provide a statement of opinion devoid of logic or evidence of it's truth value.

Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

That's not miraculous, that's selection.



Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum. Then the vast majority of the species which lacks the advantage must disappear without a trace, and the minority takes over.

The rate at which a adapted sub-population overtakes the general population is directly related to the magnitude of advantage conferred by the adaptation. It's irrational to suggest anything otherwise.

But what happens to the corpses of the specie that didn't inherit that advantage?

They decompose, just like every other corpse.

And how come only the select minority that didn't inherited an advantage get fossilized? Is there some kind of bias?

Think of it this way: Did the eye evolve in one species and then spread to other species, or did the eye evolve in numerous species all in unison at about the same time?

The similarities of eyes suggest a common origin though it's possible that early eyes (in the form of photoreceptive cells) arose across multiple organisms at different points.

If eyes evolved in one species, vision could not be spread to other species since species can only procreate with their own. Meaning that almost all species, ie. blind species, must go extinct due to a natural disaster or gradually by that one species somehow causing them to die.

We agree that the odds of eye evolving randomly is extremely unlikely. Well, imagine that happening to thousands of species at around the same time, all randomly. Imagine thousands of species running around with half-formed eyes.

Also, what is the point of photoreceptive cells if they are not individually connected to nerves, which are connected to a visual cortex?

Explain how this took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This relates to the spread of eyes.

Why don't individual species show gradual change overtime, like growing wings, eye sockets, or bone structures? Species simply stay virtually the same for millions of years (some time hundreds of millions) before they disappear and be replaced by other species, in an automobile model fashion. T-Rex fossils millions of years about are the same, and yet gradual change some time brings sudden change? This is a basic form of a bad ad-hoc.

You're right. It is ad-hoc. But not in the way you seem to indicate. The ad-hoc aspect comes from our classification system. Life exists on a spectrum, as evolution demonstrates. All life is gradually changing over time. It happens with every cycle of generation. The reason why groupings of species don't seem to exhibit that change is because we specifically group organisms into species by similarities! It's not that species don't change, but rather we divide the history of organisms on this planet such that sufficiently similar organisms are identified as the same species.

Our classification system has known flaws, as is specifically evidenced with ring species. But all that means is that reality doesn't always neatly fit the discrete labels we invented for it.

Ironically, it is precisely because evolution is true that we run into these issues.


So let met get this straight: these species, because they look so much alike, are for a certain common ancestor. What about the opposite (chicken & crocodiles)? Oh! These have a common ancestor because they couldn"t possibly look any different!
Seriously? It is interesting that the evidence for evolution is the same thing as the evidence against evolution. "Heads I win, Tails you lose".

Look, imagination, or lack of thereof, is not identical to evidence, hence I call ToE a historical hypothesis. At best, what you described does not contradict evolution, however having to make blind leaps of faith from a specie whose fossils do not display gradual change to another can never be described as evidence for evolution. Thus, calling all species transitional would be question begging.

Frequent evidentless ad-hoc is trying to prove the theory rather than allowing the evidence to lead, and is often a sign of pseudscience. If there are similar traits with close "evolutionary pathway", then they are from a "common ancestor"! Otherwise if "evolutionary pathways" are extremely far apart, then it is "convergent evolution"! If it happens too suddenly for "evolutionary pathway", then we'll just call it "punctured equilibrium", yes that names sounds scientific so it must be true.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

No one asked you what you called it. I'm just calling into question the need for a name for people that accept science.

This [Darwinian evolution] is a historical hypothesis at best, one that does not include observable or repeatable scientific experiments based on the scientific method.
In order for me to concede that it is plausible, provide a reasonable scenario of the invention and assembly of an organ of your choosing via. evolutionary mechanism, detailing the steps of the process.

Evolution does not posit the "invention" and "assembly" of organs so I'm not sure why that would prove anything to you.

There was no such thing as "vision" or a concept called "light". There were only undetectable electromagnetic radiation. There was no such thing as "hearing" or a concept called "sound". Only undetectable vibrations.

Muscles are motors the pull ligament, a series of connective tissues, in order to move different types of joints. A heart is a complex and efficient pump, eyes are cameras that produce three dimensional images, ears function as microphones. Dearlord, the trial and error combined with dumb luck period must have been endless. There must have been thousands of generations with incomplete organs that don't function, ie. tumors.

Is there a reason to believe that a zero-IQ entity is capable of inventing, ie. developing something that never existed, that through baby steps of random trial and error other than wanting to believe there was nothing but that zero-IQ entity?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:58:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:08:57 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

So you have blind faith that utilitarian tissues gets created constantly?

I don't have blind faith. Utilitarian tissues get created constantly all the time. It happens every time an organism is born.

You say that you don't have blind faith, and then provide a statement of opinion devoid of logic or evidence of it's truth value.

It's... not an opinion. It's a fact. That's how human beings developed. We developed from a single, fertilized cell, into a multi-cellular organism with "utilitarian tissues."

But what happens to the corpses of the specie that didn't inherit that advantage?

They decompose, just like every other corpse.

And how come only the select minority that didn't inherited an advantage get fossilized? Is there some kind of bias?

Huh? There is no bias in fossilization. What you're describing doesn't happen.

Think of it this way: Did the eye evolve in one species and then spread to other species, or did the eye evolve in numerous species all in unison at about the same time?

The similarities of eyes suggest a common origin though it's possible that early eyes (in the form of photoreceptive cells) arose across multiple organisms at different points.

If eyes evolved in one species, vision could not be spread to other species since species can only procreate with their own. Meaning that almost all species, ie. blind species, must go extinct due to a natural disaster or gradually by that one species somehow causing them to die.

False on all accounts. The eye spread to other species by evolution. The species (singular or plural) that had eyes evolved into many other species. The eye is ancient. Every species that has eyes today is descendant from a singular ancestor species that had it. That's where we got it from.

Secondly, it's not the case that seeing species necessarily must replace blind species.

We agree that the odds of eye evolving randomly is extremely unlikely.

No we don't.

Well, imagine that happening to thousands of species at around the same time, all randomly.

Why would I do that?

Imagine thousands of species running around with half-formed eyes.

What's wrong with that? Plenty of species have eyes resembling the precursor to our own.

Also, what is the point of photoreceptive cells if they are not individually connected to nerves, which are connected to a visual cortex?

Because nerves and visual cortexes are not required to make use of photoreceptive cells. Plenty of unicellular organisms have photoreceptive "eye spots" that aid in their behavior without the need for nerves or brains.

Explain how this took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This relates to the spread of eyes.

And how it developed.

Ironically, it is precisely because evolution is true that we run into these issues.


So let met get this straight: these species, because they look so much alike, are for a certain common ancestor. What about the opposite (chicken & crocodiles)? Oh! These have a common ancestor because they couldn"t possibly look any different!

The primary evidence for evolution comes from genetic similarities. We do not rely solely (or even primarily anymore) on gross physical assessments.

Evolution does not posit the "invention" and "assembly" of organs so I'm not sure why that would prove anything to you.

There was no such thing as "vision" or a concept called "light". There were only undetectable electromagnetic radiation. There was no such thing as "hearing" or a concept called "sound". Only undetectable vibrations.

Muscles are motors the pull ligament, a series of connective tissues, in order to move different types of joints. A heart is a complex and efficient pump, eyes are cameras that produce three dimensional images, ears function as microphones. Dearlord, the trial and error combined with dumb luck period must have been endless. There must have been thousands of generations with incomplete organs that don't function, ie. tumors.

Is there a reason to believe that a zero-IQ entity is capable of inventing, ie. developing something that never existed, that through baby steps of random trial and error other than wanting to believe there was nothing but that zero-IQ entity?

Again you are describing processes not posited by evolution. Cease with your straw man. If you want to discuss evolution, then talk about what evolution ACTUALLY SAYS.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:32:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:44:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
And where did the swim bladder come from? Did we have a leaky swim bladder become a functional swim bladder? Whatever, lets just assume it existed there magically.
So a hypothetical type of mutation somehow thinned the swim bladder, and despite this causing less gas gland cells and reducing the efficient buoyancy this somehow does not reduce overall advantage. But that is nothing to be surprised about, for the "small mutation" created a leaky swimmer blade, preventing the fish from controlling it's buoyancy while making it impossible to stabilize pressure! There is no advantage as you can't just absorb "air" underwater, that is what gills do. And that it is not all, it also made a membrane that allows air to pass, but prevents liquid to do so (We don't want a bloody swim bladder) all in one swift mutation! Hallejuah. Who cares about oxygen being leaked? Who cares about not being able to stabilize pressure and prevent a collapse? It is somehow an advantage!

Actually, swim bladder main purpose is not acquiring oxygen, that's a rather modern use of developed swim bladders. Swim bladders started as a way to control buoyancy (not sure why you say it prevents fish to control buoyancy while every single fish that has swim bladder uses it for that purpose). Swim bladders also make resting in lateral position a very easy task due to their dorsal position on the fish body, and can be also used to amplify vocal sounds. Take into account that most fish do not have the ability to "eat" or "eruct" air in order to fill/empty their bladders, that's restricted to physostomes. Other species fill the swim bladder by excreting lactid acid and CO2 as a byproduct of their metabolism. This acidifies their blood, which results in hemoglobin losing its oxygen and diffusing into the swim bladder, filling it with gas. This is a slower process, but it can obtain very high gas pressure of oxygen, and thus it is very advantageous for deep sea fish like the eel.

The fact that modern fish have swim bladders and ancient fish have not, is evidence for evolution, not against it. Unless you think that at some point in Earth history, God became bored about ancient fish and decided to create fish with swim bladders and pop them into existence.

In summary, developed organs do not provide the same benefits as the organs in the early evolutionary stages. It would be foolish to think that the initial state of a swim bladder was providing advantages that allowed the fish to breathe better. Obviously that"s false, since those "tiny bladders" would never overcome gills in this task. If a bladder developed in its initial state, it is because it provided advantage, but unlike its modern version (the lungs), the advantage was not related to breathing. This happens with all organs in their early stages of evolution, they always have a different goal that their final stages. I have heard many creationist saying: eyes did not evolve since "half eye" is not functional to see, or "half hand" is not functional to grab objects. And they are right, "half eye" is not functional to see, but functional to other purposes like, ie, photoreception. Half hand is not functional to grab, but functional to, ie, increase traction while crawling. Etc.

Also, I thought lungs supposedly came before fish bladders?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I will just quote for you:

The lungs of today's terrestrial vertebrates and the gas bladders of today's fish are believed to have evolved from simple sacs (outpocketings) of the esophagus that allowed early fish to gulp air under oxygen-poor conditions. These outpocketings first arose in thebony fish. In most of the ray-finned fish the sacs evolved into closed off gas bladders, while a number of carps, trouts, herrings, catfish, eels has retained the physostome condition with the sack being open to the esophagus. In more basal bony fish, such as the gar,bichir, bowfin and the lobe-finned fish, the bladders have evolved to primarily function as lungs. The lobe-finned fish gave rise to the land-based tetrapods. Thus, the lungs of vertebrates are homologous to the gas bladders of fish (but not to their gills). This is reflected by the fact that the lungs of a fetus also develop from an outpocketing of the esophagus and in the case of the physostome gas bladders, which can serve as both buoyancy organ and with the pneumatic duct to the gut also serve as lungs. This condition is found in more "primitive" teleosts, and is lost in the higher orders. (This is an instance of correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny.) No known animals have both a gas bladder and lungs.
http://biologylabs.utah.edu...

Of course there is no proof that the later fossils were progeny of the earlier, or that the organs and structure of the later fossils were random mutations of the earlier fossils.
Sure, mutations contribute to the diversity, but it's contribution is minimal and can't be used as the ultimate explanation until evidence of it's mechanism becomes available.

It is quite absurd to say "contribution is minimal" while just a few mutations have made european wolf become 200 different dog breeds that are strikingly different in habits, intelligence and survival.

And btw just one mutation is required to make E.coli live or die on a culture.

So I would say contribution of mutations to survival is strikingly enormous.

Look at the cambrian explosion. You had 3.5 billion years of nothing but single-celled life. Then suddenly at the Cambrian explosion all but one type of phyla suddenly appeared in a period of 5-10 million years all around the world. You'd expect that a phyla or two appear, and then it would branch into other types of phyla. It"s bacteria to fully-formed and functional bodies.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net...
It is not just about the Cambrian explosion. Te fossil record shows mass extinction and sudden appearance of species.
http://www.baylor.edu...
Thus, the evidentless ad hoc of punctured equilibrium. Why not just be honest and admit that no model humans came up with can provide an explanation yet?

But that does not disprove evolution, it is just an evidence against evolution being always a smooth process, although 5-10 million years still feels pretty smooth to me.

On another thread I posted about the famous experiment of the island of Pod Macaru where scientists introduced 5 males and 5 females of Podarcis sicula (a lizard) on the island Pod Macaru. Just 36 years later they came back to the isle and observed lizard had shifted from being mostly insectivorous to Strongly vegetarian (up to 60% of their diet were now vegetables), and had developed an adapted cecal valve to slow digestion rates. They also had a shift in their behavior. The changes were so surprising, that genomic analysis were perfomed to ensure lizards did not hybridize with other species of the island to acquire this traits. (http://www.pnas.org......)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 12:27:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:10:42 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:43:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:53:42 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:27:17 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 8:40:55 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Someone who believes in evolution as of how I defined it.

Weird. Why would you have a name for that? Do you call people that believe in gravity, gravitationalists?

I call people who believe in science "scientists" -- seems fair.

So why not use scientists instead of Evolutionist?

Evolutionist and Evolutionism used as a perjurative term normally by Creationist organisation to make it "sound" like evolution is a religion, or a beleif.
was joke
lol.

Lol, I didn't get that.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 12:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:44:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Stuff.

What you are doing here, is simply an an argument from incredulity; and in the respect of your responses here, as I will get onto in a moment, a relatively poor one.

While I will reply to this particular post, I'm not prepared to respond to an unending set of reursive lists of innane arguments of how some specific or other "can't happen" (even when a short google search rebutts your claim). I am perfectly willing to state science nor I know everything on the subject of how every little minutae work.

I can quite happily have an honest discussion on those particular subjects if I felt you were willing to engage honestly; I am fairly certain that you aren't as this reply is strewn with rhetoric and straw men that are intended to misrepresent the validity of what I am saying. I will instead focus the remainder of this thread (and probably the next) on the aspects of evidence that show, beyond reasonable doubt, that regardless of what you say can or can't happen (which given this reply, is random speculation in many cases devoid of real evidence or argument in support), it DID happen.

In the interests of word count, I can't quote your whole argument, I will try to address the majority of points relating to what we were discussing but there will be some summarisation.

This mutation fixates, and is followed by subsequent small mutations that increase the size of the blood vessels to the swim bladder further increasing O2 capability.
Oh, the lethal problems in the previous mutation somehow gets fixed, thank goodness!

This quote speaks volumes about your understanding and knowledge on Evolution; if you do not know what "fixates" means in terms of evolution and genetic mutation; you really should not attempt to argue about evolution as this is pretty fundamental. Fixate, Fixation, and related terms mean that a particular mutation has spread throughout a population either through selection or drift; it doesn't mean "fixed" as if something occurs to put something right. Seriously.

1- A thinner wall for the swim bladder somehow evovled.
2- The thinner swim bladder somehow evolved the ability to absorb oxygen from air (which have less pressure than water) in the very rare circumstance the fish brings it's mouth over the water surface.
3- At the same time, the fish somehow evolved a membrane or a mechanism that allows oxygen to leak into blood while preventing blood to leak, no matter the change in pressure conditions. The fish's loss of ability to control buoyancy is somehow neglectable.
4- The size of the blood vessels somehow evolve to increase, which somehow increases O2 efficiency while having less concentration.
5- A thinner wall somehow evolve, and bigger blood vessels somehow evolve too. This is all normal, nothing new here.

So onto the specifics. It seems you horribly confuse the chemistry, physics and terminology of "Air-tight", "Water-tight" and "gas-permeable", they are not the same thing. They do not mean the same thing; and saying because the change allows something to be "Gas-permeable" does not mean it ceases to be either water tight or air-tight. All your points here are based on this lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation leading points 2 and 3 to be straw men.

1.) A thinner wall to the swim bladder is the same type of mutation we have seen today; it is a subtle variation to the organisms embryological development. Trying to imply with rhetoric that this is a big leap is just a straw man.

2.) Fish with swim bladders already gulp air regularly (as a rudimentary google search would show), so getting air into the bladder isn't a problem despite your protestations. Absorbing oxygen is also not a big leap despite your straw-man; oxygen can disolve into a liquid, and all that is required is a certain amount of thinning in the lining to allow some oxygen to pass through and mix with the blood. Again, this is not a mutation that requires a stretch of the imagination, it's very similar to mutations we see today. This is really just the same evolved trait as the (1), not a different evolutionary mutation despite your implication that it is seperate; as any rudimentary analysis of the chemistry will show.

3.) As stated, you are confusing air-permeable, air-tight with water-tight. Just because something allows some gas to permeate does not mean it either (a) will leak blood or (b) allow all gas to simply pass through. In reality, a thinning of the inner swim bladder wall to allow small amounts of gas permeability would allow some oxygen through to blood vessels, but not necessarily allow vast amounts of gas to simply escape all the way through the swim bladder and into internals of the fish. Nor does small amounts of gas permeability mean that this fishes swim bladder start spurting blood like it's had a date with Freddy Kruger. What blood needs to leak out of the blood vessels is very different from what oxygen needs to enter them. You're bouyancy argument also, escuse the pun, doesn't hold water; for two reasons: (a) you groundlessly assume it is not possible in any situation ever that a fish lives in a habbitat where the swim bladder isn't an absolute necessity, but more importantly (b) you groundlessly assume that just because the swim bladder becomes somewhat gas permeable it can no longer ever be used as a swim bladder. (a) is patently absurd, (b) makes no sense whatsoever, it still holds air, it still works in pretty much the same way and the only way you can make this statement is if you make the error between "air tight", "water-tight" and "gas permeable" that you made in (2) and (3) as mentioned at the top of this list.

4.) Where did I say 02 efficiency? You are misrepresenting my argument here rendering this, like the others before, a straw man. With regards to blood vessels; you seem to imply that a tiny increase in the size of blood vessels over the period of many, many generations is a big leap; the type of mutation isn't unprecedented in life today, we see similar things going on; and each increase has selective benefit as bigger blood vessels = more oxygen permeation. The size of the blood vessels could well be limited by blood pressure; which means that stronger hearts will also be selected for: We see mutations for that in real world observation too, so this is not a stretch of the imagination.

5.) Again, you seem to be construing that this is really difficult. We've seen the same type of morphological changes in the real world; we're not talking about the creation of lungs from scratch but simply subtle variation in size and shape. I fail to see how this bullet point presents a well evidenced rebuttal of the issue at hand.

An amusing story, reminds me of the story of genesis in it's scientific pursuit.

The above is, of course, a historical hypothesis; it is highly difficult to establish exactly how particular things can evolve without having the DNA of every organism that ever lived. The best science can do is demonstrate the plausibility of particular evolutionary pathways; in many cases down to the molecular level showing that specific mutations on specific genes can explain specific differences between specific organs.

As I am not stating that a fish simply wrinkled it's nose and lungs magically appeared; it deviates substantially in content and validity from Genesis.

Moreover, everything I have stated above is compatible with every peice of evidence we have; from phylogeny, morphology, chemistry and what we understand of genetic mutations. This is somewhat evidenced by the fact that the only counter arguments you present are a series of straw men that grossly misrepresent gradualism based on a poor understanding of physics, chemistry and the nature of genetic mutations that occur today.