Of Pandas, Wolves, Birds and People
While I was reading to my daughter from Percival Davis’ excellent ?Of Pandas and People? I learnt something about the differences between the way Neo-Darwinists an proponents of ID think. I think the Darwinists are only interested in looking at disconnected details: They fail to see the big-picture and that is why they fail to spot the handiwork of the Intelligent Designer even though the evidence is staring them in the face: Let me give you an example.
This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution.
The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the wolf you and I know of. It?s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the ?tree of life?, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals. That?s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!
The Tasmanian Wolf, this creature is now extinct. We do not know why extinction happens - most probably this is all part of God’s plan.
These taxonomical oddities are not an isolated feature: Darwin’s ?Tree of Life? abounds with anomalous classifications: Few high-schools mention that evolutionists regard all birds as a sub-class of reptiles. That is to say if one branch of the tree represents every living and extinct reptile, every known species of bird would be represented by a sub-branch of that reptile branch. Next time you hear an iguana say ?Polly Want a Cracker?, tell me, but until then I propose that this classification makes no sense at all!
Oh no! We are being attacked by a DINOSAUR… RUN! Oh wait - have the neo-darwinists been watching too much Jurassic-park?
Wouldn?t it make more sense if we devised a more functional taxonomy; one where very similar kinds of animal were grouped together? One based on the sensible principles and proven science of Intelligent Design?
One might wonder why this idea has not occurred to the proponents of neo-darwinism? Actually it has, but they dismiss it because of a few small details here and there. One such difference between the Tasmanian and American wolf is it?s reproductive strategy: The Tasmanian wolves are ?marsupial?, and other wolves are ?placental? like our species. Evolutionists say that these are two very different branches of evolution, one which has retained primative DNA, the other has developed more modern features. Because of this one single difference, these two wolves are consigned to different ends of evolution?s spectrum.
The American Grey Wolf - a more advanced version of the same design that gave us the marsupial wolf.
Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities? It makes no sense at all given that everything else about the two wolf species is so similar. Surely science should recognise similarities as well as differences?
Wouldn?t it make more sense to see this in the context of Intelligent design? It?s possible that the designer made two different revisions of the same basic design. This is something that human designers do all the time, and it seems perfectly normal to us. What is the probability that these two creatures ?evolved? to look the same: According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.
Fortunately that is not the case. We are left with two varieties of wolf, one version placental, the other version marsupial. We can only guess at what the objectives of the designer were, but I personally suspect that these creatures are two iterations of a design that eventually left us with the most perfect wolf-like form: The modern domesticated dog.
The most perfect form of canine: The modern dog.
So what can we learn from these wolves? I suggest that in science (as in all walks of life), sometimes scrutiny of the details alone can lead to false conclusions. Sometimes the only sensible, common sense approach is to look at the big picture: And once we step back and appreciate the many wonders of creation the Designer?s signature is self-evident.
Helena
21 Comments so far
Leave a reply
If you were to examine the DNA of the American wolf and the Tasmanian wolf, it would reveal that these two creatures are not related to each other - they do not share the same ancestors. The Tasmanian wolf or thylacine was called a ‘wolf’ because, to the Europeans who colonised the island, the creature somewhat resembled a wolf. By calling something a wolf, it does not mean that it actually is a wolf. The thylacine’s closest extant relative is the Tasmanian Devil, which somewhat resembles a cat (but it is neither devil nor cat) Another example is the spotted hyaena, which was often referred to as a wolf by European settlers in South Africa. We now know that the hyaena is no relative of the wolf, but rather that of civets and mongooses. Taxonomists now study DNA sequences to determine the relationship of one animal to another, with some surprising results. Incidentally, we know how the thylacine became extinct - it was relentlessly persecuted by settlers who saw it as a threat to their livestock. The last one died in captivity in the 1930s.
You know, the probability that something occured after it occured is 100%.
It’s doesn’t prove anything.
Here in Australia (and one would hope we’d know) the thylacine is more commonly called a Tasmanian Tiger.
You should read “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District”, in which (written by a judge appointed by George W. Bush!) this book is dismissed as flawed and pseudo-science even by advocates of ID: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_86_of_139
“(…) Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals (…)”
Well after reading that, i was quite literally in tears, of laughter.
“I think the Darwinists are only interested in looking at disconnected details: They fail to see the big-picture and that is why they fail to spot the handiwork of the Intelligent Designer even though the evidence is staring them in the face: Let me give you an example.”
-These darwinists (i think u are refering to evolutionists?) are looking at the big picture, and a very big and highly complex one it is, u should find a evolutionary chain someday and look through it.
-They’re not lookign for disconnections, but connections, like sure, by religious understanding, u proberly are related to osama bin laden, but he’s not your brother, or your dad, or anywhere close to you, thats sort of the relation between fish and mammals.
—————————————————
“This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution.”
-I must hire it out someday, have a read through it, and see how much u twisted it.
—————————————————
“The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the wolf you and I know of. It?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?tree of life?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals.”
-The tasmanian wolf (aka tasmanian tiger) is a marsupial, using DNA tests you can tell they are as related as you and the queen of england (if u go by religious understanding of everyone being related, no matter how distantly), so basically they are related in the way they are mammals, but very distantly, they fufulled the same role as canines in other countries, but are very much different.
-Yes they may look alike and have certain characteristics that are similar, but there are many look alikes, for example, George Bush and a chimp, yes sure they look very much alike, but no matter how much he acts like a chimp and smells like one, he’ll never actualy be a chimp. (mind u it’s posisble that either his real mother or father was).
—————————————————
“That?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!”
hey their next door neighbour could live in kentucky, they may have shifted there for a few months on a working holiday, they could have just moved there, or any other array of options.
—————————————————
“These taxonomical oddities are not an isolated feature: Darwin?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Tree of Life?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? abounds with anomalous classifications: Few high-schools mention that evolutionists regard all birds as a sub-class of reptiles.”
-Bird are an evolution of retiles, the earliest bird known was the Archaeopteryx, from the Jurassic Period (Which is the middle period of the Mesozoic Era). This bird evolved from one of the many flying reptiles in the late Jurassic Period.
-these bird did exsist, becuase there is fossil evidence of them, and not just 1 either…
—————————————————
“That is to say if one branch of the tree represents every living and extinct reptile, every known species of bird would be represented by a sub-branch of that reptile branch. Next time you hear an iguana say ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Polly Want a Cracker?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?, tell me, but until then I propose that this classification makes no sense at all!”
-Not quite, there would say be the overall class of reptiles, then there would be the sub-classes, we’ll call them A1,b1,c1,d1,e1. From A1, would be a2, a3, a4. from a4 would be reptiles such as the flying reptiles from the dinosaur age (Jurrasic peroid) and reptiles related to them, and from the flying reptiles would come the early bird, Archaeopteryx.
Not very acurate, but describes.
-Only a few birds can talk, these include bird such as, Magpies, budgerigars (budgies), crows (one of the most intelligent birds)
Budgies can learn up to 2000 words and/or phrases
whilst crows can learn only a few words and/or phrases.
Only a few birds actualy have the intelligence to string words together in a sentence, and they usually make nonsence (e.g Father llamas kittens woof), otherwise they will just immatate humans and/or respond with a known phrase (e.g “Who’s a pretty boy?” “I am”.
—————————————————
“Oh no! We are being attacked by a DINOSAUR?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?Ǭ? RUN! Oh wait - have the neo-darwinists been watching too much Jurassic-park?”
hehe i own 2 of these birds, Scarlet Macaw, i belive they come from central america, through to the amazonia areas. they cost me 10,000 dollars if i remember? Got them 3 years ago, they’re now age 6, they eat mainly nuts and fruit. and seem to like chewing fingers lol. But yes they are very much like a dinosaur, that if they fell you are a potential predator, they are liable to attack u, imagine a bird with 1 inch claws, and very powerful sharp beak, and is almost 1m in lenght, weighs about 5kg, atatcking u. put it this way, they’re more effective than guard dogs, becuase the guy who breaks in isn’t expecting it. they atatcked my a drunk guy who broke into my house. was rather amusing.
—————————————————
“One might wonder why this idea has not occurred to the proponents of neo-darwinism? Actually it has, but they dismiss it because of a few small details here and there. One such difference between the Tasmanian and American wolf is it?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s reproductive strategy: The Tasmanian wolves are ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?marsupial?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?, and other wolves are ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?placental?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? like our species. Evolutionists say that these are two very different branches of evolution, one which has retained primative DNA, the other has developed more modern features. Because of this one single difference, these two wolves are consigned to different ends of evolution?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s spectrum.”
-Of course they;re down different end of the spectrum, the two continents they coem from have been seperated for over 200million years, lots of evolution going on there…
-yes they dismmised them being related cuz of a few small differences. I’m going to use you and Osama bin laden as a example (don’t be offended Osama) Ok small differences between you and osama, about 10,000 miles, different religons, different skin colours, different bone structure, and many other things.
-hmm u seem to be accepting the idea of evolution just not understanding it by reading this. they are not primative because they don’t breed the same way as humans, infact, it’s much more effective, becuase they then don’t have any problems with birth, they don’t have problems with the fact they have some huge buldging thing stopping them from being as mobile as usual.
—————————————————
“The American Grey Wolf - a more advanced version of the same design that gave us the marsupial wolf.”
A wolf is a class of species in the case of the grey wolf, marsupial is the class in the Tasmanian wolfs case. it was only called a wold becuase it looks similar to it, u wouldn’t call a jack russle a wolf, just becuase it looks similar, sure it’s related, but distantly, not as distantly as marsupials are though, more like a wolves 1000th cousin or something.
-how are they more advanced? except the fact they not all dead?
—————————————————
“Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities? It makes no sense at all given that everything else about the two wolf species is so similar. Surely science should recognise similarities as well as differences?”
-You misunderstand, its not the reproduction thats changing this (well sorta slightly) but the make up of the two species, like a metamorphic rock and a sedamentary rock, similar but very different, formed different ways, but made of same stuff.
-Science does rocognise similarites, like the similarites between you and a fish, namely no intelligence.
—————————————————
“What is the probability that these two creatures ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?evolved?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? to look the same: According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.”
- Well as they both serve a similar purpose, it’s quite likely they will evolve lookign similar.
- Evolution doesn’t happen by random mutation, it happens becuase of changes that forces the change upon them, e.g if suddenly the earth cooled down by about 20 degrees celcius, more animals would start growing longer, thicker coats. and the cold blooded animals like reptiles, would either start dieing out, or finding easier ways to get heat, like, better hunters, so they have more time to stay in heat, or they might become underground creatures, to get the the heat of the earth.
—————————————————
“Fortunately that is not the case. We are left with two varieties of wolf, one version placental, the other version marsupial.”
… u are left with two different species… wolves and marsupials. Only relation is the name.
—————————————————
“but I personally suspect that these creatures are two iterations of a design that eventually left us with the most perfect wolf-like form: The modern domesticated dog.”
-Do you see many marsupial dogs around? i don’t
-not all domestic dogs are related to wolves, some are related to other canines. a wolf decentant is distiguised by behavouir, skull build, and other things.
—————————————————
All Atheists must hail the God of Atheism or they will burn in the unexsistant hell for evermore!
rofl… oxymorrons are fun, i just like being a morron though :P
try to go to college, study biology, and say this at exams and you can certainly say farewell to you school days.
ID is simply not science. May be some philosophy, metaphysic theory. All fact that you mention are based on “from train” observations. “Oh! they have four legs, they must be iteration of of one design”(apes are iteration of the same design as man?). what about their organs, cells, dna. The fact about their reproduction system and different place of occurrence is important to their classification.
Why is so unthinkable, accept that God could invent evolution to help us to survive in changing environment… Oh we must change one chapter in bible(written by man, who has bad memory to know what was at beginning).
The Tasmanian Wolf, this creature is now extinct. We do not know why extinction happens - most probably this is all part of God?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s plan.
Two reasons:
1. Survival of the Fittest.
2. Man screws it up.
About the Birds and Dinosaur issue: Perhaps someone should not only judge it because of the look of those creatures. Doing this as in this article is as scientifical as someone saying he?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s god, you should worship him and that?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s because it is so. Dumb.
proven science of Intelligent Design
Haven?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t seen any evidence lately…just call it theory, mkay?
According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.
Except that those mutations normally have a sense…
But if you want to discuss color, then what are albinos?
PS: Using a book that was debunked even by ID followers is no good, mkay?
-Yes they may look alike and have certain characteristics that are similar, but there are many look alikes, for example, George Bush and a chimp, yes sure they look very much alike, but no matter how much he acts like a chimp and smells like one, he?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥ll never actualy be a chimp. (mind u it?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s posisble that either his real mother or father was).
Random mutation at work. :) PS: I think you just have attacked the chimps. Being compared to Georgie is somewhat embarrassing…
The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!
I just noticed this piece
“The Tasmanian Wolf, this creature is now extinct. We do not know why extinction happens - most probably this is all part of God?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s plan.”
-Extinction happens becuase there are none of that species left.
E.G The moas in New Zealand, they were hunted to extinction by the maoris, and then becuase the moas died, the Giant Eagle (biggest eagle in the world, 6m wing span i think?) died out, becuase it’s only food source was destroyed.
“Random mutation at work. :) PS: I think you just have attacked the chimps. Being compared to Georgie is somewhat embarrassing?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?Ǭ?”
Amen, yes, please chimps don’t be offended, it was just an example, if you are offended, take it out on Georgie, it’s his fault he looks like u.
I started to write a response to this post, but it became too long to fit here, so I posted it on my blog. You can find it here:
http://lordjbar.blogspot.com/2007/01/debunk-id-claims-its-fun.html
Though I’m reasonably sure this is a parody site, as long as there’s a Tasmanian Wolf discussion:
Thylacines were first described by Western science around 1800, and were immediately recognized as marsupials (initially in the same family as the opossum) and completely unrelated to wolves. Mind, this was 50 years before the Origin of Species, so “Darwinists” had nothing to do with this recognition. It was simply obvious, even to people working before evolutionary theory was invented, that thylacines were 100% true-blue marsupials and bore only a passing resemblance to placental canids.
There’s some nice videos of the last known captive thylacine on YouTube, and you can see how un-wolfy it really is. Here it shows off its kangaroo-like hind legs and tail, with a plantigrade stance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwmhmAfcRt8
And here it shows off its enormously wide gape, which is quite reminiscent of an opossum’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCov0PXkVo
Why does it seem like God is a Republican?
Very well put together, you should visit this site more often, is fun to watch shelley and her buddies skrink when they get proven wrong time in and time out
“This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution.”
Anybody that believes that statement needs see a psychiatrist. My God!
“Revision”?
But God is supposed to be perfect, according to the wingnuts. Why would a “perfect” God need to make revisions?
You guys are such a joke…..!
Inteligent design has it all backwards. The fact that everything is so complicated proves that some God could not have created it. Maybe you think the inteligent designer is some alien or somthing but then you must explain how that being was “created”. If you think God is the designer then your God must be learning on the job since 99% of life that ever existed on the planet is extinct.
After going through this site some, I’m now reasonably sure this is a parody. However, it shows the sad state of America when it’s impossible to tell just because these same arguments can be heard from real ultra-conservatives. If this is a joke, then it is both well-timed and well-executed. However, my biggest fear is that it might not be a joke.
They linked to Wikipedia.
Okay, definitely a parody site. I feel a lot better about the world now.
[...] nut-case ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Shelly The Republican?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? is no better. Her mockery takes the form of copying a number of our articles without permission. [...]
Yeah, definetely a parody site. This is waaaay too intentionally ironic. It IS funny how this site gets on the nerves of conservapedia.com, another intentionaly ironic site, but unknown yet if it is a parody site.
The so-called Tasmanian Devil is in reality a werewolf. It is the offspring of Satan’s unnatural interference with the native wolf on the island of Tasmania (which used to be known as Van Demon’s Land, a fact which proves all that I say here about this is true).