tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post3289704169403031442..comments2023-05-02T02:27:13.806-07:00Comments on khylov: Khylovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14098699327564717865noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-50847518990080350332009-02-01T10:10:00.000-08:002009-02-01T10:10:00.000-08:00....People read these posts? Huh. You'll have to e.......People <I>read</I> these posts? Huh. You'll have to excuse me; I'm normally used to the atypical bright eyed undergrad type who comes here with fire in their lungs and methane on their tongue - and who will unfailingly do me the unwelcomed favor of disgorging their said-gas in my comments section over this topic. So, is a nice surprise to have someone actually wishing me well on this subject, in a thoughtful manner, and complimenting the art to boot. So many thanks for that; much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>You and your bro sound like interesting folks. Wish I lived closer to the heartland - we all should go bowling sometime. Or, failing that, identifying polydactyl fauna in (quote, unquote) "Devonian"<B>*</B> strata.<BR/><BR/>Or a combination of both. At the same time. It could happen - we'd just need some lawnchairs, and several bowling pins masoned out of carboniferous rock.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(<B>*</B> Strata named not so much for the imagined time frame involved, but on account of the popular 80's art rock band from Ohio - known for classic radio grabbers such as <I>"Whip It", "Blockhead",</I> and <I>"Synthesizers Will Outlive the 80's"</I>.)Khylovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14098699327564717865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-35347429871610205942009-01-31T23:17:00.000-08:002009-01-31T23:17:00.000-08:00Stumbled on your site in a search for polydactyly,...Stumbled on your site in a search for polydactyly, go figure. Your grasp of micro v. macro evolution is astounding. I thought for a minute you were my brother in disguise -- he's an apologetics geekizoid. Oh, and your drawings are nice, too, tee hee.herbluvverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395304836747931023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-23338135150338233352008-06-16T08:47:00.000-07:002008-06-16T08:47:00.000-07:00What a wonderful response; well spoken. I think wh...What a wonderful response; well spoken. I think what you have written is very convincing but no atheist or evolutionist will change their mind because faith is a funny thing. In the end, we all believe what we believe based on our own life experience.Josh (musarter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15455252303108963162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-87425478091169804822008-06-14T15:44:00.000-07:002008-06-14T15:44:00.000-07:00Austin, Josh;Thanks both of you for touching base ...<I><B>Austin, Josh;</I></B><BR/><BR/>Thanks both of you for touching base on this and letting me know your thoughts in more detail. I guess, to wrap up what I was going to say to both of you, I'll do it by answering Austin’s question: <I>Do I believe in evolution?</I> (Hope this be workin for both of you’s - and yes, this breaks the "short response" rule in spades, so bear with me.)<BR/><BR/>No, I don’t believe in the macro evolutionary scenario. I think the key word here is <I>believe</I>, mainly because we cannot observe, test, repeat, measure in real time the claims that paleontologists – or any paleo researcher - make in regards to macro evolutionary events. (I think what I said earlier explains the <I>fact vs interpretation</I> thing, as well as dealing with past events scientifically.)<BR/><BR/>What has been shown is that <I>micro evolution</I>, or variation, takes place – the relative beak size and shape of finches changing, due to food type changing seasonally in an isolated ecological niche; and so on. That is not in dispute. <BR/><BR/>This concept was forwarded by Blythe (a creationist researcher) 25 years before Darwin. Blythe formulated the idea of natural selection culminating and preserving certain varieties of form while eliminating others – population statistics basically, and didn’t say much of anything beyond that. Darwin took it the next step and gave natural selection the power to not only preserve, but also to bioengineer wholly complex and amazing features from a previously non-existent state through the same process. And evolutionists have said more or less the same thing for the past 150-plus years.<BR/><BR/>The problem here is that mutation and natural selection:<BR/><BR/>1. have to work with what’s already there to begin with genetically and biochemically (which is interrelated, complex, and functionally balanced as is, from the get-go – which begs the question of where *that* came from, especially in “the beginning”). And:<BR/><BR/>2. neither of these mechanisms has been shown to do anything more than culminate and cull what is already present within the genome. (reiterating Josh’s words earlier)<BR/><BR/>This is why we have varieties of organisms, such as dogs (Canids), many of which seem to have lost a good deal over the years, genetically speaking. The same could be said about a myriad of other animals, some of which retain features, others losing them, some actually regaining features that were lost through interbreeding (i.e., the possibility of distinct delphinid spinal features being regained in false killer whales by successful interbreeding with bottle nosed dolphins – which has actually happened in the last several years, the interbreeding anyhow). <BR/><BR/>What I <I>do</I> believe: <BR/><BR/>Think of it as a <I>Lawn of Diversity</I> - created discrete archetype kinds which have all the genetic potential from the beginning, having been initially created de novo, ex nihilo, and then subsequently diversifying according to the initial archetype “blueprint” (some features being latent, some being expressed). <BR/><BR/>Whether or not this diversity was the original intent of the creator at the beginning is up for grabs, but I do think that it this process of mutation has been accelerated and intentionally set out of balance, due to what is described as “the fall”, or curse on the current world due to sin. It’s a faith statement ultimately, but given the evidence – not only from scripture but from observational science - that animals have functional genetic limits and reproduce “according/after their kind”, and that mutation and natural selection cannot bioengineer life’s interrelated complexity, as well as living beings being born, suffering, and dying due to an imbalance in biology… I think this explanation is logically more satisfying than the worlds’ (and Darwin’s) take on origins. <BR/><BR/>Is cool that the issue of dinos with feathers is brought up. It’s another surprise that, I think, highlights the chimera challenge to researchers: When you find something unexpected in an organism, be it living or extinct, and it shatters all previous preconceptions - what do you do? I think the best thing is to admit that animals (such as the platypus or Rodhocetus/Georgiacetus) are way beyond our current conceptions of what constitutes a safe, easily defined taxonomy for animals.<BR/><BR/>Same with dinos with feathers – they may have been a juvenile layer of down that kept the animal warm before reaching (I would guess) adolescence. Whatever the explanation or purpose was, our inability to test the past scientifically can only leave us with speculation at best. <BR/><BR/>It also begs the question then: What <I>were</I> dinosaurs exactly? They may be a completely separate Class of their own, sharing affinities with reptiles but being something completely different. Again, the concept of human perceptions of the natural world; and the question arises of whether or not this comports to reality, or if it’s merely what the eye wants to see. <BR/><BR/>This situation though with dinos and classification, it would then be the same as how monotremes (platypii, echidnas) are in relation to marsupials and even mammals – sharing features, but also containing a chimeric assortment of other features from other classes or orders. Archaeopteryx, the osteolepiforms and tetrapodomorphs, archaeocetes, therapsids, etc – I think all of these are simply strange chimeric animals that, in our surprise and haste, we assign to cladograms and phylogenetic Darwin trees, <I>exactly because</I> we have no exact modern day analogue for them. <BR/><BR/>But I think we’ll find, as time goes on, that nature is a strange and wonderful place, definitely a fantasia that we enjoy for free. Man should be mindful of trying too hard to superimpose his own definitions on a created world that - by the Creator - brilliantly exceeds our own imaginations.Khylovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14098699327564717865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-60199725498431548042008-06-12T08:21:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:21:00.000-07:00Your work is awesome. It also cool to see an artis...Your work is awesome. It also cool to see an artist who knows his science. Thanks for the explanation you gave Austin, well said. <BR/>I am no scientist and I am not as well read as you are, but I think the answer boils down to three main points: 1. Observable Genetic mutations have always been detrimental to specimens. 2. No one has observed cross species evolution; I don't buy the "magic fairy dust" referred to as Millions of years. 3. There is no such thing as a completely objective researcher.Josh (musarter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15455252303108963162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-32814837051769568122008-06-11T22:38:00.000-07:002008-06-11T22:38:00.000-07:00Well said. My point is, nothing ISN'T a transition...Well said. My point is, nothing ISN'T a transitional species. There is no such thing as macroevolution, because there's no such thing as things staying the same. The natural world is constantly changing, man can only create words and phylums in a vein attempt to organize his own thoughts on the matter.<BR/><BR/>Feathers, for example, originally (we believe) developed on dinosaurs, too large for the remotest possibility of flight. Whether the downing was for insulation, defense, breeding, or catching food (like fish--this is Matt Nolte's theory), they are now evolved for flight.<BR/><BR/>I guess my question to you, is: do you believe in evolution?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634354258406911180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-90906795975867674702008-06-11T22:06:00.000-07:002008-06-11T22:06:00.000-07:00Austin;One thing to keep in mind: Facts vs. Interp...<I><B>Austin;</I></B><BR/><BR/>One thing to keep in mind: <I>Facts vs. Interpretation of Facts.</I> <BR/><BR/>I hear ya about the word length thing (and I’m about to throw any wisdom on that front into the wind here for a second), but that’s kinda part of the problem: When evidence is in isolation, it can be made to say various things, which may or may not comport to the rest of the evidence. One example is the anatomical details in fossils which are interpreted as evidence for macro evolution: In isolation from the rest of the evidence - like irreducibly complex organic biochemistry, or contradictory findings in other fossils - any gradation or any mixture of features by themselves can be made to “link” so-and-such organism in a Darwinian ladder. <BR/><BR/>In other words, it’s superficial: If it *looks* like a fin; if it *looks* like an artiodactyl anklebone,… or, <I>if it *looks* like a transitional.</I> The same could be said about any man made (or God made) set of objects: You could gradate a series of nuts and bolts - from 4 sided US standard to hexagonal metric; or show the evolution of cars - from a Ford Pinto to the V8 Koenigsegg CCXR; or you can even have a bitchin' cladogram of guitars – from a 2 stringed dutar to a highly specialized 6 string Ernie Ball custom, etc…<BR/><BR/> In effect, it’s a method of <I>interpretation</I> over objects – <I>created objects</I> - that says more about the human mind than it does about the thing described. (Fact vs. Interpretation!) Operational science can only describe things <I>as is</I>; it is very limited in being able to (if at all) inform us on past events we didn’t witness, nor witness today.<BR/><BR/>Heh, it’s interesting you brought up one of the several archaeocetes. I’ve read the papers by Gingerich, Thewissen, etc, on a pretty good cross section of these buggers, most notably <I>Rodhocetus</I> and <I>Pakicetus</I> (forerunners to <I>Ambulo</I>). Gingerich has really flip flopped over Rodhocetus’ sacral flexibility (wasn’t connected, was connected; he can’t make up his mind), the usage of teeth to first link them to mesonychids and then later having that same evidence written off as “lucky convergence”, the whole host of *other* cetacean features which aren’t accounted for in the whale evolution scenario (Pesky complexity in biochemistry), plus the fact that evolutionists have a hard time showing experimentally how genetic mistakes can create cetacean breathing regulation, echolocation, spinal syncliny,etc… <BR/><BR/>In short, there’re a lot of skeletons in the closet over this group. (*drum roll*).Khylovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14098699327564717865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-63507313250793045252008-06-11T10:48:00.000-07:002008-06-11T10:48:00.000-07:00You've GOT to find a way to boil that down into le...You've GOT to find a way to boil that down into less words. I'm very interested in evolutionary science, but I don't have the time to read all that!<BR/><BR/>What I do know is that scientists have found the missing link that shows that whales did indeed dwell on land at some point, ambulocetus.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmbulocetusAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634354258406911180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-55933335220727459762008-06-03T11:30:00.000-07:002008-06-03T11:30:00.000-07:00Marn;Yes, I know; but pieces that take time go up ...<B>Marn;</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know; but pieces that take time go up in value, right? It's an inflation-meets-appreciation thing. Or depreciation... whichever one applies to what I do.<BR/><BR/><B>Alina, Sorrentino;</B><BR/><BR/>Thanks all. Checking your pages now...Khylovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14098699327564717865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262426.post-24374924422982119962008-05-15T09:30:00.000-07:002008-05-15T09:30:00.000-07:00Hey Bro..love the work..still waiting for my own o...Hey Bro..love the work..still waiting for my own original autographed piece.. what, 8 years now? IM me!! MarnieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com