A simple question for creationists.

[camanintx]

right, so there is no point latching on to those probabilities and proclaiming that God is dead because we have all this other 'evidence' which tells a different story.

We don't need science to tell us that God is dead.

 

[Pegg]

a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.



Are you saying you personally no more about genetics, archaeology, biology, geology, molecular genectics, the fossil record, chemistry, DNA, RNA and all the sciences that have supported evolution over the last 200 years, then the scientists working on the questions?

"faith" is what your using to deny the hard sciences, obervations, testing and peer review and the scietific method.

This isn't faith.



We lost our hair a long long time ago. In fact though your body is still covered in fine hairs to this day.

evolution occurs,


Cats have evolved, no doubt about it

Dogs have evolved from this:

what nature shows is that when animals become isolated, they develop very original features...but they are still from the same phyla...they dont produce a biologically different phyla. And what proves that they are the same phyla is that they can produce hybrids...so you can breed a lion with a tiger, or a wolf with a domestic dog...they can breed because they are the same phyla. And that is where, in my opinion, evolutionists have it wrong...evolution doesnt produce new phyla.

 

[shawn001]

evolution occurs,


Cats have evolved, no doubt about it

Dogs have evolved from this:

what nature shows is that when animals become isolated, they develop very original features...but they are still from the same phyla...they dont produce a biologically different phyla. And what proves that they are the same phyla is that they can produce hybrids...so you can breed a lion with a tiger, or a wolf with a domestic dog...they can breed because they are the same phyla. And that is where, in my opinion, evolutionists have it wrong...evolution doesnt produce new phyla.

Your not seeing the much bigger picture of the history of life on earth and how evolution works here.

First off when the earth formed it didn't have the oxygen atmophere we have today so those animals you posted wouldn't survive and weren't even here at all, if fact no life could.


We can go way back before any cats or dogs existed at all. Of course we genetically manipulated cat and dog genes to create new breeds by some of the same means as evolution.


Were there grey wolfs or cats when there were dinosaurs?

Okay so your saying no transitional fossils exist? Is that what your saying here?

 

[painted wolf]

evolution occurs,

Cats have evolved, no doubt about it... from the group Feliformia

Dogs have evolved from this:

what nature shows is that when animals become isolated, they develop very original features...but they are still from the same phyla...they dont produce a biologically different phyla. And what proves that they are the same phyla is that they can produce hybrids...so you can breed a lion with a tiger, or a wolf with a domestic dog...they can breed because they are the same phyla. And that is where, in my opinion, evolutionists have it wrong...evolution doesnt produce new phyla.

If you go back further you find the ancestor of both the cat and the dog in the early carnivorans.... The earliest dogs and the earliest cats both looked more like weasels than they do modern dogs and cats. Indeed in many ways the earliest felids and the earliest canids look more like each other than they do any of their descendants.

wa:do
You are only looking at the modern tips of the tree, not the older branches.

 

[Pegg]

We can go way back before any cats or dogs existed at all. Of course we genetically manipulated cat and dog genes to create new breeds by some of the same means as evolution.
Were there grey wolfs or cats when there were dinosaurs?

yes we can go back to before the mammals existed at all... we can go back to when only sea creatures existed because the creation of living things was a progressive one.

God did not create every creature alive in one magic poof. The bible tells us that in each creative day he produced certain creatures in an orderly fashion over time.,..exactly what we see in the fossil record.

Okay so your saying no transitional fossils exist? Is that what your saying here?

not in the phyla that we see in the cambrian explosion, no. Each phyla appears distinct with no links to any of the other phyla. that is because God made different 'kinds' ...the 'kinds' are the phyla. He made a particular phyla to go forth and multiply and as they did, they developed a great variety among themselves just as we humans have developed a great variety among ourselves.

 

[Pegg]

If you go back further you find the ancestor of both the cat and the dog in the early carnivorans.... The earliest dogs and the earliest cats both looked more like weasels than they do modern dogs and cats. Indeed in many ways the earliest felids and the earliest canids look more like each other than they do any of their descendants.

wa:do
You are only looking at the modern tips of the tree, not the older branches.

They may have been, but that is still speculation that they evolved from such creatures. For all we know those creatures may have been in a phyla all their own. The problem with inferring such a conclusion is that it cannot be proved and similar features do not prove lineage.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually phyla is much bigger group ... our phyla is everything with a backbone.
This is our phyla:

As for it being unprovable... even if you disregard morphology (and it looks like you do) there is still genetics and molecular evidence showing the relationship. Just like we can use genetics to find out who is the parent of a child we can use it find out what species are related to each other and how closely.

wa:do

ps... the phyla don't all suddenly appear as is during the "Cambrian explosion" most predate it... such as cniderians, sponges, worms and so on. Plus the "explosion" was a period of tens of millions of years, so nothing really appeared all that suddenly.

 

[painted wolf]

This is one of the Cambrian members of our phyla.... no dogs or cats... just a worm-like/fish-like thing with the beginnings of a backbone.

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

Actually phyla is much bigger group ... our phyla is everything with a backbone.
This is our phyla:

there is plenty of room for error when we try to put everything in the same box and claim its evidence that they are all linked.

As for it being unprovable... even if you disregard morphology (and it looks like you do) there is still genetics and molecular evidence showing the relationship. Just like we can use genetics to find out who is the parent of a child we can use it find out what species are related to each other and how closely.

within the same group of animals, yes there is certainly evidence for relationship. I agree with you totally on that. But between the different types of animals, it cannot be proven. And having a backbone certainly doesnt do it for me.

ps... the phyla don't all suddenly appear as is during the "Cambrian explosion" most predate it... such as cniderians, sponges, worms and so on. Plus the "explosion" was a period of tens of millions of years, so nothing really appeared all that suddenly.

those things are among the creatures that appeared during the cambrian explosion. In this period a great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells appeared at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared. 10 million years may seem like a long time, but its not. Its a tiny fraction of the 4 billion years of the earths existence.

And the biggest hurdle i see is that among those cambrian creatures, there are no intermediate fossil links .... even Darwin admitted this fact.


btw, if anyone wants to know, i dont find this information off the internet. It comes from a very well researched book by the Watchtower called 'Evolution or Creation' ... if anyone would like a copy please PM me and i'd by happy to send you a copy.

 

[Krok]

ps... the phyla don't all suddenly appear as is during the "Cambrian explosion" most predate it... such as cniderians, sponges, worms and so on. Plus the "explosion" was a period of tens of millions of years, so nothing really appeared all that suddenly.

….those things are among the creatures that appeared during the cambrian explosion.

Not true. You’re not doing your faith any favors by preaching untruths. Those organisms mentioned developed before the Cambrian explosion.

In this period a great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells appeared at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared.

Stop lying, Pegg. Of 30 or so phyla, 5-9 phyla already existed BEFORE the explosion, e.g., things like worms, sponges, jellyfish. And at least 8 phyla only appear AFTER the explosion. Just after the Cambrian explosion, you find no primates, no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no jawed fish, no birds, no insects, no land life, etc. All those evolved later. And we have transitional fossils, too!

10 million years may seem like a long time, but its not. Its a tiny fraction of the 4 billion years of the earths existence.

Well, 10 million years is a long time. No matter what you think about it. I encourage you to start holding your breath now and then start breathing again in 10 million year’s time. We might here fewer untruths coming from your side.

And the biggest hurdle i see is that among those cambrian creatures, there are no intermediate fossil links .... even Darwin admitted this fact.

Guess what? We found some of those intermediates in the meantime. You ignored 160 years of finding fossils since Darwin wrote his book.

.. btw, if anyone wants to know, i dont find this information off the internet. It comes from a very well researched book by the Watchtower called 'Evolution or Creation' ... if anyone would like a copy please PM me and i'd by happy to send you a copy.

Your source is totally untrustable because it lies.

 

[Shermana]

Guess what? We found some of those intermediates in the meantime. You ignored 160 years of finding fossils since Darwin wrote his book.

Please list these intermediates. I'm guessing you're going to include Tiktaalik. Well let me pre-emptively debunk that one real quick:

From the Tiktaalik finders themselves:

Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies, and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs, and axial skeleton of early tetrapods."[4]

[4] Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, "A Devonian Tetrapid-like Fish and the Evolution of the Tetrapod Body Plan," Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 757-763.

According to Ahlberg and Clack, "Fish evolution Specialists"

"although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging."[7]

[7] P.E. Ahlberg and J.A. Clack, News and Views, Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 747-749.



And Austrolopithecus too:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188

Science et Vie, France.

 

[Krok]

Please list these intermediates.

Oh, here’s one. Haikouella lanceolata. It resembles a small eel with a frilly dorsal fin. It had a head, brain, heart, and, most importantly and take note: cartilaginous bar along the back: a proto notochord. And it was found in rocks dating to around 530 million years ago- during the Cambrian explosion.

Haikouella lanceolata is the fossil of the earliest chordate, the group that gave rise to all vertebrates, including ourselves. Before that, we don’t have any fossils having notochords. A very neat transitional fossil creationists love to ignore and pretend that it does not exist!

If you want to get educated, do some work. Lists of transitional fossils are available in a lot of scientific publications. I gave you one fossil, which is one more than any evidence for “poofing” into existence.

I'm guessing you're going to include Tiktaalik.

No, I wasn’t. Tiktaalik comes from rocks about 375 million years old, and therefore not from the Cambrian explosion. Pegg lied about the Cambrian explosion, remember!

You know, an education in the basics is very important, especially want to “proof” those thousands of experts wrong in their areas of expertise. You should try a basic education one day. It’s wonderful!

Well let me pre-emptively debunk that one real quick:From the Tiktaalik finders themselves:[4] Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, "A Devonian Tetrapid-like Fish and the Evolution of the Tetrapod Body Plan," Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 757-763.

Devonian. Nothing to do with the Cambrian explosion. And they call it a Tetrapid-like fish. A fossil with features of both fish and tetrapods. A perfect transitional fossil.

According to Ahlberg and Clack, "Fish evolution Specialists"

"although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits.... the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging."[7] P.E. Ahlberg and J.A. Clack, News and Views, Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 747-749.

And exactly how does this “disqualify” Tiktaalik from being a transitional fossil? It has features from both fish and from tetrapods.The authors said it themselves. A perfect example of a transitional fossil! Are you trying to score an own goal?

And Austrolopithecus too:

Science et Vie, France.

A fossil from 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago. The Cambrian explosion was around 530 million years ago? Are you trying to hide the lies spread by Pegg?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mostly to improve the efficiency of sweat cooling. Sweat cooling is hard to do with fur.

wa:do

Apes dont seem to have that problem. But wait, we evolved from apes...hmmm.

 

[painted wolf]

there is plenty of room for error when we try to put everything in the same box and claim its evidence that they are all linked.

Then I suggest you stop using the word phyla and stop talking about the "Cambrian explosion". Because that box up there is exactly what phyla means and the shared ancestor of all those critters is what was found in the Cambrian.
Not dogs or cats or even fish... but those squiggly little critters like Pikaia.

within the same group of animals, yes there is certainly evidence for relationship. I agree with you totally on that. But between the different types of animals, it cannot be proven. And having a backbone certainly doesnt do it for me.

Again, stop using the word phyla then and stop using the "Cambrian explosion". Because by using it you are saying you accept the evidence for the evolution of the Chordata (our phylum).

Mind you it isn't just the backbone that all Chordates share, there is a pretty sizable list of traits both morphological, genetic and molecular.

those things are among the creatures that appeared during the cambrian explosion. In this period a great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells appeared at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared. 10 million years may seem like a long time, but its not. Its a tiny fraction of the 4 billion years of the earths existence.

Yes, but the first beginnings of shells predate the Cambrian... it's called the small shelly fauna.
Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the biggest hurdle i see is that among those cambrian creatures, there are no intermediate fossil links .... even Darwin admitted this fact.

Darwin lived 160 years ago... and going :ignore: every time someone points out that you are wrong and shows you the Precambrian intermediate fossil links doesn't exactly make for a reasonable discussion.

I and others have pointed out to you on several occasions the flaws with your "Cambrian explosion" argument... and that it's decades out of date.

Anyway, using the "Cambrian explosion" and phyla as terms is utter self defeating for you if you want to claim that dogs and cats are not related. Dogs and Cats are the same phyla and neither appeared in the Cambrian, suddenly or otherwise.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Apes dont seem to have that problem. But wait, we evolved from apes...hmmm.

Apes do not efficiently sweat cool. They do sweat, but it's not enough to cool them out in the open sun. Which is why they tend to avoid open areas in favor of thick forest.

wa:do

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is totally factual Pegg.

we are a branch of the great apes. We evolved, based on billions of facts. You need to get over it.

Facts? I haven't seen one fact yet. If we evovled from ape to human, why are there still apes around?? Makes no sense.

No we use to have hair that covered our bodies and we evolved and lost it.

So we evovled from apes, and lost our hair. Yet, apes still have hair?? Makes no sense.

Keep trying Pegg, to dimiss the billions of facts of evolution. You won't be able too, you can deny it, but not explain it away scienctifically, if you can the world would like to hear your hypothesis.

There is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Evolution is a religion. It has not been observed and you cant prove it by science. If you believe in evolution, you believe in a religion. It is a faith based system and should not be taught in schools any more than theism.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

evolution occurs,


Cats have evolved, no doubt about it

Dogs have evolved from this:

what nature shows is that when animals become isolated, they develop very original features...but they are still from the same phyla...they dont produce a biologically different phyla. And what proves that they are the same phyla is that they can produce hybrids...so you can breed a lion with a tiger, or a wolf with a domestic dog...they can breed because they are the same phyla. And that is where, in my opinion, evolutionists have it wrong...evolution doesnt produce new phyla.

Exactly. Microevolution and microevolution are two different things. Good post.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We don't need science to tell us that God is dead.

Right, but we can count on science to tell us how life can come from nonlife, order can come from chaos, and intelligence can come from non-intelligence, and something can come from nothing. Science will hit the ball out of the park when it comes to these things.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Apes do not efficiently sweat cool. They do sweat, but it's not enough to cool them out in the open sun. Which is why they tend to avoid open areas in favor of thick forest.

wa:do

So, if they are living fine now based on their genetic makeup and their surroundings, why did the evolution take place?? Apes always had hair, there was always thick forest around, so what was the purpose of evovling? And i thought natural selection was about gaining, not losing. The above quote is a hypothesis based on your scientific religion. Face it, you have a religion that you are accepting by faith.

 

[painted wolf]

Facts? I haven't seen one fact yet. If we evovled from ape to human, why are there still apes around?? Makes no sense.

So we evovled from apes, and lost our hair. Yet, apes still have hair?? Makes no sense.

There is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Evolution is a religion. It has not been observed and you cant prove it by science. If you believe in evolution, you believe in a religion. It is a faith based system and should not be taught in schools any more than theism.

Are you a poe?

wa:do