Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[roli]

don't. When I cite something, I give the cite. For several reasons: Otherwise it's illegal. You can verify it yourself (just like science). It gives credit where credit is due. It retains my credibility when I'm honest about what are my words and what someone elses. And it is consistent with forum rules

Thanks for clarifying all this, it really is noble.
But all your sources are not bias at all and percisely factual, ok then.....!

It's irrelevant to the strength of his position, but it's wrong and he needs to stop doing it, as do you. Also once I track down the places where you get this crap, we can all see that they're very, very weak. I cite things like wiki, Encyclopedia--neutral, scientific sources
And maybe your sources are fictional crap and quite often subject to retraction as well.

And there are many conflicts and opposing views to information in the sources you cite, not to mention within the evolution community. I'm sure you'll defy this ever happens and spin it to your favor like you so often do, that you are materful at.

Lionheart, like you, knows almost nothing about science. Hey, it's no crime. A few years ago, neither did I. Ignorance can always be rectified. Until it is, though, it's a weak weapon indeed.

[/QUOTE]
And what you know comes from spewing what others say, does that make you more knowledgable or just convinced in what you read and study.

 

[Autodidact]

This is good news if it is transitional and will go far if it is,have they done any dna tests on it yet so that we know that is transitional or just a seperate species that like many others became extinct.

Transitional species are all separate species. There is no creature on earth that does not belong to a species. Does the fact that you know almost nothing about the subject give you any pause, when stating confidently that the world's leading biologists, every department of biology at every university in your country, is wrong?

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously an engineering degree is'nt great but i get by.Anyway to your fossil i say yes it is interesting and there aught to be millions more and more recent as then it would be possible to do a dna test on it which would be interesting.

There are thousands more, England, that's what painted wolf is trying to show you. The museums are filled with them, and thousands of intelligent scientists study them to learn about the relationships between various species, extinct and living. Yet you, who know nothing about them and didn't even know they existed, are confident they are wrong.

Say some biologist tells you that (don't know what kind of engineer you are, but) suspension bridges couldn't possibly work, and why can't anyone show him a true suspension bridge, wouldn't you be tempted to tell him that (1) he doesn't know what he's talking about (2) Here are some examples of actual, working suspension bridges? That's how paleontologists feel when you, an engineer, tell them there are no transitional fossils. Do you want to see some more?

 

[Autodidact]

roli:
No one can deny that evolution is a controversial subject. But there is virtually no controversy about the basic theory and its validity within biology. It's completely mainstream, consensus, uncontroversial, basic science. The only controversy is between this established scientific knowledge and the anti-science, creationist, political movement. That's why I can cite sources like Encylopedia Britannica, wikipedia, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth, and you have to cite non-scientists and right-wing crack-pots. That's why the subject gets me hot and bothered--it's not two opposing scientific viewpoints. It's science vs. anti-science. And that's dangerous.

 

[ericmurphy]

That is precisely the point! I am glad evolutionist is beginning to admit their theory is flawed.

I'm not "admitting" anything, and certainly not a "flaw" in evolutionary theory. I am making an assertion: if common descent is true, then we will find no gross morphological features that cannot be derived from more primitive features. And guess what? When we look at organisms, living or fossilized, that is exactly what we find. We do not find any features that cannot in principle be derived from pre-existing features. Thus a major prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed.

Now—what is ID's explanation for this observation? It doesn't have one. In fact, ID cannot exclude any conceivable observation, because it makes no falsifiable predictions.

The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.*

This is totally incorrect. Gross morphological features (such as the human hand) can indeed be extrapolated via microevolutionary change from much more primitive characters, such as the forelimbs of primitive tetrapods. What you will not see, and what common descent predicts you will never see, is gross morphological change with no microevolutionary changes in between.

Which is spectacularly confirmed by the fossil record as we have it, despite the fact that it is massively incomplete.

Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.*

This is an assertion entirely unfounded on evidence. The evidence supporting microevolutionary change that can be extrapolated to gross morphological change is seen throughout the fossil record, from the earliest Ediacaran fauna to living taxa.

Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs resulting to new genetic information.

You keep saying biological information can only decrease, but a) you have provided no measure, rigorous or otherwise, for genetic information, nor b) any demonstration that it cannot increase. Hence, this assertion is entirely lacking in merit.

I assume from your other posts that by “evolution” you mean macro-evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, correct me if I’m wrong.

You're wrong. "Molecules-to-man" necessarily includes abiogenesis, which is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains the evolution (and evolution, by the way, that is far beyond rational dispute) from one or a small number of universal common ancestors up to the taxa in existence today.

That's what I mean when I say "macroevolutionary theory," or "evolutionary theory." There is no "microevolutionary theory."

Well for you to VERIFY for us this theory you will have to show evidence that organism can change genetically from simple organisms to more complex organisms that we human beings are.

No I don't. Since there's no evidence that any organisms more complex than humans exist, I certainly don't need to demonstrate that evolution can do something it has never done.

But if you want evidence that organisms can evolve from the simplest prokaryotes to the crown groups in existence today, the fossil evidence essentially proves that it can happen. Any argument from genetics only elucidates the process by which it happens, not that it can happen at all. We already know, beyond any possibility of doubt, that it can happen. The only remaining questions at this point are, what are the precise mechanisms by which it can happen.

 

[ericmurphy]

In order to deny that genetic "information" (whatever that is) can increase, creationists have to deny two things that can be trivially demonstrated in any genetics lab. 1) they have to deny that genes can be duplicated. (To my knowledge, creationists do not deny this). 2) they have to deny that a duplicated gene can mutate in a way that makes it different from the original copy, which amounts to a claim that mutations cannot happen. (To my knowledge, creationists don't deny this either).

Therefore, to sustain a claim that "genetic information" cannot increase, creationists have to claim both that genes cannot be duplicated, and that mutations cannot happen.

Both of these claims, singly and in combination, fail.

 

[camanintx]

In order to deny that genetic "information" (whatever that is) can increase, creationists have to deny two things that can be trivially demonstrated in any genetics lab. 1) they have to deny that genes can be duplicated. (To my knowledge, creationists do not deny this). 2) they have to deny that a duplicated gene can mutate in a way that makes it different from the original copy, which amounts to a claim that mutations cannot happen. (To my knowledge, creationists don't deny this either).

Therefore, to sustain a claim that "genetic information" cannot increase, creationists have to claim both that genes cannot be duplicated, and that mutations cannot happen.

Both of these claims, singly and in combination, fail.

4Pillars has already admitted to both of these in Post 359 and Post 312, he just can't seem to put two and two together and see that totally refute his argument.

 

[4Pillars]

I'm not "admitting" anything, and certainly not a "flaw" in evolutionary theory. I am making an assertion: if common descent is true, then we will find no gross morphological features that cannot be derived from more primitive features. And guess what? When we look at organisms, living or fossilized, that is exactly what we find. We do not find any features that cannot in principle be derived from pre-existing features. Thus a major prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed.

Now—what is ID's explanation for this observation? It doesn't have one. In fact, ID cannot exclude any conceivable observation, because it makes no falsifiable predictions.

Huh... Another vain attempt at making macro-evolution an "operational science"???

The claim that some things "can only be explained by intelligent design" does not require exhaustive knowledge about nature, we only need to acknowledge the fact that only intelligent agency can produce complex specified information. The only causal alternatives to that are chance and laws, but chance can only produce complexity, while laws can only produce specificity. Celestial mechanics does not deal with the ORIGIN of celestial motions, rather it deals with the observable mechanics of celestial bodies, hence it's an "operational science, deal with it.

Evolution on the other hand makes speculative predictions about the ORIGIN of species (sounds familiar?), that's why its a "historical/origins science". That you can use "operational science" today to test the historical theories of evolution doesn't make evolution "operational science"--dream on.

Creationists use the same operational science to bolster their case. It's not the science, it's the assumptions or philosophy behind the science that marks the difference. Until you see that difference you simply will remain confused.


:yes:

 

[4Pillars]

In order to deny that genetic "information" (whatever that is) can increase, creationists have to deny two things that can be trivially demonstrated in any genetics lab. 1) they have to deny that genes can be duplicated. (To my knowledge, creationists do not deny this). 2) they have to deny that a duplicated gene can mutate in a way that makes it different from the original copy, which amounts to a claim that mutations cannot happen. (To my knowledge, creationists don't deny this either).

Therefore, to sustain a claim that "genetic information" cannot increase, creationists have to claim both that genes cannot be duplicated, and that mutations cannot happen.

Both of these claims, singly and in combination, fail.

We don't deny that, we simply don't see that in the biosphere. But that has not stopped evolutionists from speculating it. It is regularly observed that CHANCE does not create new information, it merely garbles it, leading to less information no matter how much time you a lot. So 4.5 billions years? Heck, I'll give you 100 billion years, and chance will still not produce anything with specified complexity.

Just in case you miss reading my previous post...

Splicing DNA does not make macro-evolution "operational science". Evolutionist like to talk so much about MACRO-evolution ("from goo to you" theory) but all they can offer as evidence are examples of adaption WITHIN a specie. In case they didn't know before, micro-evolution or descent with modification happens everytime a baby is born. So, please, tell us something new.

Read my lips, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution. It's this ridiculous BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept --1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics.


:sorry1:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, read my lips, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution.

Again, read my lips: what constrains "micro-evolution"?

 

[4Pillars]

Again, read my lips: what constrains "micro-evolution"?

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical and speculations. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.

You want a clear distinction for your learning purposes? Here's one: "Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."

 

[fantome profane]

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical and speculations. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.

You want a clear distinction for your learning purposes? Here's one: "Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."

But this doesn’t answer the question. What if there were a long series of gradual gradations between “reptiles and birds”?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change in a reptile to result in a reptile that had some small birdlike feature?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change to take place in a reptile that had a slight birdlike feature to result in a reptile that had a slightly more birdlike feature?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change to take place in a reptile that had a slightly more birdlike feature to result in a reptile that had and even more birdlike feature?


I hope I don’t need to continue with this to make my point. The question is what limits this the effect of slight micro evolutionary changes. What you call macro evolution is nothing more then the culmination of several (thousands, millions, billions) of slight micro evolutionary changes.


So what constrains the cumulative effect of micro evolutionary changes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical and speculations.

Yet again: what constrains "micro-evolution"?

 

[camanintx]

The claim that some things "can only be explained by intelligent design" does not require exhaustive knowledge about nature, we only need to acknowledge the fact that only intelligent agency can produce complex specified information. The only causal alternatives to that are chance and laws, but chance can only produce complexity, while laws can only produce specificity.

If chance can produce complexity and laws can produce specificity, then what prevents chance and laws together from producing "complex specified information"?

 

[4Pillars]

But this doesn’t answer the question. What if there were a long series of gradual gradations between “reptiles and birds”?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change in a reptile to result in a reptile that had some small birdlike feature?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change to take place in a reptile that had a slight birdlike feature to result in a reptile that had a slightly more birdlike feature?

Is it impossible for a slight micro evolutionary change to take place in a reptile that had a slightly more birdlike feature to result in a reptile that had and even more birdlike feature?


I hope I don’t need to continue with this to make my point. The question is what limits this the effect of slight micro evolutionary changes. What you call macro evolution is nothing more then the culmination of several (thousands, millions, billions) of slight micro evolutionary changes.


So what constrains the cumulative effect of micro evolutionary changes?

Based on your hypothetical and highly speculative questions above, are you trying to insinuate to us that the 4.5 billion years of “evolution” is not enough time to prove these wild imaginations and predictions of EvolutionISM? As I have said before, I will give you another 100 billion years if you wish. Chances are, it's not going to happen.

For the meantime, don’t get your hope so high. The existing fact right now is ALL LIVING CREATURES ARE CONFINED TO THEIR KINDS. Now try to refute that.


:yes:

 

[Aasimar]

Based on your hypothetical and speculative queries above, are you trying to insinuate to us that the 4.5 billion years of “evolution” is not enough time to prove thes predictions? As I have said, I will give you another 100 billion years, if you wish. Chances are, it's not going to happen.

For the meantime, don’t get your hope (Evol's blind faith) so high. The existing fact is ALL LIVING CREATURES ARE CONFINED TO THEIR KINDS. Now try to refute that.


:yes:

Well I suppose you'll have to define "Kinds" to start with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ALL LIVING CREATURES ARE CONFINED TO THEIR KINDS.

What constrains "micro-evolution"?

 

[ericmurphy]

Huh... Another vain attempt at making macro-evolution an "operational science"???

The claim that some things "can only be explained by intelligent design" does not require exhaustive knowledge about nature, we only need to acknowledge the fact that only intelligent agency can produce complex specified information. The only causal alternatives to that are chance and laws, but chance can only produce complexity, while laws can only produce specificity. Celestial mechanics does not deal with the ORIGIN of celestial motions, rather it deals with the observable mechanics of celestial bodies, hence it's an "operational science, deal with it.

Evolution on the other hand makes speculative predictions about the ORIGIN of species (sounds familiar?), that's why its a "historical/origins science". That you can use "operational science" today to test the historical theories of evolution doesn't make evolution "operational science"--dream on.

Creationists use the same operational science to bolster their case. It's not the science, it's the assumptions or philosophy behind the science that marks the difference. Until you see that difference you simply will remain confused.


:yes:

In other words, you cannot address the fact that evolutionary theory makes falsifiable predictions, and Intelligent Design "theory" cannot. I've given you a list of falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory has made; predictions that have been confirmed. In response, you make the entirely unsupported claim, without a scrap of argument to support it, let alone evidence, that "only intelligence can produce complex specified information."

Bland assertions without support don't get you anywhere. I do not "acknowledge" that "only intelligent agency" can produce "complex specified information," a term that is poorly defined and unmeasurable in any event.


So if you think Intelligent Design "theory" is science, you must think it can make falsifiable predictions. Give me one.

 

[ericmurphy]

We don't deny that, we simply don't see that in the biosphere. But that has not stopped evolutionists from speculating it. It is regularly observed that CHANCE does not create new information, it merely garbles it, leading to less information no matter how much time you a lot. So 4.5 billions years? Heck, I'll give you 100 billion years, and chance will still not produce anything with specified complexity.

Hey, it was your claim that genetic information "cannot increase." Now you've admitted that it can. You claim that there's no evidence it ever has. I point to the fossil record, which is pretty conclusive evidence that it can. You, on the other hand, have no explanation for the fossil record at all.

Just in case you miss reading my previous post...

Splicing DNA does not make macro-evolution "operational science". Evolutionist like to talk so much about MACRO-evolution ("from goo to you" theory) but all they can offer as evidence are examples of adaption WITHIN a specie. In case they didn't know before, micro-evolution or descent with modification happens everytime a baby is born. So, please, tell us something new.

That's preposterous. The fossil record alone is conclusive evidence of the reality of macroevolution. The presence of nested hierarchies in the fossil record and in living organisms is essentially proof beyond all possibility of doubt that common descent with modification is a reality. Creationism has absolutely no explanation for the fossil record at all, and it certainly cannot explain nested hierarchies.

Read my lips, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution. It's this ridiculous BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept --1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics.


:sorry1:

1) nested hierarchies alone, without reference to anything else, are conclusive proof of common descent, which is the central tenet of macroevolutionary theory, and 2) there is nothing in genetics that is evidence at all that macroevolution cannot happen. The twin nested hierarchies of genetics and morphology are as conclusive evidence for macroevolution as any evidence in all of science ever is for anything.

 

[4Pillars]

Well I suppose you'll have to define "Kinds" to start with.

I believe I have already address that by giving you a clear distinction from my previous post.... look

Things reproduce according to their kind, just like the Bible says (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). They always have and they always will—while ever this world exists.

… But no new 'kinds'
There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. If there are no genes present for producing feathers, you can breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get anything with feathers! Polyploidy (multiplication of the number of chromosomes), chromosome translocations, recombination and even (possibly) mutations can generate 'new species', but not new information, not new characteristics for which there were no genes to start with.