The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

Its pretty simple really. The all too famous transition of humans is a good example. My point being that all we find is stuff supporting evolution. If we EVER found a modern human skull dating back 150 thousand years then it would be a good argument against evolution but nothing like that exists. You don't expect us to find every single link do you? Forget finding every link I just want one fossil that stands out against evolution showing that it didn't just emerge into being in a timely fashion like the rest of the animals on this planet.

Drawings don't count as evidence. If you don't have the missing link(s), then you are basing your theory on pure speculation. There's also the issue of the major Chinese fake fossil industry (they fool enough scientists to make big bucks!) but like I said, that's another issue. As it stands, I think you haven't examined the actual known findings to be able to verify the evidence of transition.

Do you realize there should have been billions and billions of these transitional specimens in just a matter of 200,000 years? Did they all just dissolve that less than .0001% fossilized? You'd think we'd find hundreds of missing links of each variety by now even at such a percentage.

 

[Shermana]

ERV's appear when a retrovirus inserts itself into the germ cells of an organism. The will show up in every descendant of that organism until some other genetic change deletes them.

Do you know how many ERV's there are in the human genome?

Do you know how many are found in the same location in the genome of other primates?

Do you know what the odds of this are?

Since they're finding new ones, I can't tell ya the exact count. What's the current as of now?

Functional characterization of two newly identified Human Endogenous Retrovirus coding envelope genes

The odds of independent insertions into similar locations is....pretty likely I'd say, with the Gorilla in the room in agreement.

 

[Jose Fly]

The odds of independent insertions into similar locations is....pretty likely I'd say,

So let's see your calculations. The probability of the exact same retrovirus infecting two non-related species, inserting itself into the exact same location in the respective genome, and doing so in germ line cells that not only go on to produce offspring, but offspring that eventually have their ERV represented in the entire species.

Let's see it.

with the Gorilla in the room in agreement.

Ah, so just gonna ignore that whole thing and stick to what the liars at the Dishonesty Institute said, eh? Yup...figured.

 

[Jose Fly]

Funny thing...just read this over at Pharyngula:

It's always good to go straight to the source : Pharyngula

I tell other scientists all the time that their work is being appropriated by creationists who barely understand it, and that it is getting distorted to support bogus pseudoscience. Whenever you see a creationist quote a genuine science paper, you can pretty much trust that it is going to be mangled beyond recognition.

Amazing coincidence! (But not as amazing as two non-related species having the exact same ERV in the exact same location)

 

[idav]

Drawings don't count as evidence. If you don't have the missing link(s), then you are basing your theory on pure speculation. There's also the issue of the major Chinese fake fossil industry (they fool enough scientists to make big bucks!) but like I said, that's another issue. As it stands, I think you haven't examined the actual known findings to be able to verify the evidence of transition.

Do you realize there should have been billions and billions of these transitional specimens in just a matter of 200,000 years? Did they all just dissolve that less than .0001% fossilized? You'd think we'd find hundreds of missing links of each variety by now even at such a percentage.

Your insistence that we find every single missing link is ludicrous. You do realize that most animals decompose after death right? Indeed we are damn lucky to find what we do. Like I keep saying, what we don't find is any evidence to suggest anything other than evolution being the means to find the origins of all life on this planet.

Have at it with this link. Still no evidence of alien interference or whatever. We don't find humans back millions of years or any other animal out of evolutionary sequence.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shermana]

So let's see your calculations. The probability of the exact same retrovirus infecting two non-related species, inserting itself into the exact same location in the respective genome, and doing so in germ line cells that not only go on to produce offspring, but offspring that eventually have their ERV represented in the entire species.

Let's see it.


Ah, so just gonna ignore that whole thing and stick to what the liars at the Dishonesty Institute said, eh? Yup...figured.

Is it much different than a Parvovirus affecting similar structures within other animals?

Rodent Parvoviruses: Non-human Viruses That Affect Human Health

 

[Shermana]

Your insistence that we find every single missing link is ludicrous. You do realize that most animals decompose after death right? Indeed we are damn lucky to find what we do. Like I keep saying, what we don't find is any evidence to suggest anything other than evolution being the means to find the origins of all life on this planet.

Have at it with this link. Still no evidence of alien interference or whatever. We don't find humans back millions of years or any other animal out of evolutionary sequence.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, what's ludicrous is the idea that theories can be presented as fact without discussion of the direct evidence. If you want to use a Wikipedia article, I suggest you quote from it a specific text that you feel supports your argument.

 

[idav]

No, what's ludicrous is the idea that theories can be presented as fact without discussion of the direct evidence. If you want to use a Wikipedia article, I suggest you quote from it a specific text that you feel supports your argument.

It all supports the evolutionary argument and thats the whole point i've been making. No one shred of evidence to debunk evolution except for creationist speculation. It would be much easier to find a fossil that debunks evolution but thus far does not exist. Sounds very similar to the absence of evidence for god. All we can go by is the data we have and so far null for creationists.

Your argument that lizards can only become other lizards should ring true for primates becoming other primates and your argument works against you as you go further back and the similarities are closer for the type of speciation you are looking for. You sound like someone who wants to see a wolf give birth to a tiger but we both know that isn't how reproduction or evolution works.

 

[Shermana]

It all supports the evolutionary argument and thats the whole point i've been making. No one shred of evidence to debunk evolution except for creationist speculation. It would be much easier to find a fossil that debunks evolution but thus far does not exist. Sounds very similar to the absence of evidence for god. All we can go by is the data we have and so far null for creationists.

Your argument that lizards can only become other lizards should ring true for primates becoming other primates and your argument works against you as you go further back and the similarities are closer for the type of speciation you are looking for. You sound like someone who wants to see a wolf give birth to a tiger but we both know that isn't how reproduction or evolution works.

If you think there's not one shred of evidence to debunk the theory, then you're saying that all the gaps don't matter, as if you can just assume "It happened on its own". There is not nearly enough true fossil evidence to show any kind of transition, like I said, I don't know if you've actually examined the fossil record, if you don't feel that there's a need to have the "missing link" presented as fact, that's your opinion.

But it's not confirmed fact, and that's the basis of my rebuttal against the OP, it seems that Macro-Evolutionists are willing to make drastic conclusions without any evidence about the results of proven MICRO-evolution. As you can see, I don't disagree with Micro-evolution, but at what point fish become walking land mammals and when "Sweat glands" formed an intricate lactation system, you have no solid evidence of the transition. Lizards becoming other lizards is nothing like Chimps becoming other primates, the only explanation for the primate transition is in "Random Mutation". Lizards don't form such a massive change in the base pairs, let alone the rest of the structure.

You can say that there's proof of the transition all you want, proving it is another story. Just because people SPECULATE that it happened doesn't mean that it happened. Even the Wikipedia "Transitional fossils" proves nothing except what is SPECULATED about them, most of them are far from complete and show no evidence of true transition.

You'll have to explain why you think I'd want to see a wolf give birth to a Tiger. I'm saying that they don't even share the same ancestor with bears like that one guy posted the video about. Have you seen the video? Where is the evidence in it?

 

[idav]

You'll have to explain why you think I'd want to see a wolf give birth to a Tiger. I'm saying that they don't even share the same ancestor with bears like that one guy posted the video about. Have you seen the video? Where is the evidence in it?

Here is a link that shows how the evolution of the wolf came about based with a timeline and information about where they were found. It paints a very specific picture. They also use the term beardog for something found millions of years ago which should satisfy your transitional stage. Obviously we can't see what happened millions of years ago and get a quick timelapse. Of course you will just argue that beardog is just a different species but there are way too many coincidences showing that these changes came over time as new species emerged similar but different from their predecessors which fits both micro and macro evolution.

Chronology of Wolf Evolution

 

[Shermana]

Here is a link that shows how the evolution of the wolf came about based with a timeline and information about where they were found. It paints a very specific picture. They also use the term beardog for something found millions of years ago which should satisfy your transitional stage. Obviously we can't see what happened millions of years ago and get a quick timelapse. Of course you will just argue that beardog is just a different species but there are way too many coincidences showing that these changes came over time as new species emerged similar but different from their predecessors which fits both micro and macro evolution.

Chronology of Wolf Evolution

Got any sites that actually have the empirical evidence to discuss? I want specifics on "Canine Radiation".

 

[idav]

Got any sites that actually have the empirical evidence to discuss? I want specifics on "Canine Radiation".

Just like our DNA similarities to chimps we can find the relation between species showing precisely what is shared and what is different. We are more closely related to neanderthal than chimps which shouldn't be too surprising as they were our primary competition as modern humans emerged. The fossils and timeline of the fossils is the some of the best evidence we have. The transitions are obvious and can be put in chronological order.

The only specualtion that occurs is what may have caused isolated species to diverge from each other. The most easy way for species to be isolated isn't environmental but when species can no longer procreate with each other. The fact that any species can diverge in a relatively short amount of time is clear evidence of speciation necessary for macro-evolution to even be possible.

To expect us to find every single missing link is a fallacy. What do you think when we find so much evidence of primates in Africa and they go in a timeline slowly getting to the point where a primate walks upright? Where is the missing link there? The missing link for creationist is to find a modern human that lived beyond 200 thousand years ago.

Visual aids are a very good way to get points across so have another pictures.

 

[Shermana]

Just like our DNA similarities to chimps we can find the relation between species showing precisely what is shared and what is different. We are more closely related to neanderthal than chimps which shouldn't be too surprising as they were our primary competition as modern humans emerged. The fossils and timeline of the fossils is the some of the best evidence we have. The transitions are obvious and can be put in chronological order.

The only specualtion that occurs is what may have caused isolated species to diverge from each other. The most easy way for species to be isolated isn't environmental but when species can no longer procreate with each other. The fact that any species can diverge in a relatively short amount of time is clear evidence of speciation necessary for macro-evolution to even be possible.

To expect us to find every single missing link is a fallacy. What do you think when we find so much evidence of primates in Africa and they go in a timeline slowly getting to the point where a primate walks upright? Where is the missing link there? The missing link for creationist is to find a modern human that lived beyond 200 thousand years ago.

Visual aids are a very good way to get points across so have another pictures.

Neanderthals are proven to be contemporaries with modern man and much later than first thought, and that they interbred and were basically the same species. There is some speculation Neanderthals simply had Iodine deficiency. They are said to have been equal if not greater intelligence and had burial customs and language. Same with the Erectus, just a variety.

 

[Shermana]

Neanderthals are proven to be contemporaries with modern man and much later than first thought, and that they interbred and were basically the same species. There is some speculation Neanderthals simply had Iodine deficiency. They are said to have been equal if not greater intelligence and had burial customs and language. Same with the Erectus, just a variety.

The "Man-ape" however is just another kind of ape.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

The "Man-ape" however is just another kind of ape.

Shermana, do you realise that evolution from one species to another is accepted fact, with substantial, incontroversial evidence to support it? Seriously, its in the fossils. Its in the DNA. It's evident all around us. Every single piece of genuine evidence ever found points to the fact of evolution. It really isn't debatable.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, do you realise that evolution from one species to another is accepted fact, with substantial, incontroversial evidence to support it? Seriously, its in the fossils. Its in the DNA. It's evident all around us. Every single piece of genuine evidence ever found points to the fact of evolution. It really isn't debatable.

Do you have something specific or significant to add to the discussion? The fact that the theory is accepted as fact is exactly the basis of my rebuttal.

The evidence for Creation and a Guiding hand is "all around us". From one species to another SUBspecies is certainly correct, as I've mentioned with the fruit flies. Now if you can explain how the transition went from gills to lungs happened, and why the Lungfish only developed an air-pumping "Swim bladder".

The fact that you say "Its not debatable" is further proof to my rebuttal of the OP

 

[idav]

Neanderthals are proven to be contemporaries with modern man and much later than first thought, and that they interbred and were basically the same species. There is some speculation Neanderthals simply had Iodine deficiency. They are said to have been equal if not greater intelligence and had burial customs and language. Same with the Erectus, just a variety.

There is no evidence that humans and neanderthal could interbreed and we can actually verify with DNA samples that are available from neanderthal. I don't doubt they had decent intelligence as do all our primate cousins. Your explaining how a divergence was possible which is fine, it just proves evolution.

The only reason we are able to see plant and insect evolution much easier is because many of them can go through hundreds of generations in a single year. If humans could have offspring in a matter of days we would see very quick divergence even to the point of speciation.

 

[Shermana]

There is no evidence that humans and neanderthal could interbreed and we can actually verify with DNA samples that are available from neanderthal. I don't doubt they had decent intelligence as do all our primate cousins. Your explaining how a divergence was possible which is fine, it just proves evolution.

The only reason we are able to see plant and insect evolution much easier is because many of them can go through hundreds of generations in a single year. If humans could have offspring in a matter of days we would see very quick divergence even to the point of speciation.

Neanderthals 'bred with early humans' - Science, News - The Independent

Scientists prove humans bred with Neanderthals - The Local

Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans - NYTimes.com

 

[Shermana]

Similarly, there is variety in skull shape even among modern human races, which can technically be classified into categorized "sub" species. (Note: Not "sub" as in "subhuman")

Racial differences in skull shape. | Mathilda’s Anthropology Blog.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6807001_types-human-skull-shapes.html

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Do you have something specific or significant to add to the discussion? The fact that the theory is accepted as fact is exactly the basis of my rebuttal.

The evidence for Creation and a Guiding hand is "all around us". From one species to another SUBspecies is certainly correct, as I've mentioned with the fruit flies. Now if you can explain how the transition went from gills to lungs happened, and why the Lungfish only developed an air-pumping "Swim bladder".

The fact that you say "Its not debatable" is further proof to my rebuttal of the OP

Two things -

although I shouldn't need to defend facts, as they require no defence, I will.
Natural selection is how gills to lungs happened. Do you know how natural selection works? It acts on mutations over time. Mutations are mostly harmful, but beneficial mutations do occur, and are 'selected'. It isn't debatable because it is fact. Nobody debates that trees exist, or stars exist, or gravity exists, because its fact. Not debatable.

Where is your evidence for your creationist argument?