The Strange Thing about Creationism

[idav]

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

All well and interesting yet you can't see that we have common ancestors across species especially as closely related we are to chimps?

 

[Storm]

The fact that the theory is accepted as fact is exactly the basis of my rebuttal.

So you're the theological equivalent of some hipster who stops listening to a band when they get popular?

"If it was good, no one would like it...."

:drool:

 

[Shermana]

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?

More proof of my rebuttal to the OP.

If you have any proof of HOW IT HAPPENED, that would certainly help your argument. You may not have read any of my replies on the specifics, but you have some huge gaping holes and gaps such as bats developing wings that are best attributed to "random mutation". As well, you have cases like the Bombardier Beetle which are otherwise impossible to explain outside of random mutation.

Have you actually read any of the theories involving the gaps? You are welcome to believe that there's no explanation for the gaps needed, or no gaps to begin with.

My evidence for Creationism besides exposing the gaps is more concerned with Astrophysics such as the very young Magnetic fields, which is on a separate topic. Until then, I am proving that you base your assumptions without any shred of proof whatsoever and that it is purely tilted (and accepted) because of its anti-biblical implications.

 

[LuisDantas]

Out of curiosity, Shermana: if the Theory of Evolution is so faulty, how do you explain that it works well enough for whole (succesful and very lucrative, btw) technology fields to rely on it?

Is it some sort of prank that wasn't found out?

 

[Shermana]

So you're the theological equivalent of some hipster who stops listening to a band when they get popular?

"If it was good, no one would like it...."

:drool:

Have you once actually critiqued any of the many specifics I've mentioned?

 

[Shermana]

Out of curiosity, Shermana: if the Theory of Evolution is so faulty, how do you explain that it works well enough for whole (succesful and very lucrative, btw) technology fields to rely on it?

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the observed Microevolutionary basis of modern research.
Is it some sort of prank that wasn't found out?

Again, more distortion of the word "evolution" and that's why I spend 10 posts describing why I believe in MICROevolution and neo-Lamarckian Epigenetics.

Pplease explain how and why modern research application doesn't fall under Microevolution and why it shows proof of inter-speciation with radical changes.

More proof of my claim that the word is highly muddied as if to distort the facts (Microevolution, proven, no problem) as if it will support theories of radical change that have no basis whatsoever with the Micro-models.

It may be necessary to explain the distinction in each post, but if that's what it takes.

 

[Storm]

Have you once actually critiqued any of the many specifics I've mentioned?

I try to avoid playing chess with pigeons.

 

[Shermana]

I try to avoid playing chess with pigeons.

Well if you want to track on to any of the actual arguments instead of dropping snide ad hominems that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, feel free. I can present a list of the issues so far if that would be helpful.

 

[idav]

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.
Types of Human Skull Shapes | eHow.com

We can see something similar in dogs. Many different shapes but able to breed. That isn't a problem. It is completely possible that like dogs the various primates could breed within limits. And the same way we can trace back all those silly dog shapes back to the wolf we can do the same with all those different skull shapes back to a common ape ancestor.

 

[Storm]

Well if you want to track on to any of the actual arguments instead of dropping snide ad hominems that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, feel free. I can present a list of the issues so far if that would be helpful.

I've seen your responses to the people who do that. I'm not THAT bored.

 

[Shermana]

We can see something similar in dogs. Many different shapes but able to breed. That isn't a problem. It is completely possible that like dogs the various primates could breed within limits. And the same way we can trace back all those silly dog shapes back to the wolf we can do the same with all those different skull shapes back to a common ape ancestor.

That's what I'm saying, Erectus and Neanderthal are just different kinds of breeds, just like how modern human skulls have many differences, they are all the same species.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's what I'm saying, Erectus and Neanderthal are just different kinds of breeds, just like how modern human skulls have many differences, they are all the same species.

That is what you say, but that is not what people actually knowledgeable with the evidence say. At least, not when they are being honest.

 

[Shermana]

We can see something similar in dogs. Many different shapes but able to breed. That isn't a problem. It is completely possible that like dogs the various primates could breed within limits. And the same way we can trace back all those silly dog shapes back to the wolf we can do the same with all those different skull shapes back to a common ape ancestor.

That's what I'm saying, Erectus and Neanderthal are just different kinds of breeds, just like how modern human skulls have many differences, they are all the same species and thus all the same. There is no proof however they came from the "ape-man", if so , please show how they all came from the ape-man.

 

[Shermana]

That is what you say, but that is not what people actually knowledgeable with the evidence say. At least, not when they are being honest.

Please show a link that says the opposite of what I'm saying especially in the face of those 3 links I posted. Are you saying Neanderthals didn't breed with "humans?"

 

[idav]

There is no proof however they came from the "ape-man", if so , please show how they all came from the ape-man.

Like I said the proof is in the fossil record and there is no better explanation than evolution. Why don't we find modern erect humanoids further back? Creationism does not have an explanation other than trying to debunk scientific dating methods.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

More proof of my rebuttal to the OP.

If you have any proof of HOW IT HAPPENED, that would certainly help your argument. You may not have read any of my replies on the specifics, but you have some huge gaping holes and gaps such as bats developing wings that are best attributed to "random mutation". As well, you have cases like the Bombardier Beetle which are otherwise impossible to explain outside of random mutation.

Have you actually read any of the theories involving the gaps? You are welcome to believe that there's no explanation for the gaps needed, or no gaps to begin with.

My evidence for Creationism besides exposing the gaps is more concerned with Astrophysics such as the very young Magnetic fields, which is on a separate topic. Until then, I am proving that you base your assumptions without any shred of proof whatsoever and that it is purely tilted (and accepted) because of its anti-biblical implications.

The mutation is random, the selection is not. Don't you grasp that concept? If a mutation is detrimental, it will die out of the gene pool. If it is beneficial, it will be 'selected' to survive.
There really are no gaps in evolution which can dent the theory in any way. Seriously, you creationists just see it as: one more link makes two more gaps. Its pretty silly.
Evolution is endorsed because it has anti-biblical implications? Uhm...no. Just no. Would you say that about anything which contradicts scripture? I believe so. Show some evidence for this belief that evolution is only accepted because it isn't biblically convenient.
And your creationist argument? Can you give some proper points, because you didn't go into detail about what you mean. I don't actually need to defend my point as much as you - my point is fact (evolution). Yours is faith.

 

[Shermana]

Like I said the proof is in the fossil record and there is no better explanation than evolution. Why don't we find modern erect humanoids further back? Creationism does not have an explanation other than trying to debunk scientific dating methods.

What do you mean Creationism does not have an explanation? I've proven 10 cases where Macro-evolutionary theory doesn't have an explanation for critical gaps, and you just brush over them.

You say the proof is in the fossil record, please show a link that confirms the transition.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Rodent Parvoviruses: Non-human Viruses That Affect Human Health

Yes, it's very different. Why does a world-renowned expert in evolutionary biology such as yourself have to ask?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, it's very different. Why does a world-renowned expert in evolutionary biology such as yourself have to ask?

Please explain how different they are.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

No kind of transition at all? Gosh, if only we had a virtually complete fossil record of the evolutionary history of an entire taxonomic family.....

ScienceDirect - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology : Paleobiogeographic patterns in the morphologic diversification of the Neogene planktonic foraminifera

EVOLUTION AT SEA: COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

"In recent years, however, scientists began revisiting the oceans, curious about how certain sea fossils fit models of evolutionary theory synthesized almost entirely from scattered, often puzzling evidence recovered from dry land. Some intriguing results turned up recently in the laboratories of two Florida State University (FSU) marine paleontologists.

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

The organism that Arnold and Parker study is a single-celled, microscopic animal belonging to the Foraminiferida, an order of hard-shelled, planktonic marine protozoans...

...The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."

By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which ovet the eons have in fact destroyed most evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits the paleontologists to study in detail not only how a whole species develops, but how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood...

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work.

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time...

...Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion..."