The Strange Thing about Creationism

[idav]

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.

What critical gaps are you looking for. Lungfish? Ape-men? There is evidence of such things and these don't satisfy your gaps? I don't care if it was a random mutation or the hand of god doing it, it definitely fits evolution. The only other thing to consider at that point is purposeful interference which is very hard to prove by either side.

One thing to keep in mind is that we don't develop things like lungs or legs so we can breath and walk out of water. Evolution doesn't work that way. We mutate, develop things and end up using them to our advantage if it isn't something that kills us.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?"

I'm saying that they are not "just another breed". They are a distinct species. It sometimes happens of different species crossbreeding, although it is rare.

 

[idav]

There really are no gaps in evolution which can dent the theory in any way.

I have been trying to say this and it can't be stressed enough. Anyone who found anything that could even dent evolution would win the Nobel Prize.

 

[Shermana]

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..."

Is it just me or is your article lacking any actual specific information in the details department, I'd like to see a SINGLE fact in that entire page. If you're going to say that this article supports your claims, you should try actually reading it, and then show where it actually supports anything. Any links on it that show where its getting its info from for example.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please explain how different they are.

What? Don't you know the fundamental difference between a endogenous retrovirus and a parvovirus? And here I thought you were such an expert in the field!

And btw, where are those calculations?

 

[Jose Fly]

Is it just me or is your article lacking any actual specific information in the details department, I'd like to see a SINGLE fact in that entire page.

Wow. You read the paper at the first link already? Are you a speed reader too?

 

[Shermana]

I'm saying that they are not "just another breed". They are a distinct species. It sometimes happens of different species crossbreeding, although it is rare.

If they can interbreed, that means they are technically the same species. The word "Species" as I've mentioned is a bit of a muddied issue since Camels and Llama can have fertile offspring. As it stands, there are numerous claims by "reputable sources" that they were the same species. It helps if you keep up to date.

Human-Neanderthal Hybrid?
Neanderthal Code | Neanderthals the Same Species? | National Geographic Channel

 

[Shermana]

Wow. You read the paper at the first link already? Are you a speed reader too?

In that same amount of time you could have quoted something from it that actually discusses specific details of the findings.

 

[Shermana]

What? Don't you know the fundamental difference between a endogenous retrovirus and a parvovirus? And here I thought you were such an expert in the field!

And btw, where are those calculations?

In the same amount of time you could have explained.

My calculations are as such: If Parvoviruses are 100% guaranteed to be able to replicate similarly in animals of drastically different species, then there's a 95% chance (5% margin of erro) that ERVs since they are similar in structure, will also affect species similarly in the same locations.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Again I find myself astounded that a self-avowed expert such as yourself is so surprisingly ignorant of so much relevant science.

PLoS Computational Biology: Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

And just in case that too is beyond your "expertise", here is a blog entry for laypeople that describes this research:

The Loom : What's A Gene For?

 

[Shermana]

Again I find myself astounded that a self-avowed expert such as yourself is so surprisingly ignorant of so much relevant science.

PLoS Computational Biology: Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

And just in case that too is beyond your "expertise", here is a blog entry for laypeople that describes this research:

The Loom : What's A Gene For?

I wonder if you've read your own papers, can you quote something from them that actually proves your case? What does SIFTER's accuracy on gene prediction have to do with Micro-evolution being used to define Macro?

 

[idav]

What does SIFTER's accuracy on gene prediction have to do with Micro-evolution being used to define Macro?

First because they use the theory of evolution to predict results with astounding accuracy. This is from the article.

Those who claim to have a legitimate alternative to evolution might want to try to match SIFTER. They could take the basic principles of whatever they advocate and use them to come up with a mathematical method for comparing genes. No stealing any SIFTER code allowed--this has to be original work that doesn't borrow from evolutionary theory

Second Micro-evolution IS Macro-evolution given enough time.

 

[Jose Fly]

In that same amount of time you could have quoted something from it that actually discusses specific details of the findings.

I did. That's what the whole "complete fossil record" and "showing the entire evolutionary history" stuff was about.

In the same amount of time you could have explained.

But you're avoiding the issue. Why do I need to explain the fundamental difference between a parvovirus and an endogenous retrovirus to a world-renowned expert?

My calculations are as such: If Parvoviruses are 100% guaranteed to be able to replicate similarly in animals of drastically different species, then there's a 95% chance (5% margin of erro) that ERVs since they are similar in structure, will also affect species similarly in the same locations.

Wow. That's absolutely amazing! When do you plan on writing that up and getting it published?

I wonder if you've read your own papers

Absolutely. I've read the PLOS paper many, many times.

can you quote something from them that actually proves your case?

Sure. When you were asked why biological research continues to produce useful results when it's based on "macroevolution", you responded with a challenge to show modern research that is based on "macroevolution". So I posted the PLOS paper that shows how when researchers plugged genome sequences from taxa as diverse as flies, worms, humans and such into a program that's based on phylogenetic relationships, they were able to predict gene function to a 96% degree of accuracy. Here is the relevant part of the paper:

"Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy....Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods...The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems."

So tell me O' wise expert...if "macroevolution" is bunk as you claim, how in the world do we explain these results?

 

[LuisDantas]

If they can interbreed, that means they are technically the same species.

No, it doesn't. As you go on to admit. Do you even have a point?

The word "Species" as I've mentioned is a bit of a muddied issue since Camels and Llama can have fertile offspring. As it stands, there are numerous claims by "reputable sources" that they were the same species. It helps if you keep up to date.

Human-Neanderthal Hybrid?
Neanderthal Code | Neanderthals the Same Species? | National Geographic Channel

 

[Shermana]

No, it doesn't. As you go on to admit. Do you even have a point?

What do you mean "As you go on to admit", and why do you say "No it doesn't?"

So what makes them different species then in the face of all those links I posted.

 

[Shermana]

I did. That's what the whole "complete fossil record" and "showing the entire evolutionary history" stuff was about.


But you're avoiding the issue. Why do I need to explain the fundamental difference between a parvovirus and an endogenous retrovirus to a world-renowned expert?


Wow. That's absolutely amazing! When do you plan on writing that up and getting it published?


Absolutely. I've read the PLOS paper many, many times.


Sure. When you were asked why biological research continues to produce useful results when it's based on "macroevolution", you responded with a challenge to show modern research that is based on "macroevolution". So I posted the PLOS paper that shows how when researchers plugged genome sequences from taxa as diverse as flies, worms, humans and such into a program that's based on phylogenetic relationships, they were able to predict gene function to a 96% degree of accuracy. Here is the relevant part of the paper:

"Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy....Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods...The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems."

So tell me O' wise expert...if "macroevolution" is bunk as you claim, how in the world do we explain these results?

There's not enough of a difference between ERVs and Parvoviruses to say that one can't be like the other regarding triggering exact or similar locations through the insertions. SIFTER is nice but I don't see what your answer has to do with proving Macroevolution, its good for Micro, but if you're trying to say it can predict radical gene changes that make a fruit fly turn into something else, nope.

If anything this is just even more proof to my statement that the word "Micro" and "Macro" evolution are muddied to assume that one can assume radical changes from gradual ones that go out of the initial "mold".

 

[Shermana]

First because they use the theory of evolution to predict results with astounding accuracy. This is from the article.



Second Micro-evolution IS Macro-evolution given enough time.

But that's not what SIFTER proves. SIFTER can predict Micro transitions, which I've brought up such as in the links about Epigenetics.

Macro-evolution is the SPECULATION of what will happen through such gene changes, but SIFTER cannot prove such. Neither can any transitional gene be found to prove such.

I understand that Macro-evolution is the THEORY of what will happen with enough Microevolution, but as you can see with all the gaps I presented, it doesn't fly.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's not enough of a difference between ERVs and Parvoviruses to say that one can't be like the other regarding triggering exact or similar locations through the insertions.

Really? Any empirical evidence to back that up?

SIFTER is nice but I don't see what your answer has to do with proving Macroevolution, its good for Micro, but if you're trying to say it can predict radical gene changes that make a fruit fly turn into something else, nope.

You didn't read any of the material, did you? I suggest you go back and read the paper, the blog post, and my subsequent explanation.

And you're avoiding the virtually complete fossil record I provided you as well as telling me when you're going to publish your calculations on ERV insertion.

 

[Shermana]

Unexpected endogenous viruses

/ Until very recently, retroviruses were the only known endogenous viruses. This honor has now been extended to other RNA viruses, and to circoviruses and parvoviruses, which possess single-stranded DNA genomes. Such integration events constitute a fossil record from which it is possible to determine the age of viruses.

I asked for proof of this "Virtually complete fossil record", where is it?

 

[idav]

I understand that Macro-evolution is the THEORY of what will happen with enough Microevolution, but as you can see with all the gaps I presented, it doesn't fly.

As you stated a "species" might be able to procreate with another species. It is beside the point. We are talking about enough changes to make species incompatible with each other which given enough changes will eventually diverge into whatever you want to call a different species.

Also there are not any gaps that need creationism to explain away. The gaps need evolution to explain and as all good theories do, will predict that any gaps filled will support evolution even further.

It does fly and every single fossil IS a transitional fossil. EVERY fossil we find supports evolution further. What missing link can we possibly find that shows anything but slow gradual change?