The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

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?

What I stated is that the word "Species" is muddied. Technically a real species in the true sense of the term, should not be able to interbreed. But there are so many exceptions that the word "Species" is up to debate.

http://www.macroevolution.net/Definition-of-Species.html

So why were Neanderthals a different species?

If you think that every fossil is "Transitional" that's a nice opinion, please back it with actual facts so the claims of transitions can be examined in detail.

If you think there are no gaps like lactation and bats and fish that walk and blowholes in whales, you assume that "Random mutation" explains it all, which is an opinion, but not a well supported one.

I wonder if you've actually looked at the evidence, for one to not even admit that there are gaps.

 

[idav]

So why were Neanderthals a different species?

If you think that every fossil is "Transitional" that's a nice opinion, please back it with actual facts so the claims of transitions can be examined in detail.

If you think there are no gaps like lactation and bats and fish that walk and blowholes in whales, you assume that "Random mutation" explains it all, which is an opinion, but not a well supported one.

I wonder if you've actually looked at the evidence, for one to not even admit that there are gaps.

I know the species debate and am comfortable with not able to interbreed for the purposes of the discussion. It is really beside the point. You already acknowledge that speciation can happen but how can you not follow from there that that divergence can cause infinite changes that will be different.

Every fossil is a change from parent to child so every single fossil will be different and if we had a line of parent to child we would see with great detail where changes occurred. Obviously we can't have millions of years of parent to child so we deal with the evidence we have.

I know issues on explaining oddities and it is a very wide field so its best to stick to one thing at a time. I heard you mention how gills could become lungs and you brought up lung fish which means they can both be in species not to mention amphibians. There are THEORIES on how gilled animals developed lungs but it isn't a theory that it happened. How it happened is the question it isn't a question if it happened. So we "evolved" then how? How did we get posable thumbs? How did we get that fused chromosome. These are very good questions and we have theories on how those things happened have have facts to support how such mutations might occur. The question isn't whether evolution happens, the question is how? Even all our math supports evolution and dna analysis is able to predict with great accuracy as previously mentioned.

Speaking statistically, it came out that it is virtually impossible that we came from multiple organisms. The math with dna analysis says that every organism came from a common ancestor for evolution to be the way it came to be.

Common Ancestry: We Come From One | Labcoat Life | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Shermana]

I know the species debate and am comfortable with not able to interbreed for the purposes of the discussion. It is really beside the point. You already acknowledge that speciation can happen but how can you not follow from there that that divergence can cause infinite changes that will be different.

Every fossil is a change from parent to child so every single fossil will be different and if we had a line of parent to child we would see with great detail where changes occurred. Obviously we can't have millions of years of parent to child so we deal with the evidence we have.

I know issues on explaining oddities and it is a very wide field so its best to stick to one thing at a time. I heard you mention how gills could become lungs and you brought up lung fish which means they can both be in species not to mention amphibians. There are THEORIES on how gilled animals developed lungs but it isn't a theory that it happened. How it happened is the question it isn't a question if it happened. So we "evolved" then how? How did we get posable thumbs? How did we get that fused chromosome. These are very good questions and we have theories on how those things happened have have facts to support how such mutations might occur. The question isn't whether evolution happens, the question is how? Even all our math supports evolution and dna analysis is able to predict with great accuracy as previously mentioned.

Speaking statistically, it came out that it is virtually impossible that we came from multiple organisms. The math with dna analysis says that every organism came from a common ancestor for evolution to be the way it came to be.

Common Ancestry: We Come From One | Labcoat Life | Learn Science at Scitable

You ask me "How can you not accept that the divergence allows for all these gaps that I claim don't exist yet have avoided discussing in detail".

Why don't you name 5 of the gaps I've claimed, and tell me your explanation for them. I know there are theories for them, and they don't hold up to water.

 

[Jose Fly]

Unexpected endogenous viruses

Yes...what does that have to do with your claim "one can't be like the other regarding triggering exact or similar locations through the insertions"?

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

Sheesh. Slow down for a second and pay attention to what people post to you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-thing-about-creationism-26.html#post2506334

So now we know that macroevolution occurs as evidenced by observed speciation events, the fossil record, and the fact that evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa provide a highly accurate framework for discerning genetic function. We also know that humans and other primates share a common ancestry as evidenced by the shared ERV's (and the fact that creationists can only offer "it's all a coincidence" in reply).

 

[idav]

You ask me "How can you not accept that the divergence allows for all these gaps that I claim don't exist yet have avoided discussing in detail".

Why don't you name 5 of the gaps I've claimed, and tell me your explanation for them. I know there are theories for them, and they don't hold up to water.

This is a great video someone posted around here. It explains some of the common components that still linger in the chicken from it's dinosaur ancestry including how similar arms are to wings.

[youtube]0QVXdEOiCw8[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken‬‏

Here is a comparison of some mammal arms and how similar they are.

 

[Shermana]

Elaine Moore Graves' and Autoimmune Disease Education > My Articles > Environmental Triggers and Influences > Human Parvovirus B19 Infection Parvoviruses have specific targets and specific locations

We do NOT know that "Macroevolution occurs as evidenced by observed speciation evidents". We know MICROevolution occurs. That is all that's been proven, and recent Lamarckian epigenetics prove that it can happen VERY quickly, but not outside of the initial chassis, though it may have "Activatable genes" that cause "not-so-random mutations" but "programmed mutations". The Fossil Record is full of gaps and holes ,and trying to say otherwise is evidence of being uninformed on the subject and ignoring the many gaps discussed.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a great video someone posted around here. It explains some of the common components that still linger in the chicken from it's dinosaur ancestry including how similar arms are to wings.

[youtube]0QVXdEOiCw8[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken‬‏

Here is a comparison of some mammal arms and how similar they are.

This is the fascinating aspect of species comparison, thanx for the informative posts btw

 

[Jose Fly]

Elaine Moore Graves' and Autoimmune Disease Education > My Articles > Environmental Triggers and Influences > Human Parvovirus B19 Infection Parvoviruses have specific targets and specific locations

And? Your point is?

We do NOT know that "Macroevolution occurs as evidenced by observed speciation evidents".

Yes we do. That's what "macroevolution" is, evolution above the species level. Sorry, but despite your unusually high level of expertise, you still don't get to make up your own definitions to established terms.

The Fossil Record is full of gaps and holes ,and trying to say otherwise is evidence of being uninformed on the subject and ignoring the many gaps discussed.

Of course it is; it always will be. Why in the world would anyone expect every member of every species that's ever existed on earth to be both fossilized and discovered?

But as in the example I provided, there are some rare lineages that are exceptionally well-preserved and cataloged, and they show a very clear picture of gradual Darwinian-style evolution. That plus the other genetic data certainly lays your earlier claim that "macroevolution" is without evidence as false.

 

[Shermana]

Baby chickens use their "teeth" to break out of their shell. I don't see anything on that video which shows anything conclusive on why a dinosaur's skeleton resembles a bird's. They even went out of their way to make up the "Archaeoraptor" to try to fill in the gap. There's only so many ways to make a weight-bearing hand, and each specimen would require massive random mutations to support entire bone-structure changes. Let me know when you show the transition of blow-holes. I will return to this.

 

[Shermana]

And? Your point is?


Yes we do. That's what "macroevolution" is, evolution above the species level. Sorry, but despite your unusually high level of expertise, you still don't get to make up your own definitions to established terms.


Of course it is; it always will be. Why in the world would anyone expect every member of every species that's ever existed on earth to be both fossilized and discovered?

But as in the example I provided, there are some rare lineages that are exceptionally well-preserved and cataloged, and they show a very clear picture of gradual Darwinian-style evolution. That plus the other genetic data certainly lays your earlier claim that "macroevolution" is without evidence as false.

The point is that Endogenous viruses can have independent, near-exact similar effects across a wide range of animals in similar locations.

When you show proof of actual transitions from fish and reptiles to birds, and the root ancestor of the Platypus and Echidna, let me know.

What has been proven so far is exactly what I advocated when I made my first 3 links of Lamarckianism, which is Epigenetic transition.

 

[idav]

We do NOT know that "Macroevolution occurs as evidenced by observed speciation evidents".

What we know is that once speciation occurs that evolution can become very much different since interbreeding will no longer occur. Given enough time you are bound to get other species. The difference merely being number of chromosomes which determines whether interbreeding is possible. Are you saying chromosome changes cannot occur in Micro evolution?

We know MICROevolution occurs.

Ok

That is all that's been proven, and recent Lamarckian epigenetics prove that it can happen VERY quickly, but not outside of the initial chassis, though it may have "Activatable genes" that cause "not-so-random mutations" but "programmed mutations".

Programmed mutations? What gives you that idea? We get everything from descendants but what makes you think new sequences can't occur without intervention.

The Fossil Record is full of gaps and holes ,and trying to say otherwise is evidence of being uninformed on the subject and ignoring the many gaps discussed.

I am not going to spend time and go over millions of years of evidence to fill your gap quota. Think of it like this. We convict people of crimes with evidence and we construct theories with facts. We NEVER have all the facts it is impossible. What we do is gather enough factual evidence to make a conclusion. It would be cool if we could always have video evidence but thats unreasonable.

 

[Shermana]

What we know is that once speciation occurs that evolution can become very much different since interbreeding will no longer occur. Given enough time you are bound to get other species. The difference merely being number of chromosomes which determines whether interbreeding is possible. Are you saying chromosome changes cannot occur in Micro evolution?
Ok
Programmed mutations? What gives you that idea? We get everything from descendants but what makes you think new sequences can't occur without intervention.
I am not going to spend time and go over millions of years of evidence to fill your gap quota. Think of it like this. We convict people of crimes with evidence and we construct theories with facts. We NEVER have all the facts it is impossible. What we do is gather enough factual evidence to make a conclusion. It would be cool if we could always have video evidence but thats unreasonable.

The odds of a beneficial chromosome change from a single or few cases becoming the dominant population so far is pretty much 0 without any evidence of doing so, unless you show a single beneficial chromosome change, show at what point the "humanoid" fused from 24 to 23.

Saying you never have ALL the facts is correct, if the "facts" don't exist to begin with. What is known so far is that there are various "kinds" of species, and the word "species" is up to debate, and there are little changes within the DNA that can occur as far as adaptation is concerned. But the fossil record in no way indicates that many of the gaps I've referred to in my past posts are explainable in plausible terms through current theory, and if you think otherwise, you're welcome to explain your take on them, such as when bats developed their wings exactly, and if the Fruit bat developed independently from primates for example.

As to the OP, the Creationist does not necessarily have to aim to prove the Bible right, he simply has to prove that the assertions of the Macro-evolutionist are implausible or aren't proven in plausible terms. If you think a few drawings and a few skulls is good enough to prove that Neanderthals and Eretctus were different species, good for you! But for the person who keeps up to date, questions like if they interbred become crucial for determining whether the "divergence" was really "speciation" or "Sub-speciation".

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/18/19/2315.full.html Cancer research could benefit greatly from how "Epigenetic activation" occurs.

Epigenetic programming is crucial in mammalian development, and stable inheritance of epigenetic settings is essential for the maintenance of tissue- and cell-type-specific functions (Li 2002). With the exception of controlled genomic rearrangements, such as those of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor genes in B and T cells, all other differentiation processes are initiated or maintained through epigenetic processes. Not surprisingly therefore, epigenetic gene regulation is characterized overall by a high degree of integrity and stability. Evidence is accumulating that suggests that the intrinsic stability is caused by multiple interlocking feedback mechanisms between functionally unrelated epigenetic layers, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) and histone modifying enzymes, resulting in the stable commitment of a locus to a particular activity state. In somatic cells, the transcriptional status of most genes is epigenetically fixed. However, other genes, such as cell cycle checkpoint genes and genes directly affected by exogenous stimuli such as growth factors or cell-cell contact, likely reside in a balanced state sensitive to dynamic adjustments in histone modifications, thereby allowing for rapid responses to specific stimuli. Perturbation of epigenetic balances may lead to alterations in gene expression, ultimately resulting in cellular transformation and malignant outgrowth; the involvement of deregulated epigenetic mechanisms in cancer development has received increased attention in recent years

Maybe if I replaced the word "Micro-speciation" with "Sub-speciation" it would make more sense. As it stands, current Epigenetics proves how quickly Subspeciation can occur, such as with Humans with significantly different formed skulls as well fruit flies, as well as bacteria. But nothing has been proven whatsoever that fish wlil start walking and breathing, poor Lungfish got stuck with a Swim-bladder.

 

[idav]

Let me know when you show the transition of blow-holes.

Sure, sure just brush it off as if the evidence doesn't exist. Here is how it is shown in the fossil record the emergence of a blow-hole. Pandasthumb is a decent source for your questions.

Whale evolution: The blowhole - The Panda's Thumb

 

[Shermana]

Sure, sure just brush it off as if the evidence doesn't exist. Here is how it is shown in the fossil record the emergence of a blow-hole. Pandasthumb is a decent source for your questions.

Whale evolution: The blowhole - The Panda's Thumb

Give me something to brush off to begin with, quote something from there that decisively proves anything.

 

[idav]

The odds of a beneficial chromosome change from a single or few cases becoming the dominant population so far is pretty much 0 without any evidence of doing so, unless you show a single beneficial chromosome change, show at what point the "humanoid" fused from 24 to 23.

The Rise of Human Chromosome 2: The Dicentric Problem - The Panda's Thumb

Saying you never have ALL the facts is correct, if the "facts" don't exist to begin with. What is known so far is that there are various "kinds" of species, and the word "species" is up to debate, and there are little changes within the DNA that can occur as far as adaptation is concerned.

Facts do exist. Having a fossil and that something existed is a fact. The facts on how we come to a relative date must also be taken into consideration. Saying no facts is presumptuous.

But the fossil record in no way indicates that many of the gaps I've referred to in my past posts are explainable in plausible terms through current theory, and if you think otherwise, you're welcome to explain your take on them, such as when bats developed their wings exactly, and if the Fruit bat developed independently from primates for example.

You would have to look up the evolution of bats which I'm not really interested in. I've seen that the hands are very similar to the rest of species with arms and transition is just a matter of some more coding.

As to the OP, the Creationist does not necessarily have to aim to prove the Bible right, he simply has to prove that the assertions of the Macro-evolutionist are implausible or aren't proven in plausible terms.

Yes it is plausible and not any less ridiculous than assuming procreation needs intervention to make the children different from the parents.

If you think a few drawings and a few skulls is good enough to prove that Neanderthals and Eretctus were different species, good for you!

What it proves is slow change from ape like to standing up straight. Show me an upright humanoid during the age of dinosaurs. Why does our "arrival" coincidently match the timeline when we could have emerged through evolution?

But for the person who keeps up to date, questions like if they interbred become crucial for determining whether the "divergence" was really "speciation" or "Sub-speciation".

When we all come from one common ancestor speciation is always "subspeciation". Given enough time these "subspecies" would be in an opposite end of the spectrum.

Epigenetics and cancer Cancer research could benefit greatly from how "Epigenetic activation" occurs.

Yeah no doubt. Point?

Maybe if I replaced the word "Micro-speciation" with "Sub-speciation" it would make more sense. As it stands, current Epigenetics proves how quickly Subspeciation can occur, such as with Humans with significantly different formed skulls as well fruit flies, as well as bacteria. But nothing has been proven whatsoever that fish wlil start walking and breathing, poor Lungfish got stuck with a Swim-bladder.

see above comment

 

[idav]

Give me something to brush off to begin with, quote something from there that decisively proves anything.

The fossil record shows that the nasal drifted over time to the top of the head.

Whales actually came from land mammals. Here is a link with more info on whale evolution.
The Evolution of Whales, Adapted from National Geographic, November 2001

 

[Shermana]

It doesn't "prove" the ape-like creature gradually standing erect, where is this missing link that proves it so conclusively?

My point is that Epigenetic studies proves that there are such thing as genes that are directly "programmed" to "activate" and perform specific effects, for benefit or worse.

I don't understand what you mean why our arrival "coincidentally" matches the Timeline.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia-buffalo-dino.jpg This is not a Chameleon, it is clearly an attempt to fit a Stegosaurus on the carving.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/graphic/terracottastatue2sm.jpg And there's a Teracotta of one.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/graphic/nilemosaicth.jpg This is by "Demetrius the Topagrapher", an Alexandrian.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/graphic/grass.jpg I guess this was just a lizard?

Can you please explain your point from Pandathumb's comments? He has three paragraphs, can you quote from where you deem your point?

 

[Shermana]

The fossil record shows that the nasal drifted over time to the top of the head.

Whales actually came from land mammals. Here is a link with more info on whale evolution.
The Evolution of Whales, Adapted from National Geographic, November 2001

I'd like to see some of these fossils that show the blowhole forming.

 

[idav]

I'd like to see some of these fossils that show the blowhole forming.

In the link already provided.

 

[Shermana]

In the link already provided.

Pakicetus isn't even confirmed as a relative of the whale, it dwelt on land. The Aetiocetus and the Beluga just prove how different locations for the blowhole can result, it doesn't mean it kept "Pushing back".