The Strange Thing about Creationism

[camanintx]

As I showed with Parvoviruses, they develop the same way in the same fashion with different species, they are engineered to attach and insert the same ways.

Does your theory also explain how they managed to collect the same random mutations since they were inserted into the genome?

 

[idav]

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".

Why would you think whales evolve from fish? Fish aren't mammals.

It proves it can just go in different locations so why is it a problem for it to have moved up?

Just brush it off as more coincidence that we can trace gradual changes of the blow-hole over millions of years.

 

[idav]

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.

What do you mean missing link? Over millions of years we have fossils of primates evolving to the point to where standing upright became possible. It was a slow transition.

Yes there are genes that do that but that doesn't prove anything. We know that different sequences do different things.

Man coming to be didn't just happen over night. It took a very long time. Human emergence was an obvious result of previous changes in certain primates. Humans didn't just pop out of thin air back living with dinosaurs. Humans fall into the timeline with the rest of the fossils showing evolution to be how our species came to be.

 

[painted wolf]

Crocodilians have the beginnings of the avian lung system.... they also have a unidirctional air flow, unlike the rest of us with tidal air flow.
Alligator Breathing Sheds Light on Rise of Dinosaurs | LiveScience
Hardly "irreducibly complex".

As for Archy being fake.... LoL! :biglaugh:
Those Victorian forgers knew how to fake things that would only show up under ultraviolet light? They must have been time travelers.... or Aliens! DUN-DUN-DUN....
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And to call Caudipteryx a flightless bird is to be extremely generous with the definition of bird. (so generous that all theropod dinosaurs must be birds)

wa:do

 

[CaptainBritain]

This should just about put it to bed, everything asked exists, and when everything asked for gets provided, the goal posts will just be moved, understand that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and ray comfort etc do not believe in creationism, they just want your money.

[youtube]Qfoje7jVJpU[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism‬‏

 

[Jose Fly]

If you can't actually dispute their claims, anything else is a cop-out.

LOL! Most of what you're linking to is young-earth creationist websites. If you seriously think young-earth creationism still needs to be disputed, you really are delusional.

If the issue of the use of the word "evolution" between observed Micro and Macro wasn't so blurred I wouldn't keep using it, it's like you haven't read anything I posted.

It's not at all blurred. Microevolution refers to evolution within a species e.g. things like the evolution of antibiotic resistance in E. coli. Macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level, e.g. the observed speciation events you've already been linked to.

But there is no mechanistic difference between the two. The only difference between them is the time scale over which they occur (or more accurately, the time scale in which we look at it). You may not like that and wish to redefine these terms to suit your agenda, but to be honest...who cares? As it stands you're some anonymous dude on a religious message board. If you really think you're on to something and have irrefutable arguments, why waste them here where they will have zero impact?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks CaptainBritian.

This should help as well to put chimp and human evolution into perspective.

[youtube]sZ2WoHFc7eE[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Human evolution and missing links (Meet the family)‬‏

To those who deny the morphological and genomic evidence for common ancestry it is to be completely ignorant of the facts.

 

[outhouse]

It's possible that NewHope/Astrid is back under a new name, but I'm not sure. The pattern of posting links that don't support his/her arguments is the same, but other than that, I don't see any other similarities. But, I'll keep my eyes open.

Off to bed now. :sleep:

i wouldnt argue enough to develop a pattern with her.

I would think she would have to change it up so as to not be so obvious.

once the bird stuff hit it was like "red flag"

 

[Shermana]

Why would you think whales evolve from fish? Fish aren't mammals.

It proves it can just go in different locations so why is it a problem for it to have moved up?

Just brush it off as more coincidence that we can trace gradual changes of the blow-hole over millions of years.

Quote me where you think I said whales come fish, I was referring to two separate alleged instances of speciation. If you can't even read my own claims correctly, it's impossible to have a discussion on them.

You assume it "moved up" rather than different species having it in a slightly separate location. This is another example of my rebuttal to the OP, the Macro-evolutionist will assume ANYTHING counts as a transition. Show multiple instances of the blowhole moving up gradually and not just one species with a slightly different location. Pakicetus wasn't even a sea-dweller, nor was Rhodocetus. I asked for fin-legs and weight bearing legs. Talk about brushing off.

 

[Shermana]

LOL! Most of what you're linking to is young-earth creationist websites. If you seriously think young-earth creationism still needs to be disputed, you really are delusional.


It's not at all blurred. Microevolution refers to evolution within a species e.g. things like the evolution of antibiotic resistance in E. coli. Macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level, e.g. the observed speciation events you've already been linked to.

But there is no mechanistic difference between the two. The only difference between them is the time scale over which they occur (or more accurately, the time scale in which we look at it). You may not like that and wish to redefine these terms to suit your agenda, but to be honest...who cares? As it stands you're some anonymous dude on a religious message board. If you really think you're on to something and have irrefutable arguments, why waste them here where they will have zero impact?

I've already shown that modern gene studies shows that there are limits to what can be changed. This article shows that the genes themselves are "programmed".

Epigenetics: How Evolution Is Evolving – National Geographic News Watch

This abstract is more proof that there are "restraints" and "limitations" in gene formation, you can't go from fish to landwalker.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Just because you don't keep up to date with knowledge of what genes are and aren't capable doesn't mean that what I say is wrong.

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n7/full/ni0710-565.html

To explain how epigenetics works, Waddington introduced the notion of an 'epigenetic landscape' in which a heritable phenotype rolls like a Dali-esque ball along a valley surrounded by high ridges, representing the environment. Successive generations of the same phenotype will tend to seek the same path and the phenotype will become fixed, or canalized, regardless of the variability of its environment or genotype. Future research will probably show how immune phenotypes and, most intriguingly, non-immune phenotypes are canalized by pathogens. Tools that were used by pathogens to affect the epigenome may be identified and turned into new epigenetic medicine.

It would be helpful if the word "Evolution" was truly understood as Sub-speciation and changes from within the internal cell to a pattern within a LIMIT, and a programmed limit at that. When you show proof that fish can develop lungs, let me know.

Otherwise, trying to act as if the data and the gaps don't exist is...dishonest.

 

[Shermana]

Crocodilians have the beginnings of the avian lung system.... they also have a unidirctional air flow, unlike the rest of us with tidal air flow.
Alligator Breathing Sheds Light on Rise of Dinosaurs | LiveScience
Hardly "irreducibly complex".

As for Archy being fake.... LoL! :biglaugh:
Those Victorian forgers knew how to fake things that would only show up under ultraviolet light? They must have been time travelers.... or Aliens! DUN-DUN-DUN....
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And to call Caudipteryx a flightless bird is to be extremely generous with the definition of bird. (so generous that all theropod dinosaurs must be birds)

wa:do

Microraptor gui

However, the evidence supporting Microraptor gui being a dinosaur is overwhelming. Microraptor gui has a digit pattern of 1-2-3, rather than the 2-3-4, seen in birds and possesses the “killer” claw which is characteristic in most basal dromaeosaurs. The next question is the phylogenetic position of Microraptor gui (Fig. 2). Xing Xu proposes that Microraptor gui is part of a tetrapteryx stage of evolution. In 1915, William Beebe proposed that the first bird would be a four-winged glider. Evidence for Beebe’s hypothesis comes from the asymmetrical feather vanes that indicate an aerodynamic morphology for flying. Because of the importance of the specimen to the origin of birds, paleoornithologists like Allan Feduccia question whether the fossil is a forgery like Archeoraptor was demonstrated to be. Further study is needed on Microraptor gui, and similar specimens, to better understand the origin of birds and the beginning of flight.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

I love when its non-creationists that are questioning if it might be a hoax. At best it would be a glider.

Also, don't underestimate the Chinese fossil industry, they make big bucks for a reason.

http://physicalscience.thoughts.com...uotmissing-linkquot-fossil-found-to-be-a-fake


[/FONT]

No, it's not just Archaeoraptor, though archaeoraptor was one of the most touted by evolutionists before it was exposed as a fraud. There have been many other fakes exposed as well-

Many of the alleged �intermediates� actually are fully formed, modern feathers, or structures that are not feathers at all.65 For example, Sinosauropteryx �feathers� are actually �filaments�.70�71 Other ancient fossil feather discoveries�such as on the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx�are �true feathers�.72 Touted by some as a dinosaur, Caudipteryx has been dated to within the early Cretaceous, often estimated as 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.73 Evolutionary paleo-ornithologists Feduccia and Martin, staunch critics of the dinosaur-to-bird theory, believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. They have birdlike teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods. Far from being ancestors of Archaeopteryx, cladistic evidence points (under evolutionary presuppositions) to their being birdlike (under their own transforming paradigm), and secondarily flightless descendants of Archaeopteryx

Oh but dinosaur to bird evolutionists......it gets worse for you, much worse.....notice all these "missing links" seem to come from the same province in China, in an area notorious for fakers and frauds? The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the �feathered dinosaurs� in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3 It certainly seems strange that all these �feathered dinosaurs� come from a single province of China�the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!4 However, neither our case nor Feduccia�s against previous �feathered dinosaurs� has ever depended on this particular problem, and the same is true of Microraptor gui, as will be shown. Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs? Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[outhouse]

This should just about put it to bed, everything asked exists, and when everything asked for gets provided, the goal posts will just be moved, understand that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and ray comfort etc do not believe in creationism, they just want your money.

[youtube]Qfoje7jVJpU[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism‬‏

excellent video

shermana why are you ignoring this video

and why cant you refute one part of it with truth?????

 

[Jose Fly]

I've already shown that modern gene studies shows that there are limits to what can be changed. This article shows that the genes themselves are "programmed".

Epigenetics: How Evolution Is Evolving – National Geographic News Watch

It says the exact opposite:

"The prevailing view that variation in a species is simply the result of a DNA program locked off from the world and altered only through random errors in transcription is now clearly too narrow. The study of epigenetics shows us that life and evolution are dynamic processes, based on the complex back-and-forth relationships between organisms and their entire environment."

Again, you apparently think that by saying "epigenetics" over and over, you're going to impress us. I got news for you bud, I'm quite sure those of us here in the biological science were already well aware of it. It is indeed interesting and may be a significant evolutionary mechanism. How exactly you think that supports creationism is unclear.

This abstract is more proof that there are "restraints" and "limitations" in gene formation, you can't go from fish to landwalker.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

???? That article doesn't say "you can't go from a fish to a landwalker" at all. It simply....wait...why do I have to keep explaining to you the articles that you link to?

Tools and landscapes of epigenetics : Nature Immunology : Nature Publishing Group

Um...yeah, great. That's a nice summary of some of the things being explored in epigenetic research. Again, I have no idea how you think that supports creationism.

It would be helpful if the word "Evolution" was truly understood as Sub-speciation and changes from within the internal cell to a pattern within a LIMIT, and a programmed limit at that. When you show proof that fish can develop lungs, let me know.

Oh, I'm quite sure it would help your "cause" if you could redefine accepted terms as you wish. But as I said, you're just some anonymous person on a religious message board, so I don't think that's gonna happen.

Otherwise, trying to act as if the data and the gaps don't exist is...dishonest.

WTF? Who said anything about there not being any gaps? If there were no gaps in our understanding, we wouldn't have "science". We would already know everything.

 

[idav]

Quote me where you think I said whales come fish, I was referring to two separate alleged instances of speciation. If you can't even read my own claims correctly, it's impossible to have a discussion on them.

You assume it "moved up" rather than different species having it in a slightly separate location. This is another example of my rebuttal to the OP, the Macro-evolutionist will assume ANYTHING counts as a transition. Show multiple instances of the blowhole moving up gradually and not just one species with a slightly different location. Pakicetus wasn't even a sea-dweller, nor was Rhodocetus. I asked for fin-legs and weight bearing legs. Talk about brushing off.

No kidding they weren't sea dwellers cause whales came from land mammals. It shows the fossils gradual change. There may be a couple of questions still about the details but this in no way disproves evolution. It just means there are more fossils to find which will undoubtedly add the legitimacy of the evolutionary path of the whale.

Again see the link I've posted already.
The Evolution of Whales, Adapted from National Geographic, November 2001

More food for thought.
Top 15 Misconceptions about*Evolution

Actually, many transitional fossils do exist – for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.

 

[Shermana]

It says the exact opposite:

"The prevailing view that variation in a species is simply the result of a DNA program locked off from the world and altered only through random errors in transcription is now clearly too narrow. The study of epigenetics shows us that life and evolution are dynamic processes, based on the complex back-and-forth relationships between organisms and their entire environment."

Again, you apparently think that by saying "epigenetics" over and over, you're going to impress us. I got news for you bud, I'm quite sure those of us here in the biological science were already well aware of it. It is indeed interesting and may be a significant evolutionary mechanism. How exactly you think that supports creationism is unclear.


???? That article doesn't say "you can't go from a fish to a landwalker" at all. It simply....wait...why do I have to keep explaining to you the articles that you link to?


Um...yeah, great. That's a nice summary of some of the things being explored in epigenetic research. Again, I have no idea how you think that supports creationism.


Oh, I'm quite sure it would help your "cause" if you could redefine accepted terms as you wish. But as I said, you're just some anonymous person on a religious message board, so I don't think that's gonna happen.


WTF? Who said anything about there not being any gaps? If there were no gaps in our understanding, we wouldn't have "science". We would already know everything.

Context helps. The article is about Prions. These activate the DNA to become fixed in certain types. I said there are limits to the structure itself, the quote you quoted refers to the limits of the effects it can do in terms of reprogramming, I am talking about the "Set limits" of the "playing field" of the cellular structure.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1534/3403.full.pdf See page 3

Prions are found inside cells and can take on different shapes, based on environmental conditions such as temperature or the presence of certain chemicals. Once altered, these proteins can bump into other prions and cause them to take on the new shape as well. When the cell divides, both daughter cells will contain prions of both states, and the chain reaction can keep occurring in that new generation.
The magic happens when prions interact with the rest of the cell, and even with DNA itself. The different shapes can cause different proteins to be made, or different parts of the DNA to be read or ignored, which can then trigger different actions or developments in the cell or the whole organism. If the external conditions change though, the other form of the prion will take precedence, and once again perform the original function.

Some may actually become incorporated into the DNA.
​

Halfmann and Lindquist even state that “these traits can ultimately become hardwired by subsequent genetic changes,” meaning some prion alterations may actually become incorporated into the DNA, thus blurring the line between genetics and epigenetics and raising intriguing chicken-and-egg type questions.

 

[Shermana]

excellent video

shermana why are you ignoring this video

and why cant you refute one part of it with truth?????

If you haven't noticed I've spent over 20 minutes replying to other responses and that's a 10 minute video. This video doesn't even discuss the fossil findings in detail, it just says "We found them", do you have anything specific from that video to discuss? You ask me to refute one part of it, why don't you bring up a single point of it to discuss, and why don't you respond to the issue of the Chinese fossil industry while you're at it. Does this video actually discuss anything specific or is it 10 minutes of "Creationism is wrong and we have all the fossils without any flaws in our models haha, (repeat)"

When CB says "This should put it to bed", I have to ask...how? What exactly is that video presenting new to the conversation in terms of the facts and evidence and details?

 

[camanintx]

This abstract is more proof that there are "restraints" and "limitations" in gene formation, you can't go from fish to landwalker.

Saying there are constraints and limitations to evolution is not the same as saying evolution cannot happen. Just because a cow cannot evolve into a whale does not mean they couldn't have come from the same common ancestor.

 

[CaptainBritain]

If you haven't noticed I've spent over 20 minutes replying to other responses and that's a 10 minute video. This video doesn't even discuss the fossil findings in detail, it just says "We found them", do you have anything specific from that video to discuss? You ask me to refute one part of the truth in it, why don't you bring up a single point of it to discuss, and why don't you respond to the issue of the Chinese fossil industry while you're at it. Does this video actually discuss anything specific or is it 10 minutes of "Creationism is wrong and we have all the fossils without any flaws in our models haha, (repeat)"

ie you have nothing to add and took no notice of anything, a more fragile faith I have never seen in another Human being, read to comment section of that video and let me know how ripped apart it got lol,

 

[Shermana]

ie you have nothing to add and took no notice of anything, a more fragile faith I have never seen in another Human being, read to comment section of that video and let me know how ripped apart it got lol,

That's right your video is 10 minutes of talking air without any specifics to add. Let me know when you actually have a video that discusses the actual data in detail and isn't a 10 minute glorification of Macro-theory.

I would say the one who tries to act as if there's more to that video then there really is has the fragile faith.

 

[CaptainBritain]

That's right your video is 10 minutes of talking air without any specifics to add. Let me know when you actually have a video that discusses the actual data in detail and isn't a 10 minute glorification of Macro-theory.

refute any one point made in it.