The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

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.

Sure it does, show me a single study that says that the Cell can develop into something out of the original chassis, as opposed to micro cell changes within the original structure. Otherwise, you're believing in pure speculation when the evidence points to the contrary. For the 10th time, I agree that "Evolution" can happen, just not macro-evolution. Several species of deer and bovines isn't a problem with this understanding of Prions and data activation. These "activatable" genes show clear signs of being "programmed" to "activate".

 

[Shermana]

Here's an easy one: "We can't produce any transitional fossils because the Creationists want crazy examples that Evolution doesn't permit".

Incorrect. I've asked for a simple weight-bearing animal that can breathe air to show the transitoin from fish to land. Lungfish only have a swim bladder. The Rhodocetus isn't very transitional for whales anymore since they found the hind legs are for land-walking. How about a transition to the flying bat? Too much to ask? Yeah, a transitional flying rodent is too "crazy" for an example. Maybe some instances of even just the original "monkey-thing" transitioning to a tail-less ape would be nice.

 

[Jose Fly]

Context helps. The article is about Prions. These activate the DNA to become fixed in certain types.

They can, yes. Again, you're not telling us anything really new here.

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.

That's just wonderful.

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

Yeah. Thanks.

 

[idav]

Maybe some instances of even just the original "monkey-thing" transitioning to a tail-less ape would be nice.

You know we still have tail bones right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure it does, show me a single study that says that the Cell can develop into something out of the original chassis, as opposed to micro cell changes within the original structure. Otherwise, you're believing in pure speculation when the evidence points to the contrary. For the 10th time, I agree that "Evolution" can happen, just not macro-evolution. Several species of deer and bovines isn't a problem with this understanding of Prions and data activation. These "activatable" genes show clear signs of being "programmed" to "activate".

This is what I don't get. You keep arguing that "macroevolution" (as you've arbitrarily redefined it) can't happen, yet to support this argument you keep citing relatively recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic regulation and inheritance in evolution, which (depending on how the research bears out) shows that evolution is even more dynamic and capable of large-scale changes than was thought just a few decades ago.

IOW, your supporting citations contradict your position.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Here's an easy one: "We can't produce any transitional fossils because the Creationists want crazy examples that Evolution doesn't permit".

Incorrect. I've asked for a simple weight-bearing animal that can breathe air to show the transitoin from fish to land. Lungfish only have a swim bladder. The Rhodocetus isn't very transitional for whales anymore since they found the hind legs are for land-walking. How about a transition to the flying bat? Too much to ask? Yeah, a transitional flying rodent is too "crazy" for an example. Maybe some instances of even just the original "monkey-thing" transitioning to a tail-less ape would be nice.

We have amphibious fish today if you check, and fish that have to come up for air, you can touch, smell, taste, hear and hell eat them.

If I list them will that be evidence of fish being able to make the transition to land?

If will not as no evidence will ever be enough then there will be no point listing.

 

[Shermana]

We have amphibious fish today if you check, and fish that have to come up for air, you can touch, smell, taste, hear and hell eat them.

If I list them will that be evidence of fish being able to make the transition to land?

If will not as no evidence will ever be enough then there will be no point listing.

Amphibian Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Amphibians and Amphibian Evolution

Unless you can prove that they transitioned straight out of the water, not really. You'd also have to connect the links to the Mammalian Tetrapods.

 

[outhouse]

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?

so you cannot refute one fact in the video with truth


typical creationist tactic to dance around waving your arms moving sideways out of view


you have no alternate hypothesis let alone theory

what do you have???????????????????????? nothing

 

[Shermana]

This is what I don't get. You keep arguing that "macroevolution" (as you've arbitrarily redefined it) can't happen, yet to support this argument you keep citing relatively recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic regulation and inheritance in evolution, which (depending on how the research bears out) shows that evolution is even more dynamic and capable of large-scale changes than was thought just a few decades ago.

IOW, your supporting citations contradict your position.

It would help if you understood what they're saying as well as what I'm saying.

I said many posts ago I believe in a form of "Hyperevolution" in which species can turn into similar species quickly. This is all that has been observed, sub-speciation. The dynamics of the prions allow for some interesting changes, but nothing that "breaks the mold", such as what I showed on page 3 of that pdf. It specifically mentions the "limits". The prions allow for subspeciation of the initial chassis. However, they are limited in terms of the overall cell. Think of it like a car, the pieces can be replaced to make it run faster, but nothing will change it from a car to something else.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000169

A specialized function is a specialized function. For example An exploding Carpenter ant came from an original base ant, but nothing made it something other than an ant.

 

[outhouse]

Amphibian Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Amphibians and Amphibian Evolution

Unless you can prove that they transitioned straight out of the water, not really. You'd also have to connect the links to the Mammalian Tetrapods.

you dont have the education to dictate what the "links may be connected to"

what is your replacement hypothesis

 

[Shermana]

so you cannot refute one fact in the video with truth


typical creationist tactic to dance around waving your arms moving sideways out of view


you have no alternate hypothesis let alone theory

what do you have???????????????????????? nothing

I already refuted one of the only points on the video. Feel free to actually discuss any of the actual "points" of the video instead of just parading it. The reader might suspect that you haven't actually watched it! I claim that there is nothing substantial discussed and it is basically a 10 minute review of generalizations and smears on Creationists. This is from a time when they still thought Neanderthals were totally different!

You have no alternate hypothesis for a great deal of the gaps like the development of bat wings. Lactation did not come from sweat glands just because they are related in function anymore than Blood came from water.

 

[outhouse]

It would help if you understood what they're saying as well as what I'm saying.

I said many posts ago I believe in a form of "Hyperevolution" in which species can turn into similar species quickly. This is all that has been observed, sub-speciation. The dynamics of the prions allow for some interesting changes, but nothing that "breaks the mold", such as what I showed on page 3 of that pdf. It specifically mentions the "limits". The prions allow for subspeciation of the initial chassis. However, they are limited in terms of the overall cell. Think of it like a car, the pieces can be replaced to make it run faster, but nothing will change it from a car to something else.

PLoS Genetics: The Evolution of Epigenetic Regulators CTCF and BORIS/CTCFL in Amniotes

A specialized function is a specialized function. For example An exploding Carpenter ant came from an original base ant, but nothing made it something other than an ant.

redefining evolution to suit your own needs is not valid and has ZERO scientific backing

 

[outhouse]

I already refuted one of the only points on the video. Feel free to actually discuss any of the actual "points" of the video instead of just parading it. The reader might suspect that you haven't actually watched it! I claim that there is nothing substantial discussed and it is basically a 10 minute review of generalizations and smears on Creationists. This is from a time when they still thought Neanderthals were totally different!

You have no alternate hypothesis for a great deal of the gaps like the development of bat wings. Lactation did not come from sweat glands just because they are related in function anymore than Blood came from water.

you refuted nothing

Im asking the questions, as usual, you answer with a question which amounts to nothing.


you stand behind no science or no valid opinion, looking for holes in science does not discouint it.

ignoring science does not discount it.


Not offering a replacement hypothesis does not discount it.



you have nothing but a invalid opinion only backed by the uneducated

 

[Shermana]

you refuted nothing

Im asking the questions, as usual, you answer with a question which amounts to nothing.


you stand behind no science or no valid opinion, looking for holes in science does not discouint it.

ignoring science does not discount it.


Not offering a replacement hypothesis does not discount it.



you have nothing but a invalid opinion only backed by the uneducated

Ignoring what I said doesn't discount it, they made the claim that no transitional fossils can be discovered according to Creationist specs. Let me know when you find the missing link to the bat and the first land walkers.

 

[outhouse]

Ignoring what I said doesn't discount it, they made the claim that no transitional fossils can be discovered according to Creationist specs. Let me know when you find the missing link to the bat and the first land walkers.

because bat fossils are rare does not discount ToE at all, poor try on your part.

Im sorry you dont have the education to know about the first land walkers that have already been posted.

If there were none, it would not discount ToE at all



you stand behind no science or no valid opinion, looking for holes in science does not discount it.

ignoring science does not discount it.


Not offering a replacement hypothesis does not discount it.



you have nothing but a invalid opinion only backed by the uneducated

 

[idav]

I've asked for a simple weight-bearing animal that can breathe air to show the transitoin from fish to land.

The Tiktaalik is a pretty decent transitional link from fish to land animal but I'm sure you'll find some gaps if your looking for them. Anyway you can see the emergence of a sub-species which could very easily create other sub-species that are less related which is how micro becomes macro after several thousand generations.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Ignoring what I said doesn't discount it, they made the claim that no transitional fossils can be discovered according to Creationist specs. Let me know when you find the missing link to the bat and the first land walkers.

Let me know when you have found that which currently exists, research is king, will use up your time instead of mine.
You give Ray Comfort a run for his money.

Sorry fellows, my patience just ran out, he's all yours.

 

[McBell]

Let me know when you have found that which currently exists, research is king, will use up your time instead of mine.
You give Ray Comfort a run for his money.

Sorry fellows, my patience just ran out, he's all yours.

Frubal for lasting as long as you did.

 

[outhouse]

Frubal for lasting as long as you did.

LOL no kidding

I was just coming back to thank him

 

[McBell]

LOL no kidding

I was just coming back to thank him

Trying to have an honest discussion with someone who is immune to truth and facts is really nothing more than a test of patience.

He has shown he has much more patience with them than I.