The Strange Thing about Creationism

[outhouse]

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.

sure its a he???

 

[Shermana]

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.

I've mention ol' Tik 3 times now I think, how his fins are purely for skimming in the shallow water. No signs of bearing weight.

The Rise and Fall of <i>Tiktaalik</i>? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

 

[McBell]

sure its a he???

I am basing CaptianBritain's gender on the little symbol after "Gender:" listed on the right side of the avatar ribbon under the "Join Date:" and above his number of posts.

 

[idav]

I've mention ol' Tik 3 times now I think, how his fins are purely for skimming in the shallow water. No signs of bearing weight.

It doesn't have to bear weight it just has to show a transition toward it. You are looking for transitional fossil to your own liking that may not exist. The transitions are slow so you may not find what your expecting. This is obvious considering the ape-men fossils people imagined compared to what we actually ended up finding but we have gotten much better at predicting what we will find. Indeed they knew they were looking for a transition between the others in the pic and they knew where to look and found Tiktaalik. There is a significant gap still between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. Like I and others have stated, not having all the links doesn't disprove evolution it just means we have more fossils to find which will only conform ToE further.

A New Approach to Earth History | Tiktaalik roseae

 

[Shermana]

It doesn't have to bear weight it just has to show a transition toward it. You are looking for transitional fossil to your own liking that may not exist. The transitions are slow so you may not find what your expecting. This is obvious considering the ape-men fossils people imagined compared to what we actually ended up finding but we have gotten much better at predicting what we will find. Indeed they knew they were looking for a transition between the others in the pic and they knew where to look and found Tiktaalik. There is a significant gap still between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. Like I and others have stated, not having all the links doesn't disprove evolution it just means we have more fossils to find which will only conform ToE further.

A New Approach to Earth History | Tiktaalik roseae

Did you read that link? Tik shows no signs of transition towards weight transition, and his "Descendants" are being re-examined.

 

[idav]

Did you read that link? Tik shows no signs of transition towards weight transition, and his "Descendants" are being re-examined.

Yes I read it and my link which also goes over some issues they found including the fact that we need more fossil evidence. Regardless the fossil transitions are obvious and right in front of your eyes matching a timeline with the emergence of tetrapods. Notice as time goes on we start seeing more and more animals that have arm like fins. That shows the gradual change from water to land regardless of whether or not we actually found true ancestors. What we don't find is any evidence of land animals popping up at the same time as sea animals. We see a slow transition to land which is evidence enough to know that land animals came from the water and we are still working out all the hows and evolution has done nothing but support everything we find. If creation were the way it happened why do all these transitions fit the timeline so well? Why is it that mammals and fish didn't come into the existence at the same time?

 

[Shermana]

Yes I read it and my link which also goes over some issues they found including the fact that we need more fossil evidence. Regardless the fossil transitions are obvious and right in front of your eyes matching a timeline with the emergence of tetrapods. Notice as time goes on we start seeing more and more animals that have arm like fins. That shows the gradual change from water to land regardless of whether or not we actually found true ancestors. What we don't find is any evidence of land animals popping up at the same time as sea animals. We see a slow transition to land which is evidence enough to know that land animals came from the water and we are still working out all the hows and evolution has done nothing but support everything we find. If creation were the way it happened why do all these transitions fit the timeline so well? Why is it that mammals and fish didn't come into the existence at the same time?

Show a direct example of a known arm-fossil around this time to fit the transition.

 

[idav]

Show a direct example of a known arm-fossil around this time to fit the transition.

Around which time? How can there be an armed fossil if it was still in transition?

You looking for a fish with legs?

 

[McBell]

Around which time? How can there be an armed fossil if it was still in transition?

You looking for a fish with legs?

So much for post #342, eh?

 

[Shermana]

Around which time? How can there be an armed fossil if it was still in transition?

You looking for a fish with legs?

Show the transition between sea-movement and land movement, it should be easy if you claim such a gap has been proven. We've already seen that Tiktaalik was suited for shallow water movements but not land, so show something in your supposed timeline for a transition between weight-bearing and water-pushing.

Why do you face palm? Are you saying that such evidence of the transition is too much to ask for?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Oh I understand what the scientists are saying quite well. It's you who's not making much sense.

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.

Again you give yourself the authority to make up and redefine terms to suit your agenda. The fact that such semantic shenanigans are so integral to your argument says a lot about its inherent weakness.

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.

Except your own sources say the exact opposite. The potentially neat thing about epigenetic regulation and evolution is that it seems to provide a means by which major morphological changes can evolve with relatively few changes in the actual DNA sequence.

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

This is another example of what I'm talking about. That article is about tracing the deep evolutionary history of epigenetic regulators. The abstract even makes this abundantly clear:

"However, we discovered that BORIS expression was gonad-specific in marsupials (tammar wallaby) and eutherians (cattle), implying that a functional change occurred in BORIS during the early evolution of therian mammals. Since therians show imprinting of IGF2 but other vertebrate taxa do not, we speculate that CTCF and BORIS evolved specialised functions along with the evolution of imprinting at this and other loci, coinciding with the restriction of BORIS expression to the germline and potential antagonism with CTCF."​

IOW, the framework around which the paper is based is the common evolutionary ancestry of all amniotes. And as far as I can tell, that's what you're arguing against!

Maybe you are the latest version of NewHope. She had a penchant for posting links to articles and papers that actually contradicted her position, just like you.

 

[Shermana]

"Except your own sources say the exact opposite. The potentially neat thing about epigenetic regulation and evolution is that it seems to provide a means by which major morphological changes can evolve with relatively few changes in DNA."

And relatively few changes in the DNA = enough differences to make a new subspecies but not a transition from one Phylum and Order to another. The sources indicate that there is indeed a boundary, as I've posted.

As I said a few posts ago, a "Specialized function is a specialized function", this does not mean that arms and lungs will develop, it means that certain internal organ and cellular functions will develop, such as maybe even Cannibinoid receptors for example. They appear to be "programmed" to perform a "function" like "activatable" software.

Once again, a "Deer-thing" can become both a bison and a giraffe, but not a tiger.

I ask again, at what point did the "monkey-thing" lose its tail and how? Why is the human tailbone uniquely tailored to several muscles? It's not 'vestigal".

I can assure you I am not this "Newhope" figure you speak of, I've a beard and I'd be making money as the bearded lady if I was one.

 

[idav]

Show the transition between sea-movement and land movement, it should be easy if you claim such a gap has been proven. We've already seen that Tiktaalik was suited for shallow water movements but not land, so show something in your supposed timeline for a transition between weight-bearing and water-pushing.

Why do you face palm? Are you saying that such evidence of the transition is too much to ask for?

And you don't think shallow water movements is a decent transition from water to land? I face palm because, like I implied, a fish won't have legs if it is in transition still.

 

[Jose Fly]

And relatively few changes in the DNA = enough differences to make a new subspecies but not a transition from one Phylum and Order to another.

And again, that's what's so puzzling about your constant citing of epigenetics. They actually provide another means for major evolutionary transitions, yet you seem to be citing them to support your argument that such major transitions can't happen.

The sources indicate that there is indeed a boundary, as I've posted.

No, the sources you're posting directly contradict your argument as I demonstrated above and you completely ignored.

I can assure you I am not this "Newhope" figure you speak of, I've a beard and I'd be making money as the bearded lady if I was one.

Separated at birth perhaps....

 

[Shermana]

And you don't think shallow water movements is a decent transition from water to land? I face palm because, like I implied, a fish won't have legs if it is in transition still.

Let the reader decide if "skimming" in shallow water is a precursor to pressing the full weight on land with modified bone structure to support it and the muscles involved, and if there is any evidence of this transition. I say nay. You can read the article I posted "The Rise and Fall of Tiktalik" to show that its not even in the running anymore for any kind of transition and that its supposed "descendents" are in doubt too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let the reader decide if "skimming" in shallow water is a precursor to pressing the full weight on land with modified bone structure to support it and the muscles involved, and if there is any evidence of this transition. I say nay. You can read the article I posted "The Rise and Fall of Tiktalik" to show that its not even in the running anymore for any kind of transition.

I particularly like how to support your assertion that Tiktaalik couldn't have supported any weight, you cite the "evolutionnewsandviews" creationist blog. That's funny in itself.

 

[Shermana]

Do you even realize the conclusions here? They are "specific". They have "Specific" activations, and at the same "Specific" locations because that is how they are programmed to "activate". Why did the BORIS get restricted?

""However, we discovered that BORIS expression was gonad-specific in marsupials (tammar wallaby) and eutherians (cattle), implying that a functional change occurred in BORIS during the early evolution of therian mammals. Since therians show imprinting of IGF2 but other vertebrate taxa do not, we speculate that CTCF and BORIS evolved specialised functions along with the evolution of imprinting at this and other loci, coinciding with the restriction of BORIS expression to the germline and potential antagonism with CTCF.""

 

[Shermana]

I particularly like how to support your assertion that Tiktaalik couldn't have supported any weight, you cite the "evolutionnewsandviews" creationist blog. That's funny in itself.

You have a habit of not even trying to prove the facts of the site wrong and hoping to brush it off because of its source as if the facts are automatically wrong. Maybe you can point where the Wikipedia article says they were able to bear weight but you'll probably brush it off since its Wikipedia.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if you don't even want to bother trying to debunk their claims, that's fine, but the reader can decide whether there's weight to their claims it couldn't bear weight. Is there a rule that says you can't use a site that believes in Creationism to state facts and assertions? I can only take that as you conceding to what it says.

 

[McBell]

I can only take that as you conceding to what it says.

That is because you much prefer ratification over truth and facts.

 

[Shermana]

That is because you much prefer ratification over truth and facts.

What truth and facts am I ignoring and explain what you mean by "ratification".

If you don't think you have to even bother addressing their claims, it's obviously conceding, I don't see any rules on this forum that say you can't cite them for one reason or another, if you can't dispute their claims, then you can't dispute their claims, simple.