The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

And yet.......

They have Albinos in Africa too. And Albino hunts, I hear their organs go for a pretty penny.

 

[Jose Fly]

If the difference is really that small, you'd think we'd find the missing link by now.

Ha, ha, ha!!! Now that's funny! :biglaugh:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Macro-Evolution is arguing from Incredulity since there's absolutely no evidence showing how it happened or that it COULD have happened.

You must be forgetting the fossil record, the genome sequence and the fact that speciation has been directly observed and we know the mechanism through which it occurs.

But I'm saying that 300 genes' difference means radical changes each time,

No, it doesn't. You need to get over this basic misunderstanding of biology. Small changes add up to big changes over time.

enough that would be mutations enough to basically kill the whole thing, and you'd think the transition would be fairly evident in the fossil record.

What we see in the fossil record is a slow progression from simple, unicellular lifeforms to more diverse life forms as we ascend the strata. This is exactly what we would expect to find under evolutionary predictions, and it is exactly what we do find. There is no other current explanation for this formation to exist in the fossil record as we see it.

 

[Shermana]

You must be forgetting the fossil record, the genome sequence and the fact that speciation has been directly observed and we know the mechanism through which it occurs.


No, it doesn't. You need to get over this basic misunderstanding of biology. Small changes add up to big changes over time.


What we see in the fossil record is a slow progression from simple, unicellular lifeforms to more diverse life forms as we ascend the strata. This is exactly what we would expect to find under evolutionary predictions, and it is exactly what we do find. There is no other current explanation for this formation to exist in the fossil record as we see it.

What fossil record? I mentioned that even Steven Jay Gould bemoans the lack of transitionary fossils. You're going off of pure guesses with no hard evidence.

What part did you not get about what I said how even masses of small changes will result in a delterious function? You can't just call the development of Wings and legs and lungs the success of a series of small mutations unless you can prove it with actual hard evidence, which you lack any iota of, and which the evidence clearly paints that it CANNOT happen because of the massive deleterious effects.

No matter how small the collection of mutations are, there will be an equal if not larger collection of "small" deletions. Even then, some of the major "jumps" like to wings and legs require more than just a series of small changes, and even then, what kinds of "small changes" are these exactly, if there is only an 8% difference between man and dogs? No one has been able to explain the development of the foot, let alone the eye itself, let alone the specific human ear structure. And with only 300 gene differences, too, what were they specifically? Or are you basing your conclusions off of raw speculation?

 

[camanintx]

What fossil record?

This fossil record.

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

No one has been able to explain the development of the foot, let alone the eye itself, let alone the specific human ear structure.

You really need to stop lobbing us these softball questions.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Shermana]

This fossil record.

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg


You really need to stop lobbing us these softball questions.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Feel free to actually quote anything from there which you feel specifically proves your points. Did you ignore the thing about SJG for a reason? Yes you did.

And I really hate to have to bring up the micro/macro issue for the 6th time.

 

[idav]

What fossil record?

Really? Like you haven't been shown dozens of times. What did you make of the pic I posted on the previous page? I'm sure it has all the gaps you want but do you agree with the chronology?

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[22

Someone memorize this post number so we can link back to it next time Shermana tries to claim Gould is on his side.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Shermana, have you found your data from Cellular microbiology that provides objective empirical evidence that leads to the obvious conclusion of Creationism?

 

[Shermana]

I'm just gonna leave this here.



Someone memorize this post number so we can link back to it next time Shermana tries to claim Gould is on his side.

Yes he made rebuttals to the use of that quote. Did I say he was on my side? I said the particular quote which he accuses Creationists of abusing (they don't abuse it, he said it himself in the exact context they take it) is that his "Staircase model" on the Macro trend has no real evidence. His statement here itself is carefully worded and ambiguous, what are these "Major groups" that there is evidence for "Transition"? Is it another issue of the skewing the word "Macroevolution" with "Microevolution"?

And do I have to bring up the "Species problem" again?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What fossil record? I mentioned that even Steven Jay Gould bemoans the lack of transitionary fossils. You're going off of pure guesses with no hard evidence.

Here's a list. Start looking: List of fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part did you not get about what I said how even masses of small changes will result in a delterious function?

None of it, because it makes no sense. You clearly don't know a thing about genetics.

You can't just call the development of Wings and legs and lungs the success of a series of small mutations unless you can prove it with actual hard evidence, which you lack any iota of, and which the evidence clearly paints that it CANNOT happen because of the massive deleterious effects.

See the fossil record and list of transitional fossils above. Because, quite clearly, we do see a progression of more avian forms appearing in the fossil record. Also, it can and has happened without "massive deleterious effects". I suggest you stop making assumptions about a subject on which you are clearly ill informed.

No matter how small the collection of mutations are, there will be an equal if not larger collection of "small" deletions.

Once again, this makes no sense whatsoever. All mutations delete information - what's important is how the information is resequenced. If you knew the first thing about genetics, you would understand this.

Even then, some of the major "jumps" like to wings and legs require more than just a series of small changes, and even then, what kinds of "small changes" are these exactly, if there is only an 8% difference between man and dogs?

A link explaining this has already been posted, and you didn't even attempt to respond to it. Here it is again for your benefit: The Evolution of Flight

As for the differences between humans and dogs, why is the fact that there is only an 8% difference in our genetic structure a problem for evolution?

No one has been able to explain the development of the foot,

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

let alone the eye itself,

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

let alone the specific human ear structure.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know how long it took me to find those pages? About fifteen seconds. You keep making all of these ridiculous claims when it is painfully obvious you haven't made even the slightest bit of effort to research them yourself.

And with only 300 gene differences, too, what were they specifically?

You expect us to go back through the last several million years of every single species genetic code in order to locate and specify exactly what and where the mutations were that altered us over the next several million years?

Don't ask for much, do you?

Or are you basing your conclusions off of raw speculation?

I don't think it would make any difference to you either way. You just ignore any and all evidence we put in front of you and make no effort whatsoever in finding out the facts for yourself. It's impossible to present any reasoned conclusions to someone so determined to remain ignorant.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Feel free to actually quote anything from there which you feel specifically proves your points.

You asked for an explanation and they're located in the links he provided.

And I really hate to have to bring up the micro/macro issue for the 6th time.

They're not a problem for the ToE though.

 

[painted wolf]

What fossil record? I mentioned that even Steven Jay Gould bemoans the lack of transitionary fossils. You're going off of pure guesses with no hard evidence.

You are going to have to do better than twisting a dead mans words. Gould specifically denounced your misuse of his words as a lie.

What part did you not get about what I said how even masses of small changes will result in a delterious function?

Any evidence to back it up. You keep making empty assertions and expecting to get away with it.

You can't just call the development of Wings and legs and lungs the success of a series of small mutations unless you can prove it with actual hard evidence, which you lack any iota of, and which the evidence clearly paints that it CANNOT happen because of the massive deleterious effects.

The fossil reccord is excellent evidence for the development of the wing. More evidence comes from genetics that supports this fossil record.
All you have to support your position is apparently shouting.

No matter how small the collection of mutations are, there will be an equal if not larger collection of "small" deletions.

prove it!

Even then, some of the major "jumps" like to wings and legs require more than just a series of small changes, and even then, what kinds of "small changes" are these exactly, if there is only an 8% difference between man and dogs?

Mostly they are minor changes in HOX regulatory sequences and minor changes in protein configurations such as FOXp2.

No one has been able to explain the development of the foot, let alone the eye itself, let alone the specific human ear structure.

Just because you ignore it doesn't make it not happen.

And with only 300 gene differences, too, what were they specifically? Or are you basing your conclusions off of raw speculation?

Knock yourself out we have complete genomes for both chimps and humans:
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) Genome Resources
Chimp genome : Web focus : Nature

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish : Abstract : Nature

Comparative analyses of Hox gene expression and regulation in teleost fish and tetrapods support the long-entrenched notion that the distal region of tetrapod limbs, containing the wrist, ankle and digits, is an evolutionary novelty1, 2, 3, 4. Data from fossils support the notion that the unique features of tetrapod limbs were assembled over evolutionary time in the paired fins of fish5. The challenge in linking developmental and palaeontological approaches has been that developmental data for fins and limbs compare only highly derived teleosts and tetrapods; what is lacking are data from extant taxa that retain greater portions of the fin skeletal morphology considered primitive to all bony fish6, 7. Here, we report on the expression and function of genes implicated in the origin of the autopod in a basal actinopterygian, Polyodon spathula. Polyodon exhibits a late-phase, inverted collinear expression of 5′ HoxD genes, a pattern of expression long considered a developmental hallmark of the autopod and shown in tetrapods to be controlled by a ‘digit enhancer’ region. These data show that aspects of the development of the autopod are primitive to tetrapods and that the origin of digits entailed the redeployment of ancient patterns of gene activity.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So far, all that Sherm has "proved" is that intentional ignorance is endemic in Creationists.

 

[outhouse]

All you have to support your position is apparently shouting.

your forgetting the ignorance with a capital I