Another Fossil Transitional Species that shouldn't exist ... Meet Pappochelys

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
No, what it demonstrate is your ignorance in biology and the usages of terms to label people.

IF you reference her work and don't know how other scientists (not YECs) first responded to it you are not even remotely in a position to talk about ignorance. Google awaits to educate you.
 
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟15,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Okay fact proven. I DO see your problem. You have no clue about the subject. ANyone who knows anything about thi subject would know perfectly well what the furor over her work was and knows it was not limited to YECs as you just tried to beg. Please come back when you have done some reading.

Since you acknowledge my ingonace, then what is the source of your claim?

A simple google search for her name is bound to bring it up

Google is not a reference. I cant guess what you have read. Please state your sources.

You do know what the word ADD means right?

Depends on, it might be a logical operator. You have a tendency to be vague and non-specific. Why is that?
 
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟15,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
IF you reference her work and don't know how other scientists (not YECs) first responded to it you are not even remotely in a position to talk about ignorance. Google awaits to educate you.

You may be right, still; what are your sources? Google is not a reference. Can you name these scientist? Do you have any refrences to their criticism?
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Since you acknowledge my ingonace, then what is the source of your claim?

Ummmmm....pretty obvious. Your own admission you were not aware of the controversy. That what ignorance means - "not knowing something. I trust you accept yourself as a source for yourself?

Google is not a reference.

NO its a place where people who admit to being ignorant about a subject can go do a search and educate themselves without asking others to educate them because they are kind of lazy to type a few words and hit return.

Sorry I can't waste more time going back and forth with someone who has pretty much admitted he doesn't know what is being discussed.

Toodles
 
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟15,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There are a whole slew of lineages structures that do not exist today in both the evolutionary and creationist framework.

Yes life forms goes extinct we know that from the fossil record. What is your point?

Diversities within species and similarities between them and both sides accept that a whole bunch of them are extinct. Merely using the criteria of "other lineages" that we know about ignores that.

Sorry, but I lost you here. Might be because I have not read here in while. What are you talking about?

Take a typical one - feathers. Historically people have taken feathers in the fossil record as to be associated with modern birds but in the creationist framework (or logically) nothing excludes other groups from having them and having gone extinct.

Whoot? Are you serious? Nothing "excludes", say, mammals from having feathers? I guess in the world of magic creation anything is possible, and if you ever found such animal that would disprove the theory of evolution over night because there is no evolutionary path that can lead to such creature, i.e. they breaks the nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy that is used to classify organisms - and predict what features a "transitions" must have.

Anyway, talking about creatures we have not observed is rather pointless. Science is about explaining that which we has been observed, and the theory of evolution predicts that there will not be such things as a mammal with feathers. Such chimeras are rather evidence that would support creation because there would be no explanation with in the framework of the theory of evolution to explain its existence.

However we have never found any such chimeras and their is no point in modify at theory to explain that which we have no observed.

Yes I am being simplistic for brevity now but - a darwinist digs them up and voila he is sure he has found a transitional.

Not only simplistic, but you also misrepresent the procedure on how things actuall are classified.
 
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟15,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
e.
Ummmmm....pretty obvious. Your own admission you were not aware of the controversy. That what ignorance means - "not knowing something. I trust you accept yourself as a source for yourself?



NO its a place where people who admit to being ignorant about a subject can go do a search and educate themselves without asking others to educate them because they are kind of lazy to type a few words and hit return.

Again - I cannot guess what you have read. I want to know your source.
Why is it so hard for you to give me a source, a name anything?

If you lost track of it, forgot it or whatever, that is just fine with me, then I will need to try google it myself. But then say so if that is the case. I am not demanding you must be able to cite everything you claim but if your attitude is going to be that everyone ought to know the very same thing as you do, and if they don't then they can guess it, then you are going to run into trouble sooner or later.

Sorry I can't waste more time going back and forth with someone who has pretty much admitted he doesn't know what is being discussed.

Toodles

To this I can allways respond; I tried find a source to support your claim but I failed to find anything that support what you said. I might not be smart enough to find your source. Would you now please let me know your source?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟15,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There are no differences. You got caught in being hypocritical. You made a sweeping statement about true creationists then are begging everyone else is wrong if they make statements about another group. Now you are just trying to rationalize your way out of having to admit your position is hypocritical but it will never work.

You asked for a clarification I gave you one. Now you try to tell me that I am lying?

You know, when ignoring everything I said, such that they admit it them self, you can make that claim. However I understand your respond as your remark was indeed intended as a pejorative remark against all atheists. Thank you for the clarification! At least I know what type I deal with now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
You asked for a clarification I gave you one. Now you try to tell me that I am lying?
.

Stop trying to distort so you can set up some mod action. I did not mention lying AT ALL. I said it was hypocritical to do what you castigate others for allegedly doing and it is. You are doing nothing but presenting excuses why what you do is okay but others doing the same thing are wrong. typical. If you get upset when you THINK a generalizations is being made about atheists then it IS hypocritical to claim something of all true creationists precisely as you did.

However I understand your respond as your remark was indeed intended as a pejorative remark against all atheists.

Nope try again. although like I told you trying to dig yourself out of doing what you accuse others of doing will never work I said merely that I thought an Atheist would be familiar with the concept (since atheists generally do reject claims of prophecies made after they are fulfilled). Thats a expression of what I think many atheists are aware of.

Meanwhile sorry but I don't find your claim you couldn't find any reference to the issues with Soft tissue work credible in the least. Simple search on Google

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS497US497&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=Schweitzer fossil&oq=Schweitzer fossil&aqs=chrome..69i57.9223j0j4

gives multiple results that confirms that that other scientists (and not just YECs as you claim ) initially took issue with her findings. Thats jsut one obvious search for the word "fossil" and the scientist's name. That you couldn't find anything with such an easy to search for terms as the scientists name tells me you didn't even bother trying.

the very fact that someone enters into a discussion they have no knowledge on and claims YECs would be the only one with issues just tells me you are in high gear rhetoric against YECs not a serious person to have a further discussion with.

bye ....bye
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
If you are always happy then why didn't you? Read the request again and see if you can answer



what you instead provided (as if it was proof of a prediction)was a postdiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Hopefully you now understand the difference. The problem with saying something was predicted after the fact is something I would have thought an atheist would understand not promote as a legitimate answer.

Meanwhile unfortunately the link wasn't even instructive. Who didn't know about fusions

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...nsus-could-benefit-from-more-fact-checking-2/

It is yourself who needs to read again....and think.

The knowledge of the chromosome difference between humans and other apes has been available for quite some time. However, the ability to see why has only been a fairly recent discovery, with the development of appropriate technology. So, the prediction was made quite some time before the confirmation.

Do you understand now?
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
the prediction was made quite some time before the confirmation

Great then SHOW WHERE the prediction was made by actually showing an article dated BEFORE the discovery

is the third time the charm for you to finally understand the question? Amazing you find it so difficult to understand a simple question. Claiming I can't read when its you that can't read the question is quite funny.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
P.S. Steve

Don't even try moving the goal post. Your post is here that I responded to

I understand also that, in theorising about common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees, it was predicted that there must have been some form of 'adjustment' in the chromosomal structure.

present a paper or article of sufficient timing (That can be PROVEN) to be considered a legit PREdiction that some form of adjustment to chromosome structure was made independent of/predating the discovery of that adjustment

Or you got zip.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
P.S. Steve

Don't even try moving the goal post. Your post is here that I responded to



present a paper or article of sufficient timing (That can be PROVEN) to be considered a legit PREdiction that some form of adjustment to chromosome structure was made independent of/predating the discovery of that adjustment

Or you got zip.

Here we are......took me all of 30 seconds.

https://www.genome.gov/13514624
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Here we are......took me all of 30 seconds.

https://www.genome.gov/13514624

Ummmm....I think you might need to adjust your reading glasses or work on reading comprehension. thats not a prediction. Thats a piece announcing the results of the study.

In what world do you live in that you think the results of study is proof of a prediction.

I suggest you try more than 30 seconds because that time frame has done nothing for you. I'm beginning to think you don;t even know what a prediction or the difference between a prediction and a fulfillment is
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Again steve. An article or provable source of the PREDICTION that dates BEFORE the alleged fulfillment. You know the one that you alleged came out of

"theorising about common ancestry'

rather than studying the genome.

Ummm.. that one

I confess I am quite bewildered at your obdurance. Let's see if you can follow the 'bouncing ball' on this one.

1. For quite some time, we have known that the chromosome count for chimpanzees (48) differs from that of humans (46). In fact, I can remember my lecturers discussing the difference when I studied some biology, 60+ years ago.

2. Evolutionary theory posits that, amongst other claims, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

3. The difference in chromosome count between two closely related species appears to present a major problem for that claim. How could such a major genetic shift occur in such a relatively short period of genetic history?

4. The theory, then, would predict that there must have been some mechanism responsible for the 'reduction' in the number of human chromosomes. Several explanations would be supported by the theory, including the fusing of chromosomes during human evolution.

5. This prediction is seen to hold at chromosome 2, which shows clear evidence of this fusion having taken place, thanks to the improvements in our analytical technology over the last decade or so.

I really don't know how it could be made any clearer to you? You appear to be desperately clinging to some very technical, semantic objection over the use of 'predict'. If that's the case, well cling away! It strikes me that those who are reduced to arguing out the minutiae of an issue simply have no issue to argue!

The larger picture is clear. Evolutionary theory, in keeping with most robust scientific theories, has a predictive quality to its usefulness. From Tiktaalik, through to chromosome 2, to the use of the theory in predicting the outcome of disease research, to the 'out of Africa' theory, to the prediction of insect wings from gills, its implications are quite obvious.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Perhaps this article may satisfy your strange obsession?

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

It is a 1991 paper, in which the researchers report that they have seen the likelihood of the fusion of telomeres. However, they concede that further research will be required to confirm this as the mechanism involved. They do describe this process as the "likeliest explanation". Now, that is a predictive statement. And that prediction has been subsequently borne out in recent research.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
I confess I am quite bewildered at your obdurance.

You should see the view from over here as I look on at yours. its breathtaking. lets indeed follow your bouncing ball until it goes splat

4. The theory, then, would predict that there must have been some mechanism responsible for the 'reduction' in the number of human chromosomes. Several explanations would be supported by the theory, including the fusing of chromosomes during human evolution.

I am going to dispense with this nonsense of showing a 2005 paper as a fulfillment of a prediction based on "theorizing about common ancestry" in two ways. The first one in this post

Can you explain for the class why you have been trying to claim a 2005 paper is a fulfillment of a PREDICTIOn based on theory when in fact we knew by RESEARCH prior to 2005 tht there was a possible fusion event in chromosome 2. Do you even understand what a prediction is? much less a prediction from "theorizing" rather than prior research showing something?

How can someone say a 2005 paper was the fulfillment of a prediction when the fact is previous to 2005 we had done research that already showed not predicted from "theorizing" there was fusion event there?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421751

even research from decades ago?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1924367/

What? there was a prediction of what was already known?

Perhaps now the point is clear in your head? Providing 2005 as a prediction fulfillment is rubbish since we already knew by research not theorizing form "common ancestry theory"such was the case.

this proves my point in spades. Darwinists such as yourself jump up at every paper and say aha we predicted this based on our theory but embarrasingly what you claim is a fulfillment of your prediction WAS ALREADY KNOWN from research not theorizing. 2005 does nothing but supply more details but since you were blissfully unaware you cite it as a fulfillment of "theorizing" rather than previous RESEARCH

So AGAIN what was the date for the prediction??? You have provided nothing to answer that so far just present 2005 as when the prediction was fulfilled even though it was no prediction AT ALL in 2005 but already researched and published work years before. this is PRECISELY why I asked for a date previous to this. Meanwhile fusions are no sure sign of common ancestry anyway but more on that later

I'll let that settle in and perculate (even give you enough time to hand wave over the weekend) before giving my second answer.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I confess I am quite bewildered at your obdurance. Let's see if you can follow the 'bouncing ball' on this one.

1. For quite some time, we have known that the chromosome count for chimpanzees (48) differs from that of humans (46). In fact, I can remember my lecturers discussing the difference when I studied some biology, 60+ years ago.

2. Evolutionary theory posits that, amongst other claims, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

3. The difference in chromosome count between two closely related species appears to present a major problem for that claim. How could such a major genetic shift occur in such a relatively short period of genetic history?

4. The theory, then, would predict that there must have been some mechanism responsible for the 'reduction' in the number of human chromosomes. Several explanations would be supported by the theory, including the fusing of chromosomes during human evolution.

5. This prediction is seen to hold at chromosome 2, which shows clear evidence of this fusion having taken place, thanks to the improvements in our analytical technology over the last decade or so.

I really don't know how it could be made any clearer to you? You appear to be desperately clinging to some very technical, semantic objection over the use of 'predict'. If that's the case, well cling away! It strikes me that those who are reduced to arguing out the minutiae of an issue simply have no issue to argue!

The larger picture is clear. Evolutionary theory, in keeping with most robust scientific theories, has a predictive quality to its usefulness. From Tiktaalik, through to chromosome 2, to the use of the theory in predicting the outcome of disease research, to the 'out of Africa' theory, to the prediction of insect wings from gills, its implications are quite obvious.

I'm guessing the confusion he seems to be having stems from the iterative refinement of the predictions with the passage of time. Starting from Humans have fewer chromosomes than our nearest relatives, we made the following prediction:

One human chromosome should show similarities to 2 chimpanzee chromosomes if such a change in karyotype occurred due to either the fusion or fission of a chromosome. This was ultimately supported by banding patterns showing similarity between what we now call chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b and human chromosome 2. This allowed us to predict...

If human chromosome 2 was the product of the fusion of chimpanzee chromosome 2a and 2b, there should be evidence of either end to end fusion, or centromeric fusion. Fine detail banding showed predicted evidence of end to end fusion including presence of vestigial centromeres. We could also predict based on this that...

some overlapable sequence should occur on the telomeres of 2a and 2b...

equivalent genes should be found on 2a and 2b as on human 2...

And so on. It actually represents a chain of testable predictions, not just a single one.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
The larger picture is clear. Evolutionary theory, in keeping with most robust scientific theories, has a predictive quality to its usefulness. From Tiktaalik,

:) but its too bad Tiktaalik is another great example of Darwinists overstating their case.When it was discoverd it was heralded as the right alleged transition that fits right in at precisely the right time to show a transition beginning to tetrapods. Wonderbar!!

Only one problem came along a few years after - it wasn't the right timing. Tetrapods came about 20 million years previous. Can you still call it transitional? Sure but the whole hype of the right timing is dubious
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

It is a 1991 paper, in which the researchers report that they have seen the likelihood of the fusion of telomeres. However, they concede that further research will be required to confirm this as the mechanism involved. They do describe this process as the "likeliest explanation". Now, that is a predictive statement. And that prediction has been subsequently borne out in recent research.

Well at least I have inspired you to finally actually do some research. I have just given you one of the same links in my last response to your earlier post. The problem is it doesn't help your case whatsoever though you are trying to spin it as if it does. Its not a prediction based on theorizing about common ancestry. it comes for actual research looking at the genome. Your continued problem is you keep trying to conflate theorizing from common ancestry with what comes out of real research looking at the genome. Discovering something and predicting a discovery are too different things. Data suggesting something is not predicting from theorizing its looking at data.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.