Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[The Barbarian]

about the fossils: i never said that its a problem for evolution. i just said that some of them are in the wrong place.

In fact, they are in exactly the right place. Paleontologists used geologic data to determine where to look for the transitionals. And as predicted, they were found where they were predicted to be, again confirming evolutionary expectations.

we can always solve it by missing fossils

Which is exactly what they did. No one had any fossils of fish with legs, but they knew approximately what age they should be found in. And as predicted, there they were.

but i go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have (and by the way i think that we do found older coelacanths fossil).

Yes, but not the genus or species of the two forms living today. So finding a fossil dated after a more advanced form appears, is not a concern for paleontologists, as you now seem to realize.

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?

Since self-replication is observed to have originated naturally, it would be merely copying nature, much as engineers use genetic algorithms to copy evolution.

Now, if they did it from scratch, without borrowing from nature, that would be design.

 

[BradB]

Yeah, we get that. It's an old attempt, but even most creationists have abandoned it. "If we don't have the fossil of every single individual in the series, it's not evidence."

I already addressed this straw man previously. That's not what we say or expect and you know it, making you a prevaricator.

That's what Wise was telling you about, in the therapsid-to-mammal series.

Not a chain without large leaps of faith between many of the so called links Sir. Here is what Stephen Gould said about the fossil record around the same time Wise was publishing his comments.


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." -Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb


And


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." -Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,"


Also


"The history of most fossil species includes two features Particularly inconsistent with gradualism: first is stasis. Most species exhibit no directional changes during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological Change is limited and directionless. Second is sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors. But rather appears all at once and fully formed." -Stephan J. Gould. "Evolutions Erratic Pace," National History,

Here's a few of the many transitional forms:

hhheh...nobody is saying that the spork doesn't exist and that you don't think it is a transitional "FORM" between spoon and fork. What we are saying is that we need a gradual chain of links from spoon to fork showing the slow and gradual development of prongs along down through the links. Also you can't single out just a far left prong on the dinner fork, left prong on an olive fork, left prong on a salad fork, and left prong on the pastry fork, and then go "see they all of left prongs so that's proof they all are related and the spork is their common ancestor. There is a problem in your presented stage if just the mere size of the organism jumps all over the place as it does with the presented whale chain. Obviously some genetic change that causes it to become twice the size of a previous link has to be recorded gradually in the record. You can't just ignore major changes in the overall anatomy because some similar features exist.

Homologies (same stuff, different uses), indicate common descent. Analogies (same uses, different stuff) do not.

So by that logic anything with an eye (such as the octopus) must be a close common relative of humans? How does that work?


The fact of the matter is that all similarity arguments only work in a case where you choose to ignore a possibility before you begin the study. So okay... in that case you can make the evidence prove whatever you want. But now we have left true science. Anyone with an open mind will recognize that similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can common ancestor.

In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase...

And how many cells do bacteria have again? And what did I ask for to show me in the lab that it could happen?


So did you meet the basic request here?

 

[BradB]

continued:

• Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
• Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
• Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
• Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
• Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
• Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.

• Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
• Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.
• Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.
• Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
• Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
• Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
• Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.
• Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.
• Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)
• Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.
• Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)
• Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.
• Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).
• Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous) -- Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

At some point you're going to have to come to some kind of truce with reality.

Okay so I'll just pick three side by side links in your "chain" and Google search to see what they look like for myself.



Cynognathus: 1.2-metre (3 ft 11 in) long



Diademodon: 2 metres (6.6 ft) long



Probainognathus: around rat sized.

I get that these are just artistic renderings of what they might have looked like. However sizes are based on actual findings.

Point being? That you are not presenting me with a finely graduated chain here with no sudden leaps in it. Just the size in only three links is all over the place. I need a chain leading from one major form to another in which there are no sudden leaps. If this doesn't exists then the conclusion must be that there is not evidence of common descent in the fossil record.

Again we are in a discussion in which one of the possible explanations is that all life had a common creator and the other is that all life has a common ancestor. So in this type of discussion we cannot rely on similarity arguments to prove either case. Similarity is an expectation from both perspectives. The only thing that will prove common descent over common creator in the fossils is a finely graduated chain between two major forms. Something you have not been able to provide.

 

[BradB]

Here's a study of wild mouse evolution in the wild (albeit a constrained area to ensure the populations could be tracked). Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

That's a really cool study on natural selection and how environment selects ALREADY EXISTING genes from the gene pool and they become predominant within the population. But its not a study in which it was know that the traits did not exist anywhere within the population and were observed developing by new genetic gene increasing type information being added to the DNA of the mice.

Again creationists fully accept evolution as defined by main stream biologists. "The observed small changes in a population of an organism over time" --> . <-- This is a known fact. What we reject is the notion that these changes are caused by random mutations adding new gene increasing type of information to the DNA in a way that is beneficial to the organism. All studies on multi-celled organisms that I am aware of have found the changes to be merely the result of already existing genes taking over due to environmental changes.

You see Many different versions of the same gene often exist in a population. These versions are called alleles and are what cause things like red or white flowers in the same species, or brown, green, or blue eyes in humans. One organism often carries with it two alleles of the same gene. Meaning the trait doesn't even need to be visibly present for the gene to already exist. When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 223, or 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion. That's a lot of variety for natural selection to choose from. This is why it is so important in a discussion such as this to be certain the genes did not already exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Okay so I'll just pick three side by side links in your "chain" and Google search to see what they look like for myself.

Here, you fell back into the "looks like" belief of YE creationists. In fact, these look alike, but are quite different in their structures. Each of these are still reptiles, but there is a progression of more and more mammal-like features of the skeleton, teeth, and so one. Gradual to the point that you made for me; very small, subtle changes in a long series of transitionals between reptiles and mammals. Even your very small sample shows this quite clearly.

Point being?

That your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise presented you with a finely graduated chain here with no sudden leaps in it.

Just the size in only three links is all over the place.

You're again confusing analogy with homology. There are big sharks and little sharks, but they are still sharks because of homologies. As long as you can't get around "looks like", you can't understand the issue.

I need a chain leading from one major form to another in which there are no sudden leaps.

As you learned, these are very, very gradual changes, each one slightly more mammal-like than the previous one. Exactly what they told you couldn't exist. And there they are.

This is just one of many such series that demonstrate common descent.

Again we are in a discussion in which one of the possible explanations is that all life had a common creator and the other is that all life has a common ancestor.

As you now realize, both of are true. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

So in this type of discussion we cannot rely on similarity arguments to prove either case.

You're still confused. It's not about "similarities." It's about shared homologies, and gradual change over a long period of time. Which is why your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise admits:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Similarity is an expectation from both perspectives.

Similarity would mean you expect bats and birds to be closely related. As long as you can't get your mind around homology, you will continue to fool yourself. Homologies show bats are more closely related to whales than they are to birds, even though "similarities" would suggest otherwise.

The thing that decisively demonstrates common descent over YE creationism in the fossils is those finely graduated chains between major forms, which even honest YE creationists admit to be a fact. Wise is honest enough to face the truth; he merely trusts his interpretation of scripture above the evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

You see Many different versions of the same gene often exist in a population. These versions are called alleles and are what cause things like red or white flowers in the same species, or brown, green, or blue eyes in humans. One organism often carries with it two alleles of the same gene. Meaning the trait doesn't even need to be visibly present for the gene to already exist. When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 223, or 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father.

And here you undermine your own beliefs, again. If we are descended from a single pair of humans (as we are) then our ancestors could have had, at most, four alleles for each gene locus.

Which means 6 possible combinations. But modern humans have dozens of alleles for most gene loci. All the rest had to come about by mutations.

And there you've effectively refuted your belief.

 

[pitabread]

Which means 6 possible combinations. But modern humans have dozens of alleles for most gene loci.

And in some cases, thousands.

This is what I find odd about creationists that argue against mutations as a source of genetic variation; they don't have any other explanation yet they are bound by having to explain where that variation came from.

They've painted themselves into a corner...

 

[BradB]

Here, you fell back into the "looks like" belief of YE creationists. In fact, these look alike, but are quite different in their structures.

What are you talking about? I said the complete opposite. I was pointing out that they are very dissimilar in size and that's a problem with your supposed "gradual chain."

Each of these are still reptiles, but there is a progression of more and more mammal-like features of the skeleton, teeth, and so one.

Urrr a creator wanted to make some creatures that were reptilian but used the same basic plans in skeletal structures because those plans work best in this created biosphere called earth. Without seeing at least one full gradual transformation in the OVERALL skeletal structure from one form to another, we can not "know" if we are looking at transitions or just uniquely designed specimens.

That your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise presented you with a finely graduated chain here with no sudden leaps in it.

Again NO HE DOES NOT present any such thing and he's nothing to me considering I never even heard of him before you brought him up.

This is just one of many such series that demonstrate common descent.

It is not a FINELY GRADUATED CHAIN. You have not presented or linked to any such gradual chain. You know it, I know it so stop pretending you have.

 

[pitabread]

Without seeing at least one full gradual transformation in the OVERALL skeletal structure from one form to another, we can not "know" if we are looking at transitions or just uniquely designed specimens.

If you allow for supernatural creation, you can never truly know if things evolved or were supernaturally created. It's the Last Thurdayism problem.

All you can do is go by what things look like. And life looks like it evolved.

 

[The Barbarian]

What are you talking about?

Your confusion between analogy and homology. As you learned, homology often includes organisms that look very different, but are closely related.

I was pointing out that they are very dissimilar in size and that's a problem with your supposed "gradual chain."

Nope. I'm shorter than my brother. Doesn't mean we aren't related.

Urrr a creator wanted to make some creatures that were reptilian but used the same basic plans in skeletal structures because those plans work best in this created biosphere called earth.

Nope. He merely used existing organisms to make new kinds of organisms. But not all the parts that work well for reptiles, work well for mammals. So we have a lot of modifications that gradually occurred over many different organisms, over a long time.

Reptiles have multiple bones in their lower jaws, and mammals have one. Reptiles have one bone in their middle ears, and we have three. In the organisms in that list, those things very slowly changed. Would you like to learn how?

Without seeing at least one full gradual transformation in the OVERALL skeletal structure

Nonsense. You've realized now, that gradual change over time is how mammals evolved from reptiles, over that period of time, we see a full gradual transformation in the overall skeletal structure. But a little at a time.

Because it's gradual, from one form to another, we know we are looking at transitions.

That's what "transitions" are. It's what your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise showed you.

Again NO HE DOES NOT present any such thing

As you now see, that's what he did. And he's honest enough to admit that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

and he's nothing to me considering I never even heard of him before you brought him up.

Doesn't matter. He's honest enough to admit the truth. Will you be?

It is not a FINELY GRADUATED CHAIN.

That's what it is. For example, the transition of jaws and ears proceeded gradually. Here's the differences:

So, how could you have any transitionals?

Like that. And notice the chain of gradual changes from one to another. The cool thing is, this change is seen in the embryo of the Virginia Opossum:

As you see, the bones initially are in the reptilian position, and as the embryo grows, they move to the proper mammalian position. This doesn't mean that the opossum goes through a reptilian stage, it means that our evolutionary history puts some constraints on development.

You have not presented or linked to any such gradual chain.

It is, as honest creationists admit, a fact. I know it, and now you know it.

 

[BradB]

If you allow for supernatural creation, you can never truly know if things evolved or were supernaturally created. It's the Last Thurdayism problem.

All you can do is go by what things look like. And life looks like it evolved.

That's not true. If the so called creator said he created life last Thursday and that he never lies, but we see life was "intentionally" made to look like it began many billions of years ago, then such a creator can be demonstrated to be false.

 

[The Barbarian]

And in some cases, thousands.

This is what I find odd about creationists that argue against mutations as a source of genetic variation; they don't have any other explanation yet they are bound by having to explain where that variation came from.

They've painted themselves into a corner...

Yep. It's interesting when one is talking to them, face to face. The look on their faces, when they realize what they've done, is unforgettable.

 

[pitabread]

That's not true. If the so called creator said he created life last Thursday and that he never lies, but we see life was "intentionally" made to look like it began many billions of years ago, then such a creator can be demonstrated to be false.

The point is that supernatural creation is inherently an unfalsifiable position. The fact your response contains a number of non-demonstrable assumptions kind of proves the point.

 

[tas8831]

God: Master of the Universe
Satan: "God" of this world.

It all makes sense.

Yes - God is powerless over Satan, and thus a second-rate pagan deity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes - God is powerless over Satan, and thus a second-rate pagan deity.

Satan admittedly has more followers than God...for now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"

That's a really cool study on natural selection and how environment selects ALREADY EXISTING genes from the gene pool and they become predominant within the population. But its not a study in which it was know that the traits did not exist anywhere within the population and were observed developing by new genetic gene increasing type information being added to the DNA of the mice.

One wouldn't really expect to see clearly observable phenotypic traits due to novel mutation in the timescales involved there, but there are numerous examples of novel mutations - just Google "novel mutations observed".

What we reject is the notion that these changes are caused by random mutations adding new gene increasing type of information to the DNA in a way that is beneficial to the organism. All studies on multi-celled organisms that I am aware of have found the changes to be merely the result of already existing genes taking over due to environmental changes.

OK... are you suggesting that mutations never happen, or that they're never beneficial?

You see Many different versions of the same gene often exist in a population. These versions are called alleles and are what cause things like red or white flowers in the same species, or brown, green, or blue eyes in humans. One organism often carries with it two alleles of the same gene. Meaning the trait doesn't even need to be visibly present for the gene to already exist. When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 223, or 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion. That's a lot of variety for natural selection to choose from. This is why it is so important in a discussion such as this to be certain the genes did not already exist.

Please, save us your high-school genetics lesson.

 

[tas8831]

Satan admittedly has more followers than God...for now.

Evidence please.
LOL! Right, asking for evidence from OWG is like.... asking OWG for evidence!

Still waiting for evidence that the aorta or the gut sends motor information directly to the larynx as our resident non-genius declared repeatedly...

 

[tas8831]

"One wouldn't really expect to see clearly observable phenotypic traits due to novel mutation in the timescales involved there, but there are numerous examples of novel mutations - just Google "novel mutations observed".

OK... are you suggesting that mutations never happen, or that they're never beneficial?

Please, save us your high-school genetics lesson.

Have you seen his comment-blocked YouTube video? Hilarious!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evidence please.

For example, more and more people believe in evolution.
More states are rejecting the death penalty.
We are turning problems into business opportunities rather than solving them. Science refusing to study my theory concerning gut signals.
Lots of evidence of devilishness around.

 

[xianghua]

In fact, they are in exactly the right place.

actually they a rent. we ae talking about 10-20 my gap. so if you consider it to be in the "right place" by the same logic we can call a fossil that appear too late\early by 100 my a "right place fossil". since 100 my is nothing compare with the suppose age of the earth.

Since self-replication is observed to have originated naturally, it would be merely copying nature

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?. but hard claim need hard evidence.