Status
Not open for further replies.

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just compare marine life like whales versus fish. There are fundamental structural differences in those types of organisms that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective (different evolutionary pathways), but don't make any sense from a design perspective.

And many commonalities as well!

We already know this isn't true given the sheer number of alleles (gene variations) identified, along with identification of specific mutation and in some cases the specific origins of said mutations.

Well so far all your side has produced is four supposed "positive" mutations. You still haven't shown the mutations for scales to feathers and that is supposedly a fact! Also I wonder how many gene variations are not simply due to Mendellian Inheritance. I haven't seen anyone research on this as a cause for years!

Anyone ever show you Caucasian couples who have had Caucasian relatives for many generations, produce jet black babies?

And luminescence genes seem to attach and function in many different genus and family!
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don’t believe I’ve done such a thing.



I didn’t howl, behave yourself. I don’t disagree with What Davies said.




Of course he never actually said that did he?


Well I was speaking generically of evolutionists.

And He didn't have to. His words show the prinicples of cause and effect.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, scientific papers or articles are fine if the information presented can be verified.

Well when did they verify random mutations over eons of times building one upon another in a slow fashion took us from goo to you? We have a forest of trees declaring Darwinian Evolution a fact and proven and verified and validated! So where have they hidden the evidence????
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And many commonalities as well!



Well so far all your side has produced is four supposed "positive" mutations. You still haven't shown the mutations for scales to feathers and that is supposedly a fact! Also I wonder how many gene variations are not simply due to Mendellian Inheritance. I haven't seen anyone research on this as a cause for years!

Anyone ever show you Caucasian couples who have had Caucasian relatives for many generations, produce jet black babies?

And luminescence genes seem to attach and function in many different genus and family!
Have you finished Coyne's book Why Evolution is True, yet?

I'm guessing not, just thought I'd ask.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well when did they verify random mutations over eons of times building one upon another in a slow fashion took us from goo to you?;
Large stretches of the process has been confirmed. None of it has been disconfirmed. That's pretty much as good as it gets with scientific theories, which are basically provisional works in progress. You can't ever expect to get to "absolute truth."
We have a forest of trees declaring Darwinian Evolution a fact and proven and verified and validated!
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory explaining that fact. Learn to tell the difference. Scientific theories are discourses of inductive logic. They are confirmed, not proven. Only discourses of deductive logic are proven.
So where have they hidden the evidence????
Would you go and look if we told you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wrong. That’s the point, it wouldn’t have worked in it’s crushed state.

Look at the video again! IN the supposed crushed state it fit perfect and the video shows it!

And you find nothing wrong with hacking off not an insignificant portion of pelvic bone to show it an upright walker (sawing changed the trajectory of the pelvis) How does taking away8 original bone do anything other than show fraud!

A deer, where did he say that?

It didn’t fit perfectly, it was misshapen. But so what?

Listen to the video again- He proposed a deer. So how does removing original bone matter show how the pelvis was? It takes away what was there so there is less there don't you get that.

Fossilized bone don't get mishaped by something stepping on it- Odds are given the amount of silicate that went into the bone by then- It is doubtful a deer could crush the bone.

A YEC wouldn’t do it, because it they very rarely do anything apart from writing dishonest articles.

this just shows you have allowed others to suck IQ out of your brain by their mindless ad-hominems.

So I guess we get to have a buffet of choices to decide what we want! Here is an article from an evolutionist:

Taken from this article in AIG: answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/did-lucy-walk-upright/

"This seems like strong evidence that these supposed early ancestors, including Lucy, actually were knuckle-walkers and hence did not walk upright. But no, the authors assume that the previous evidence for bipedalism is sound, and that these ancestors only retain knuckle-walking features from a previous ancestor. It is true that there are some morphological features for knuckle walking that are missing in Lucy,6 but these features are not always present in living knuckle-walkers either, so that researchers cannot rule out that Lucy was a knuckle-walker.5 The researchers are almost forced to reject that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, otherwise it would have adaptions for walking upright, climbing trees (based on the long arms and fingers) and knuckle walking. This presents an evolutionary difficulty in how Lucy can have three fairly distinct behavioural characteristics. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to determine which of these characteristics are related to its lifestyle and which are no longer functional but are carryovers from its previous ancestry.7"

Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385.
5Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, p. 383.

6 Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000.

Also from RSR's List of Problems with "Lucy" as an Upright Walker | KGOV.com

* Lucy's Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: The infamous "human ancestor" who allegedly walked
lucy-upright-face-but-sloping-skull.jpg
upright had features that, like her sloping skull, evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public. For, Lucy had:
- "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
- an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
- the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
- curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
- long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
- a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain
(and finally, from our you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up file)
- a 2016 autopsy that reports death by falling 46 feet out of a tree!

7 Collard, M. and Aiello, L.C., From forelimbs to two legs, Nature 404(6776):340, 2000.

Once again- removing huge sections of bone to make it appear like it was supposed???? C'mon man!
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
And many commonalities as well!

It's not commonalities I'm asking about. I'm asking how a "designer" explains the differences in organisms adapted for the same environments.

Why would a designer create whales requiring them to breath air? Why not give them gills like fish?

Why have them undulate in an up-down motion like terrestrial mammal locomotion, as opposed to undulating side-to-side like fish?

Why are whale genomes packed with pseudogenes for remnants of functionality common to terrestrial mammals?

And so on...

Well so far all your side has produced is four supposed "positive" mutations.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but there are far more than four beneficial mutations documented in the scientific literature.

You still haven't shown the mutations for scales to feathers and that is supposedly a fact!

Not sure what you are looking for here exactly. If you're looking to understand the molecular basis for the evolution of feathers, I suggest looking into the scientific literature and seeing what is there. Have you done that?

Now if you're trying to argue that we don't have 100% complete information on something, then okay. So what? Not having 100% complete information doesn't invalidate what we do know already.

Also I wonder how many gene variations are not simply due to Mendellian Inheritance. I haven't seen anyone research on this as a cause for years!

Gene variations are not caused by Mendelian inheritance. Maybe you're thinking of the expression of alleles and heterozygosity versus homozygosity in diploid organisms?

Anyone ever show you Caucasian couples who have had Caucasian relatives for many generations, produce jet black babies?

And luminescence genes seem to attach and function in many different genus and family!

Not sure what the above is meant to illustrate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Look at the video again! IN the supposed crushed state it fit perfect and the video shows it!

And you find nothing wrong with hacking off not an insignificant portion of pelvic bone to show it an upright walker (sawing changed the trajectory of the pelvis) How does taking away8 original bone do anything other than show fraud!



Listen to the video again- He proposed a deer. So how does removing original bone matter show how the pelvis was? It takes away what was there so there is less there don't you get that.

Fossilized bone don't get mishaped by something stepping on it- Odds are given the amount of silicate that went into the bone by then- It is doubtful a deer could crush the bone.



this just shows you have allowed others to suck IQ out of your brain by their mindless ad-hominems.

So I guess we get to have a buffet of choices to decide what we want! Here is an article from an evolutionist:

Taken from this article in AIG: answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/did-lucy-walk-upright/

"This seems like strong evidence that these supposed early ancestors, including Lucy, actually were knuckle-walkers and hence did not walk upright. But no, the authors assume that the previous evidence for bipedalism is sound, and that these ancestors only retain knuckle-walking features from a previous ancestor. It is true that there are some morphological features for knuckle walking that are missing in Lucy,6 but these features are not always present in living knuckle-walkers either, so that researchers cannot rule out that Lucy was a knuckle-walker.5 The researchers are almost forced to reject that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, otherwise it would have adaptions for walking upright, climbing trees (based on the long arms and fingers) and knuckle walking. This presents an evolutionary difficulty in how Lucy can have three fairly distinct behavioural characteristics. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to determine which of these characteristics are related to its lifestyle and which are no longer functional but are carryovers from its previous ancestry.7"

Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385.
5Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, p. 383.

6 Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000.

Also from RSR's List of Problems with "Lucy" as an Upright Walker | KGOV.com

* Lucy's Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: The infamous "human ancestor" who allegedly walked
lucy-upright-face-but-sloping-skull.jpg
upright had features that, like her sloping skull, evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public. For, Lucy had:
- "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
- an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
- the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
- curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
- long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
- a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain
(and finally, from our you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up file)
- a 2016 autopsy that reports death by falling 46 feet out of a tree!

7 Collard, M. and Aiello, L.C., From forelimbs to two legs, Nature 404(6776):340, 2000.

Once again- removing huge sections of bone to make it appear like it was supposed???? C'mon man!
your info about Lucy’s pelvis is incorrect . Shaped like that original fossil, the pubic bones would have crossed if both halves were shaped the way the pelvis was originally found and Lucy wouldn’t have been able to walk . Upright walking can be determined by looking at the base of the skull in Hominidae The spine inserts into the skull directly underneath .
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nobody said that. What I quoted was that Todd Wood recognizes that the theory of evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, that it is useful and that there is a lot of evidence to support it.

That is not the same thing as claiming he supports common ancestry or that he is not a creationist. Those were your claims.

Well hire is the last line from the link that was given here from his blog

"I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!"

See I didn't make it up! I will stay tuned to see how he works this dichotomy out! But I am glad He is a y8ec creationist with a wierd quirkiness toward evolution and common ancestry.
 
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

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well hire is the last line from the link that was given here from his blog

"I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!"

See I didn't make it up! I will stay tuned to see how he works this dichotomy out! But I am glad He is a y8ec creationist with a wierd quirkiness toward evolution and common ancestry.
He's a YEC with enough sense to realize that the theory of evolution is not just a worldwide atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Well hire is the last line from the link that was given here from his blog

"I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!"

See I didn't make it up! I will stay tuned to see how he works this dichotomy out! But I am glad He is a y8ec creationist with a wierd quirkiness toward evolution and common ancestry.

Stating there is evidence for something is not the same thing as accepting it.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
EB491FD5-5292-4C0F-B194-F1D3B9325FEE.jpeg


This is a photo of a brief video. It describes what creationists say about Lucy and also gives the accurate mainstream scientific info . That’s a model of Lucy’s pelvis in the crushed state . As you see the pubic area is just ....weird. Tony Reed’s videos are very good at debunking creationist nonsense. The name of the series is a little misleading though.
How Creationism Taught Me Real Science and he has about 90 of the commonest misleading creationist tropes on here . All the videos are short
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Look at the video again! IN the supposed crushed state it fit perfect and the video shows it!

I’d prefer to read about what professional scientists have to say. Funnily enough they all agree that it was anatomically incorrect and that it would have been impossible for Lucy to walk in any manner as it was found, I take it you didn’t read the article I posted....

“When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1)”

So I guess we get to have a buffet of choices to decide what we want!

If you prefer a mocking video of a stage show over scientific evidence your ignorance on the topic is understandable. The fact is that Lucy has shows a mixture of bipedal human and more ape like traits.

Taken from this article in AIG: answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/did-lucy-walk-upright/

"This seems like strong evidence that these supposed early ancestors, including Lucy, actually were knuckle-walkers and hence did not walk upright. But no, the authors assume that the previous evidence for bipedalism is sound, and that these ancestors only retain knuckle-walking features from a previous ancestor. It is true that there are some morphological features for knuckle walking that are missing in Lucy,6 but these features are not always present in living knuckle-walkers either, so that researchers cannot rule out that Lucy was a knuckle-walker.5 The researchers are almost forced to reject that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, otherwise it would have adaptions for walking upright, climbing trees (based on the long arms and fingers) and knuckle walking. This presents an evolutionary difficulty in how Lucy can have three fairly distinct behavioural characteristics. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to determine which of these characteristics are related to its lifestyle and which are no longer functional but are carryovers from its previous ancestry.7"

Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385.
5Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, p. 383.

6 Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000.

Yes, I read the original article, not just the quote, it’s quite interesting.

Also from RSR's List of Problems with "Lucy" as an Upright Walker | KGOV.com

* Lucy's Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: The infamous "human ancestor" who allegedly walked
lucy-upright-face-but-sloping-skull.jpg
upright had features that, like her sloping skull, evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public. For, Lucy had:
- "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
- an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
- the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
- curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
- long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
- a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain
(and finally, from our you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up file)
- a 2016 autopsy that reports death by falling 46 feet out of a tree!

7 Collard, M. and Aiello, L.C., From forelimbs to two legs, Nature 404(6776):340, 2000QUOTE]

Are you just going to copy and paste from apologetics sites and expect me to address every point, because I really can’t be bothered.

Tell me how anything you’ve pasted about AAfarensis casts doubt on the fact that it exhibits features of a transitional stage between bipedal and quadrapedal locomotion because nothing you’ve posted suggests otherwise.

Once again- removing huge sections of bone to make it appear like it was supposed???? C'mon man!

Once again, you have conveniently ignored the fact that the reconstruction matches exactly other specimens of australopithecus pelvis finds.

You creationists can’t seem to grasp the fact that Lucy is not the only australopithecus fossil we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
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

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
“When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1)”

So your professional scientist removed a significant portion of the ilium so it could fit they way he thought it should!

Post MOrtem distortion? About the only way that can happen with thick bone like pelvis bone is continued steady pressure while the bone still has a soft center over X time. C'mon selling land below the keys is more believable than that!

What amazes me is that you still buy that removing significant portions of a fossil is necessary to make that fossil be right!

I don't know of any doctor who, if a patinet shatters a pelvis and it heals wrong- removes significant portions of the pelvis to insure proper fit!
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you even name one intelligent design group that isn’t based in the United States? I’m not aware of any, though I admit, I haven’t looked too hard.

Well I do not follow ID barely at all. so I can't name one outside of the group I assume Meyers belongs to.
 
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

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Stating there is evidence for something is not the same thing as accepting it.

Now you are straining at gnats. The average person who sees this would accept he holds that it is at the very least plausible.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.