A Question for Creationists

[biggles53]

Well there was never a fossil found of that particular evolution. Meaning if giraffes came from alligators or whatever it is, there was never a fossil found of half giraffe and half alligator.

Hello...?........Kirk Cameron...?..........is that you....?

 

[frogman2x]

Yeah, but why 10? I'm just trying to figure out your reasoning.

I told you wlhy, but it isn't importaqnqt in the disussion unless you think there are less then 10 steps for an species to evolve into a different species. I didn't count them but in your whale chart there was about 10 steps from hippo to whale.

Yes, it did. It had numerous similarities that show progression - the obvious ones, like the skull and the feet, as well as the tail and the inner ear region.

You showed them in different species on the chart. You did not show them on each suceeding species.

You could have just typed 'whale' in your find bar, and it would have stared you in the face.

It would not show how what is claimed is BIOLOGICALLY possible. Prove me wrong.

Regardless, sometimes it DOES happen. Occasionally, whales and dolphins are born with these limbs to varying degrees, like here.

Mutation.

They were already aquatic when they lost their legs. They spent a great deal of time in the water and were proficient and frequent swimmers. Losing their legs made them BETTER swimmers.

No the wern't.

That's not all I said, now was it?

No. You are very good a saying, your record on porvidient the evidence for what you say is lacking.

Yes, I do. I presented this evidence. That you find unsatisfactory does not negate its existence.

You sayng itg is evidence does not make it evidence. You have yet to produce any BIOLOGICAL evidence to show how indohyus and pakicetus lost their legs. To say lack of use is absurd and it certainly is not a BIOILOGICAL explanation. Not only can you not explaain HOW, you have no eplanation as to WHY this should happen. The ones with legs were surviving quite well because they had legs.

Another thing you can't explain is why did the hippo and the whale survive but everything inbetween did not?

Not if they're in an environment where legs slow them down. Like the water.

You have no evidence they ever were. That is a necessary conclusion or evolution is exposed for the scientific fraud it is. Land, dog-like animals need their legs to survive.

I'm not making anything up.

Bactrian camels.

Wild Bactrian camel videos, photos and facts - Camelus ferus - ARKive

Sea Lions. Seals.

No you are not making us things. You are accepting by faith alone what others have made up. It is necessary for evolution to survive to have an explanation as to how whales came into existence. There really is no
BIOLOGICAL explanation but a link is critical, all the evos have jumped on the Gingrich bandwagon, patted him on the back and thannked him for saving the theory.

How can sea mammals drink saltwater? : Scientific American

They avoid it when possible and prefer freshwater, but they are capable of drinking it in limited amounts. Also, the presence of saltwater in the bones would still be an indication of its spending a great deal of time in the water - even if they can't drink saltwater, something that spends a lot of time swimming is going to get some in its body eventually, anyway, way more than a creature that spends its time on land. And these animals have far more salt in their blood than is normal, as the chart shows. It's not a big leap - animals that spent a lot of time in saltwater show that through the isotopes in their bones. This particular creature has a lot of said isotopes, indicating it spent a great deal of time swimming.

Of course some sea mammals might be able to drink sea water but I doubt that any of them that do not live in the water most of the time(sea turtles for example)would survive doing it for an extended time. There is no evidence that pakicetus spent much time in the sea and it is very unlikely it would ever drink sea water and live.

I don't recall saying that drinking saltwater would cause that.

I don't either. If I accused you of that, I ws in error.

Yes, there is. It all deals with biology, so by definition it's biological evidence.

None of it is biological.

I'm sure a great many things are puzzling to you.

You are right, but how an offspring receives the traits it has is not one of them. That seems to be someting you are confused about





Your pictures do not explain how packicetus lost its nose. You can't blame that one on lack of use. Also the 3 pictures of the blowhole in different postions on the skull is better explained by saying they are different species that were created that way.[/quote][/quote]

 

[frogman2x]

Dog-like. The 'like' part is important. It is not, in fact, a dog. It resembles a dog in some ways. But so do hyenas and aardwolves, and they're not dogs, either.

Quibble note4d.

I never said dogs evolved into whales. No one ever said that.

Note: I'm assuming you meant 'dogs could not evolve into whales', but with you, I can't be sure.

You included a DOG-LIKE animal, and I think that is the term Gringrich used, in your hippo to whale chart. This DOG-LIKE creature, according to yoou did evolve into a whale-like creature.

Let me make my position clear. Nothing ever evolved into a whale. They were created that way and ALWAYS produce after their kind. That can be proved.

 

[frogman2x]

I know that I have explained this before, but not lately, and not since discovering that you are willing to acknowledge the creation of new alleles for old genes.

I don't remember acknowedging that.

You have already aknowledged that mutations (and ERVs, and other means of altering DNA) can create neww alleles for existing genes. But what do you think would happen if a mutation occurred not in the middle of a gene sequence, but at the end? Genes are segments of DNA that build specific proteins. (There is the intermediate step of messenger RNA, but that does not affect my argument.)

It doesn't matter when it happens. It can only happen to a gene the parent were givng to their child.

A gene can be divided into 3-base-pair segments called codons, each codon associated with a specific amino acid, except for six. These are three "start" codons and three "stop" codons. Every gene begins with a "start" and ends with a "stop." Without the start and stop, there is no gene. If a mutation or other gene-altering event occurs on a "start" or "stop" codon, and does not result in another "start" or "stop" codon of the appropriate type, the gene is destroyed. If there is an unpaired codon of the right type a couple of codons further along the chain, then a new gene -- not just a new allele, but a new and completely different gene -- is created. Likewise, if a mutation or other event changes a non start/stop codon into a start or stop codon, the proteins built by the gene wil start or stop there instead of continuing to the pre-existing start or stop. Again, you have destroyed the old gene and created a brand new totally different gene.

You seem to be beating around the bush. If a genes is destgroyed, the trait will not be passed on. The new gene must also have originated in one or both parents. What evidene do you have as to what characteristic this new gene caused? Do you have a source I can check for info on this new gene?

 

[frogman2x]

Yes. They are both Carnivora. They're also Eutherians, Therians, Synapsida, Amniota, Terrestrial Tetrapods, etc. etc.

If they were the same kind, they could breed and produce offspring. Man and apes are both mammals but they are different kinds. One is homo sapian one is not. I am surf with your omniscience, I don't need to tell you which is which.

ERVs Shared broken GULOP
Chromosome 2a/2b/2

Brilliant. I am sure all the creationsist will start piling on your bus. I know brilliant answers like that always convince me.

You might want to keep up with the science if you're going to avoid making statements like this that make you look ignorant and foolish.

I will be concerened about your opinion of me when you can explain how an offspring can acquire a trait for which its parents did not have the gene for. If you can't guess who is going to look foolish. I also think you need to refresh your definition of "kind,"

 

[frogman2x]

Actually no. In plain old, straight forward language, it's a straw man.

In plain old, straight forward language, you have no explanation for how the moon came into being so you try to change the subject.

Thanks for conofrming what I said.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In plain old, straight forward language, you have no explanation for how the moon came into being so you try to change the subject.

Thanks for conofrming what I said.

What is your explanation for how the moon came to be?

 

[frogman2x]

You have been corrected so repeated your incorrect assertion is now a lie. Gingerich never said, asserted, averred or suggested that whales evolved from a "dog-like animal". Please stop lying about what he's saying.

He included pakicetus in the evolution of whales. That is good enough for me.

This gibberish makes absolutely no sense.

It is nice to have someone in the fourm who never makes a mistake. Try this: That is why a dog-like animal can never be a link in the chain of whales.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your explanation for how the moon came to be?

The moon was created ex nihilo, which is Latin for GOD DID IT.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The moon was created ex nihilo, which is Latin for GOD DID IT.

How did God do it? And what evidence led you to that conclusion?

 

[frogman2x]

Which I take to mean you have no scientific justification for you specific number, it's just something you made up and are now going to stick with.

I will stick with it untill you come up with a better number. Can you do that.

Do you not consider fossils to be biological? If so, it's either a sign of your desperation or ignorance.

Did I say they were?

Would rather discuss the subject or just continue making snide remarks?

You remind me of the play ground in the third grade.

 

[frogman2x]

What is your explanation for how the moon came to be?

Since matter cannot create itself out of nothing, it must have a Creator.

What is your explanation of how the moon came to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

How did God do it?

Through a process called "saying."

Genesis 1:14 And God said,

And what evidence led you to that conclusion?

None.

 

[frogman2x]

Mutations. If you're not even familiar with Biology 101, why are you even here discussing this issue?

One reason is to show know-it-alls, they do not have all of the answers.

If you are not even familiar with mutations 101, and genetics 101, why are you even here discussing the issue?

 

[frogman2x]

I have to wonder if there's a connection between Creationism and the inability to communicate effectively via the written medium. Rarely, if ever, have I seen such incoherent gibberish infused with Dunning-Kruger effect posted by evolution advocates.

Mayye your lack of understanding is the problem.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Through a process called "saying."

Genesis 1:14 And God said,

None.

"What can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

 

[frogman2x]

Mutation.
You and I and everybody has 50-150 differences in our DNA that were not present in either parent.
Recombination.
You may have a phenotypic trait which is due to a recessive gene carried by your parents which neither of them expressed.

I am not talking about DNA. I am talking about how traits are gotten by the offspring.

While our DNA is different, tells us that we are not related biologically but we are related by species---homo sapian.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since matter cannot create itself out of nothing, it must have a Creator.

What is your explanation of how the moon came to be.

Creators can't come out of nothing either, at least not in my experience of any being that has ever "created" anything.

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't remember acknowedging that.

Not in those words, but you do akmowledge that a mutation in a gene {which is the same as the creation of a new allele for that gene) can produce a new trait, like albinism or hemophilia, and that this new trait can be heritable.

It doesn't matter when it happens. It can only happen to a gene the parent were givng to their child.

But if a mutation destroys a gene and replaces it with a new, completely different gene, then although he inherited the new gene from his parent, his parent does not have the gene -- or more specifically the parent only has the gene in one cell, the seminal cell that mutated, and in the gametes (sperm or eggs) that that cell creates. At the same time, he does not inherit the old gene which was destroyed in the seminal cell. At least not from that parent.

You seem to be beating around the bush. If a genes is destgroyed, the trait will not be passed on.

He will inherit the corresponding gene from the other parent, but it will be unpaired. Likewise, the new gene will not have a pair-mate. Unpaired genes can still express themselves in traits, but are more susceptible to damage, because there is not as much redundancy.

The new gene must also have originated in one or both parents.

As I explained above.

What evidene do you have as to what characteristic this new gene caused? Do you have a source I can check for info on this new gene?

Lets start with the Wikipedia article, and if you read and understand that, we can look at more scholarly works.

 

[AV1611VET]

"What can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

"God said it, that settles it." - Christian Motto