A Question for Creationists

[Loudmouth]

Paleontologist Jack Horner in 2003 unearthed a Tyrannosaurus rex that lived 68 million years ago in Montana and recovered a still-elastic blood vessel from inside a fractured thigh bone fossil. Recent phylogenetic analyses of this isolated tissue by a team of scientists reveals that the closest living relative of T. rex is none other than the domestic chicken. Of seven decoded amino acid sequences from the collagen molecules, three matched chicken uniquely. Another matched frog uniquely, one matched newt uniquely, and a few matched multiple sequences.

A mouse is less fierce than a lion, and yet the mouse has been much more successful than the lion. The less fierce squirrel survives in forests full of very fierce wolves.

Nature shows that you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[KWCrazy]

A mouse is less fierce than a lion, and yet the mouse has been much more successful than the lion. The less fierce squirrel survives in forests full of very fierce wolves.

Evolution demands that there be thousands of "tweeners," neither lion nor mouse; lacking both ferocity and the ability to hide in tiny places. Natural selection could not POSSIBLY drive a species into an increasingly less survivable species. It goes against everything claimed by you guys.

 

[frogman2x]

There is a Christians only section that I think is more appropriate for your preaching. We are here to discuss and debate not proselytise.

Telling someone what the Bible says, in response to something they said, is not preaching. So why don't you try to stick to the subject?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution demands that there be thousands of "tweeners," neither lion nor mouse;

There are thousands of mammals species with fiercness between that of a mouse and a lion.

Natural selection could not POSSIBLY drive a species into an increasingly less survivable species. It goes against everything claimed by you guys.

Where did you show that less fierce results in lower survivability? Right now, the mice are surviving at a much better rate than the much fiercer lion. You are making stuff up.

 

[lasthero]

Evolution demands that there be thousands of "tweeners," neither lion nor mouse; lacking both ferocity and the ability to hide in tiny places. Natural selection could not POSSIBLY drive a species into an increasingly less survivable species. It goes against everything claimed by you guys.

It demands no such thing.

 

[frogman2x]

Did they? Did they, really?

-Indohyus

-Pakicetus and ambolocetus

-Kutchicetus

-Rodhocetus

-Dorudon

None, not one of the fossils you posted is an intermediate. They are all distinctly separate. Are you really not aware that even most hard core evos acknowledge the fossil record does not support evolution? Not only that you resonded with the usual evo lack of evidence. Where is the biology that makes such a thing possible? You seem to always forget that.

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a major morphologic transition....(Stephen M. Stanly, Microevolution: Pattern and Process, p.39.

"I regard the failure tofind a clear 'vector of progressss' in life's history as the most puzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that doe snot really display it."(Stephen J Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural Hisstory(Vol 93, Feb 1984).

These 2 comments on the fossil record and more can be found in ICR Impact series of June 1986.

 

[frogman2x]

Then you are not using the same evidence as scientists are. Scientists use genetics and fossil evidence to determine if humans share a common ancestor with apes. You ignore this evidence.

You don't seem to understnd DNA. It is used to separate species. The DNA can tell if the life form is a dog, or a cat or a human. It can tell if 2 cats have a common ancesor, but that does not translate into all animals having a common ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

None, not one of the fossils you posted is an intermediate. They are all distinctly separate.

Based on what criteria?

What features would a fossil need to have in order to be transitional between whales and a terrestrial mammal?

Are you really not aware that even most hard core evos acknowledge the fossil record does not support evolution?

Are you aware that you are being lied to by professional creationists?

What are the arguments in favor of evolution? Let me quickly describe two arguments. (1) The fossil record. Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science. (2) The DNA evidence for evolution. I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?
Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf​

Where is the biology that makes such a thing possible?

Why do you keep ignoring the biology we present you?

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a major morphologic transition....(Stephen M. Stanly, Microevolution: Pattern and Process, p.39.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

These 2 comments on the fossil record and more can be found in ICR Impact series of June 1986.

You mean the ICR who pulls quotes out of context and lies?

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't seem to understnd DNA. It is used to separate species. The DNA can tell if the life form is a dog, or a cat or a human. It can tell if 2 cats have a common ancesor, but that does not translate into all animals having a common ancestor.

Why doesn't it translate to all animals? Just because you say so?

 

[frogman2x]

What genetic evidence, if found, would falsify separate creation of humans and other apes?

DNA. What genetic evidence do you have that prove humans are apes.

What features would a fossil need in order to falsify the separate creation of humans and other apes?

Brain size for one. What features do apes have that joins humans to them?

From what I have seen, you have already decided that creationism is true before even looking at the evidence, and no evidence will ever change your mind.

From what I have seen, you have alreaddy decidec that evolution is true without examining the opinons the evo present as evidence and no evidence will ever change your mind.

You don't have evidence, you have a dogmatic religious belief.

Why do you want to drag religion inot the discussion. Stick to the topic. Can you falisfy "after it kind?" I can falisy whale evolution. Can you provide the bioilogical evidendce tha makes it possible?

So you have evidence that no one else can see? That's not evidence.

I can see it and you have no evidence at all.

 

[lasthero]

Thanks, LM. I'm on the way to work and didn't have time to respond to that crap.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chimps and humans can stare each other in the face.

I wasn't aware humans are chimps common ancestor.

(Assuming I read your post right.)

 

[frogman2x]

Its all biological. Do you think genetics is not biological?

Of course it is, but the evos in the fourm NEVER offer any genetic evidence. Genetically speaking, how can a dog lose its legs and acquire some fins? Genetically speaking how can an offspring acquire a trait, thet neither parents had the gene for.

But we don't claim infallibility as a cloak. You guys do. You have nothing else. That is why I have told you over and over again that we don't prove anything in science.

That is nonsense. What type of blood do you have? How do you know?

Blatant falsehood. You have been shown the intermediates.<<

We have not. We have been show fossils of distincet life forms and you have called the intermediates. It has been recognized for years the there are no intememdiate fossils. Gould recognized this so he invented punctuated equilibra, which is even more absurd. If evolution was true, at least 90% of the fossils would be transitiona and to date you have a big fat 0

Whales didn't evolve from a dog.<<

I am not the one who said that. It came rom Gringich, the cucrrent so called whale expert.

The intermediates you have been shown demonstrate that whales' rear legs became reduced over time, and now they are just tiny bones in modern whales. Close your eyes, though and say it isn't what it is.

You responnse i the usual evo hetoric. You say it happend but EVER provided the GENTICS that made it possible. Whales were created with those tiny bones. YOu have also neglected to provide the genetics that causes a dog-like animal to lose it legs and nose. I wonder why? Actually I know why.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA. What genetic evidence do you have that prove humans are apes.

The most cited example in these forums are ERV's, which are discussed here:

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

The gist of it is that retroviruses insert randomly into the host genome. This can lead to a retroviral insertion becoming a permanent part of the host genome, and can be inherited if it happens in a gamete. As it turns out, humans have just over 200,000 of these retroviral insertions in our genome. We also found that there are about the same number of ERV's in the chimp genome. When we compared them, we found that over 99% of them were found at the same location in each genome. Due to the random nature of viral insertion, it is nearly impossible for these insertions to occur at the same base due to separate infections at such a high rate. The only explanation is that the viral insertion happened once, in a common ancestor.

There are tons of other examples if you want them. For example, all apes, including humans, have the same mutation in our GULO gene that is responsible for vitamin C synthesis which results in none of the apes being able to produce their own vitamin C. Why would we all have the same exact mutation, unless the mutation happened once in a common ancestor?

Brain size for one. What features do apes have that joins humans to them?

What brain size would a transitional fossil need? What cranial features would a transitional need? You need to be more specific.

From what I have seen, you have alreaddy decidec that evolution is true without examining the opinons the evo present as evidence and no evidence will ever change your mind.

Repeating my words back to me is not an argument. What features would a fossil need in order for YOU to accept it as transitional? What shared genetic marker would you accept as evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes?

Or will you reject any DNA comparison and any fossil as evidence?

Why do you want to drag religion inot the discussion. Stick to the topic. Can you falisfy "after it kind?"

I already demonstrated, with ERV's and other genetic evidence, that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

I can falisy whale evolution.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between whales and terrestrial mammals? Or will you reject any and all evidence?

Can you provide the bioilogical evidendce tha makes it possible?

Already have multiple times. The ERV evidence can be found above.

 

[bhsmte]

These creationist/evolutionists debates about the evidence always reminds me of this:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) - YouTube

 

[frogman2x]

I find it incredibly patronising when Christians assume that I must not have been a "real Christian" at any point in time because, if I was, I would still be a Christian today. I prayed, I read the Bible, I was involved with the Church, I held leadership positions, I even gave serious consideration to the idea of becoming a priest or pastor. And yet I somehow wasn't Christian enough?

I am only telling you what the Bible says. I am not assuming any thing. You said you wer once a Christians but now you ar not. I simply pointed out that that is not Biblially possble and I told you why. If you dont believe it, that's fine with me. I did all of the things you mentiioned befor I was saved. Doing things, even good things, doe snot maaake one a Christian.

My personal speculation is that Christians only say this to reassure themselves that they are Christian enough to never lose their faith.

Now who is patronizing? But at lesst you recognize it is only your speculation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it is, but the evos in the fourm NEVER offer any genetic evidence.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

Do you want more?

Genetically speaking, how can a dog lose its legs and acquire some fins?

Mutations that are then filtered through natural selection.

Genetically speaking how can an offspring acquire a trait, thet neither parents had the gene for.

Mutations.

We have not. We have been show fossils of distincet life forms and you have called the intermediates. It has been recognized for years the there are no intememdiate fossils. Gould recognized this so he invented punctuated equilibra, which is even more absurd. If evolution was true, at least 90% of the fossils would be transitiona and to date you have a big fat 0

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

So is it through design or stupidity that you are lying about what Gould has said?

Also, you have given no reason why these are not intermediates, and still refuse to explain what your criteria are for determining if a fossil is intermediate.

I am not the one who said that. It came rom Gringich, the cucrrent so called whale expert.

Grinich did not claim that whales evolved from modern dogs.

You responnse i the usual evo hetoric. You say it happend but EVER provided the GENTICS that made it possible.

The genetics that makes human evolution possible are the differences seen between the human and chimp genomes. Amongst those differences are the mutations that were selected for during our evolutionary history, and the mutations that are responsible for our modern species.

 

[bhsmte]

I am only telling you what the Bible says. I am not assuming any thing. You said you wer once a Christians but now you ar not. I simply pointed out that that is not Biblially possble and I told you why. If you dont believe it, that's fine with me. I did all of the things you mentiioned befor I was saved. Doing things, even good things, doe snot maaake one a Christian.



Now who is patronizing? But at lesst you recognize it is only your speculation.

You know, it is like it is impossible for someone to realize they were very wrong about something.

Admitting you were wrong about something you believed strongly in, is a sign of strength and psychological health.

 

[lasthero]

We have not. We have been show fossils of distincet life forms and you have called the intermediates. It has been recognized for years the there are no intememdiate fossils. Gould recognized this so he invented punctuated equilibra, which is even more absurd. If evolution was true, at least 90% of the fossils would be transitiona and to date you have a big fat 0

Why 90%? Where does that number comes from?

 

[Loudmouth]

I wasn't aware humans are chimps common ancestor.

(Assuming I read your post right.)

I wasn't aware that modern wolves were the common ancestor of chihuahuas. I wasn't aware that modern Europeans were not the common ancestor of modern Americans. I wasn't aware that my cousins were my ancestors.