A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

In most cases we cannot know if a particular fossil species is directly ancestral to another. With whales, we just don't have enough intermediates to do that.

Then why make the claim?

Rather, we are seeing the twigs of a branch of a larger tree or bush.

You don't know that. They could have been created that way.

They are still transitionals, however.

You dont know that either.

They also have the primitive features required and none of the derived features we do not expect. For example, they all have four legs and teeth. None have baleen, which is a highly derived feature of modern whales (Mysticeti).

What makes y ou expect those features? Certianly no one expects dog legs to become fins or a nose to become a blowhole.

Nonesense. The earliest whales certainly did not live like modern whales. They stayed close to shore and were more like gaters or otters in behavior.

You don't know that either.

No. You interpret the bible, and we interpret the data. That's fine, just don't bother asking us for the evidence, when it means nothing to you.

Why bring the Bible into this discussion? Stick to the subject. What genetic data do you haved that show how a leg can become a fin and a nose become a blowhole.

You don't want us to ask for evidence because you have none, but I will keep asking.

 

[frogman2x]

Its not presumption, its based on examination of the fossils. You act like they are a bunch of random bones found in a pile, they are not.

Most evos acknowledge that the fossil record does not support evolution. One of your heros in the faith, Stephen Gould says, "I find the failure to find a clear 'vectdor of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."

 

[frogman2x]

How does the evidence point to a common creator?

After its kind can be proved. Nothing the ToE can be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why make the claim?

We are not saying that they are ancestral. We are saying that they are transitional. Transitional means that a fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. It does not require that the fossil be directly ancestral to any living species. Even Darwin spoke of using fossils of "collateral descendants", or side branches that are not directly ancestral to living species.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--"Origin of Species"

More importantly, evolution predicts which transitionals we should see, and which we should NOT see. For example, the theory predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features. It also predicts that we should NOT see fossils with a mixture of mammal and avian features. Every fossil has fallen in line with the predictions that evolution makes which is why it is so widely accepted amongst biologists.

You don't know that. They could have been created that way.

You know, God could plant fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. Does that mean that we should free everyone who has been convicted based on forensic evidence?

You dont know that either.

We do know that. We can determine that they are transitional by the mixture of features. For example, Australopithecines do have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

What makes y ou expect those features? Certianly no one expects dog legs to become fins or a nose to become a blowhole.

What makes you reject those features? What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern whales and a terrestrial mammal?

You don't know that either.

So you are saying that, according to evolution, a fully formed blue whale suddenly popped out of a dog sized mammal? Or do you think that it makes way more sense that during the transition from terrestrial mammal to fully aquatic lifestyles that those transitions lived at the meeting place of water and land?

Why bring the Bible into this discussion? Stick to the subject. What genetic data do you haved that show how a leg can become a fin and a nose become a blowhole.

It is the DNA shared by whales and other terrestrial mammals, and the nested hierarchy that all mammals fall into. That is the evidence that demonstrates evolution.

 

[frogman2x]

That last bit is false and even Creationist organizations admit there are transitional fossils.

Some do, some don't.

Here is one of many that say they don't and he is an evolutionists: The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accompishing a major change of morpholigic transition...(STephen M. Stanly, Microevolution: Pattern and Process, p. 39.

Let me Google that for you....

Not necessary, the are evolutionists on both side of the intgemediate fense.

Whales didn't evolve from dogs, but from artiodactyls. And the genetics have been understood since 2006. The key is Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2.

Your whale expert, Gringich, puts a dog-like animal in the linage of whales. What genetrics causes a dog-like land amimal doing quite well on land to lose it legs and nose and acquire fins and a blowhole. That actually contradits know genetics.

 

[Loudmouth]

After its kind can be proved. Nothing the ToE can be.

You have yet to show two species that do not belong to the same kind. For example, genetic evidence demonstrates that humans and other apes belong to the same kind.

 

[frogman2x]

Were all dinosaurs large carnivores? Oh that right they weren't. Either all large and or carnivores.

No but t hey were all dinosaurs and kept producing afte their kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

No but t hey were all dinosaurs and kept producing afte their kind.

Are you saying that tens of thousands of dinosaur species were all one kind? They were all able to interbreed between all dinosaur species?

 

[biggles53]

And what does the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality tell you about how we got our moon?

Aah....a perfect example to demonstrate what I'm talking about....thank you for feeding it to me......(are you sure you're not a double agent working for our side....?... )

Here is one summary of the current theory...

Astronomers believe that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body smashed into the Earth, ejecting matter into orbit and lengthening our day to its present value of 24 hours. Until recently, however, estimates of much of the Moon is “impactor material” that came from this impactor object, as opposed to the Earth, have varied wildly - from 1 to 90%. Now, by comparing the compositions of lunar and terrestrial rock samples, astronomers in Germany have calculated that no more than two-thirds of the Moon is impactor material. Moreover, they estimate that the Moon must be at least 4.5 billion years old (C Münker et al 2003 Science 301 84).

Carsten Münker and co-workers at the University of Münster compared the ratios of niobium (Nb) to tantalum (Ta) in samples of rock from the Moon, Earth, Mars and meteorites. The team found a Nb/Ta ratio of 17 for the Moon, compared with 14 on Earth. The ratio in the other samples was almost 20, which should be consistent for bodies throughout the solar system – including the object that collided with the Earth.
According to the researchers, this variation suggests that the impact that formed the Moon took place during the formation of the Earth’s rocky mantle and iron core - a process that geologists believe was aided by the impact. Under high pressures, niobium becomes ‘siderophile’ or iron-loving, so much of the terrestrial niobium would have become incorporated into the Earth’s core when it formed, leaving a niobium-poor mantle.
If the giant impact occurred while the core and mantle were forming, the Earth would have contributed little niobium to the Moon. But Münker and colleagues calculated that the lunar Nb/Ta ratio would be boosted to the observed level if up to 65% of the Moon consisted of impactor material. This theory also leads Münker’s team to believe that the Moon must be at least 4.5 billion years old, since radioisotope dating shows that the Earth’s core and mantle were fully formed by that time.

Now, does the scientific community state this this is the ultimate explanation for the formation of the moon...? Of course not. Do astronomers and cosmologists and geologists and physicists understand that there needs to be further research in this field....you betcha, because that's what science does - it continually strives to improve our understanding...!

So....what does your 'side' offer....? That your preferred imaginary hero crossed his arms, twitched his nose and blinked the moon into existence...! How does that help any understanding..? How does that lead us to want to explore further..? It's a lazy, wish-filled approach which does nothing to further the knowledge of mankind...!

 

[biggles53]

No. You can't question the Christianity of a professed Christian. However, when one claims to have gone from a devout Christian to an atheist and uses that to try and say Christians are ignorant and unenlightened, then we have every right to question his veracity. Frankly, in my short time here I've seen that more times than I'd like to count. In fact, it seems to be a formula. I wonder if any of them are sincere or if they are being coached in how to mislead from another web site. Regardless, we aren't questioning their posted religion, but the obvious incongruity in how they went from a follower of God to one who proclaims there is no God.

I'll wager you've never met any 'True Scotsmen' either..........

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK, I found it.
www.biblerelatedministries.org/5Iwills.pdf

AV's reference was incomplete, because the post he was commenting on did not use the entire phrase "I will" five times. The idea that five "I will"s identifies the speaker as Satan apparently comes from Isaiah 14, where Lucifer makes five "I will" statements in describing his plans to ascend to God's throne.

Oh ok Thanks.

 

[biggles53]

A person cannot go from knowing God to knowing He doesn't exist. Either he never knew God or for whatever reason he is lying to himself and others about God's existence. There simply is no other option. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you knew Him or you didn't. From what you are saying you THOUGHT you knew Him. That means you never knew Him.

What rubbish.......how surprising...

Religious beliefs are formed in the mind. I have yet to meet a believer who stated that they have had the experience of a god 'in the flesh' - all revelations that have been reported have been in the form of a 'spiritual experience', that they have felt the 'presence' of their god or 'holy spirit'.

So, what can be formed in the mind can also suffer the vagaries of the mind.......we now understand much more about how the mind can be fooled into confusing reality with illusion...

In short, then there is indeed another 'option'.....A person may have believed that they were once in communion with a god, but then come to the realisation, through reasoned thinking, that such was probably not the case. It does not mean that they were any less fervent in that belief than you might be, while they held it......!

 

[frogman2x]

Based on what criteria?

Look at them for goodness sake. There is no simialarity between a hipo and packicetus except both had 4 legs and a tail. One had fur, one didn't. How did packicetus lose it legs? How did the thick, heavy hipo llegs become lim legs?

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

First of all you need more than one transitional fossil between hipo and packicetus.. You have to show gradualism which Gould refuted with his punctuated equilibra.

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

Talk is cheap. Present your evidence.

​

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.

This is amusing evo response. You say it is true but you NEVER present the biological evidence to support yor claim. Many very good evolutionist refut the fossil recond as adequat4e to support evolution, incluing Gould. Macorevolution cannot be proved. For one thing the end product is the exacdt same species as its parents.


[/QUOTE] (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?[/QUOTE]​

​

​

​

Since all lividing things, except for a few, have DNA, so you can use that to valiodate evolutions. Actually DNA separates each species. It can tell if it came for a dog o a cat, or an ape from a human. It can tell if you and I are biologially related. It will sdhow thatg we are not, but it will show that we are both homo sapians. It will shdw that the common ancestors are limited to the species they ar ing.
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Why do you keep ignoring the biology we present you?

I must have missed wher you proved biologically how an offspring can acquire a trait that neither parent had the gene for. O let me guess, you cound find any so you ingored my question. Now you have anoher cvhance to prove it is possible

"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

Punctuate equilibra wa snot aboaut trends. It wa about the fossil record refuting the time honored dogma of gradualism. If they aer lacking at the species level, you cnnot say they ar present in the larger level. All of the lareger fossils are seperate and disinct species. There are no fossils between hippos and pakicetus. There are no fossils bewteen any of the proposed creatures preseted in the linage of whales and you need at least 10. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and to date you have NONE.

I know you can find soem thatg say ther are transitional fossils but I can find just as may evolutionists who admit there are none.

Again you can't jumpt fro hippos to pakicetus with one example in between. You need several.

You mean the ICR who pulls quotes out of context and lies?[/quote]

 

[frogman2x]

I dare say a lot more than what the Bible says about it being wished into existence!

Answer the quesion. You are the one that keep repeating a lie---Christians don't ask questions.

 

[frogman2x]

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

I didn't say it doesn't translate to all animal. It does. Thatg is the point. Each species has its own unique DNA. Even more distinct, it can tell if we are related. it can tell tht we are not related to apes or chimps or anyothe mammal. If we had the DNA from pakitecus it would show it is not related to hippos.

 

[biggles53]

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

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

Aaaaaaargh.....! I made the mistake of watching it and now I want to go and bleach my brain......!

Please, please, please tell me that most Americans don't buy her crap.....?

 

[bhsmte]

Answer the quesion. You are the one that keep repeating a lie---Christians don't ask questions.

Some christians don't ask questions, because they don't want to hear the answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look at them for goodness sake. There is no simialarity between a hipo and packicetus except both had 4 legs and a tail.

How did you determine that? What features did you compare? How did you compare them?

How did packicetus lose it legs? How did the thick, heavy hipo llegs become lim legs?

Mutations filtered through selection.

First of all you need more than one transitional fossil between hipo and packicetus.. You have to show gradualism which Gould refuted with his punctuated equilibra.

Talk is cheap. Present your evidence.

Already did. Denial is cheap. Deal with the evidence.

This is amusing evo response. You say it is true but you NEVER present the biological evidence to support yor claim.

Did you miss the genetic evidence I presented in an earlier post?

Many very good evolutionist refut the fossil recond as adequat4e to support evolution, incluing Gould.

"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"

"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," 1997

Macorevolution cannot be proved. For one thing the end product is the exacdt same species as its parents.

Evidence please. Please show that all of the ancestors of living species were that same species.

Since all lividing things, except for a few, have DNA, so you can use that to valiodate evolutions.

Completely false. If DNA comparisons did not produce the same nested hierarchy as morphology then it would disprove evolution. However, the relationships between genomes is exactly what evolution predicts, a nested hierarchy that matches morphology.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Actually DNA separates each species.

How does that disprove common ancestry.

It can tell if it came for a dog o a cat, or an ape from a human. It can tell if you and I are biologially related. It will sdhow thatg we are not, but it will show that we are both homo sapians. It will shdw that the common ancestors are limited to the species they ar ing.

How does it show that? Why can't DNA be used to determine if species share a common ancestor?

I must have missed wher you proved biologically how an offspring can acquire a trait that neither parent had the gene for.

How could you have missed it? I have presented it to you several times now. Here is one that I may not have presented earlier. It is a study that tracked de novo mutations as the cause of disease traits:

Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation ... [Hum Mutat. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Since people go to the doctor when they have a disease instead of when they are extra healthy, these mutations are much easier to track. As it turns out, such dominant traits as achondroplasia can appear in children when neither parent carries the DNA for that trait. It is due to mutation.

Secondly, they have sequenced the genomes of parents and their dhild. They were able to find mutations in the children that were not in the parents.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

How many times do I need to present this same material before you acknowledge that it exists?

O let me guess, you cound find any so you ingored my question. Now you have anoher cvhance to prove it is possible

Says the person who ignores all of the evidence being presented.

Punctuate equilibra wa snot aboaut trends. It wa about the fossil record refuting the time honored dogma of gradualism.

Even Darwin proposed punctuated equilibria:

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

That is punctuated equilibria. Gould and Eldredge became famous for figuring out how it worked using population genetics, and finding fossil evidence of how it worked.

If they aer lacking at the species level, you cnnot say they ar present in the larger level.

Yes, you can.

All of the lareger fossils are seperate and disinct species.

Based on what criteria? What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between terrestrial mammals and whales? What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

If you can't answer these questions, then you have no business claiming that a fossil is not transitional.

There are no fossils bewteen any of the proposed creatures preseted in the linage of whales and you need at least 10.

Why can't a single fossil be transitional?

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and to date you have NONE.

Based on what criteria?

I know you can find soem thatg say ther are transitional fossils but I can find just as may evolutionists who admit there are none.

You mean you can find quote mines at creationist sites. Why do you continue with this dishonesty?

Again you can't jumpt fro hippos to pakicetus with one example in between. You need several.

What features would a fossil need to be included in the list of transitionals?

 

[biggles53]

Talk is cheap. Present your evidence.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Mate....you're hardly worth the effort.

I've been watching people here with considerable scientific knowledge - people like Split Rock, for example - present you with evidence, which you then ignore...!

I see you refuse to accept that 2 fossilised species are transitional. OK, so someone then shows you a third which fits between the originals. No, you say, they are all 'individually formed'....! You then make the same claim for a 4th or a 5th......in short, you turn your back on the evidence presented, close your eyes and just mutter "Nope"...

So, I'll just try you with one, then I'm done with you.....

Explain why the genomes of humans and chimps, humans and monkeys, humans and gorillas, humans and orang-utans have ERV insertions in exactly the same locations, in each case, if there are not common ancestors from whom these markers were inherited....?

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say it doesn't translate to all animal. It does. Thatg is the point. Each species has its own unique DNA. Even more distinct, it can tell if we are related. it can tell tht we are not related to apes or chimps or anyothe mammal. If we had the DNA from pakitecus it would show it is not related to hippos.

Each person has their own unique DNA. Does this mean that no one shares a common ancestor?

You still have not explained how DNA rules out common ancestry between chimps and humans. How do you explain the fact that chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans?