A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

Did they? Did they, really?

-Indohyus

-Pakicetus and ambolocetus

-Kutchicetus

-Rodhocetus

-Dorudon

Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.

Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.

YOu continue to neglect the most important thing you need to do; explain how pakicetus and indohyus lost their legs and developed fins. Also these are drawings. did the fossil for ambulocetus show it had webbed feet? Having 4 digets is found in several land animals.

None of them had a blowhole until they became a whale. Can you explain, genetically of course, how they acquired that trait?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.

Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.

YOu continue to neglect the most important thing you need to do; explain how pakicetus and indohyus lost their legs and developed fins. Also these are drawings. did the fossil for ambulocetus show it had webbed feet? Having 4 digets is found in several land animals.

None of them had a blowhole until they became a whale. Can you explain, genetically of course, how they acquired that trait?

I am reminded of something Michael Shermer once said. It was a joke, but it contained a kernel of truth. When Creationists are presented with a gap for which they demand a transitional fossil, and that gap is filled by a transitional fossil, then the Creationist will claim that there are now two gaps.

 

[frogman2x]

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.

The explanation of ERV's is above my scientific pay grade, so I always start with the basics. One thing I did read abut them was the word "supposed." That alawys tells me, everthing is not set in cement yet.

One basic for me is how does an offspring acquire a trait for which neither parent had the gene for. Another basic is if everthign is not the same, nothing is the same. DNA can be used not to unite species, but to separate them. It is even more defining. It can also separate humans from each other. I know we have been through this bone thing before and alhough I did not read you link, I haved had dthis same discussion in another fourm about the same thing. The link they gave me did not offer any biological evidence as how the first life form, according to the ToE, would not have had bones. So how did it ever produce a kid wih bones? Yes I know the origin of life is not technically evolution, but you still must address the problem

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?

I would rather have you explain how an offspring can acquire a trait for which it parents had no gene for. If you cn do that there will some u se in coninuing. If not, we might as well part company in this discussion

My explanatin is that that is how God created humans and apes and any other being with the same things.

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

The must be some kind of evidence that whatever apes evolved freom that showed an increase in skull size from them to apes to humans. Why do humans and apes have different skull sizes? Why has only one ape classification acdquiried the ability to speak in complex languages, plural?
Why are real apes not classified as homo sapian.

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?

You can use one fossil to prove evolution and most hard core evolutionists acknowlege the fossil record does not prove evolution. You need several fossils from A to B that show small changes until you come to the final one. You do not have any of those. Even your whale evolution chart only had 1 or 2 fossils until it became the next link in the chain. That is not acceptable and it certainly isn't scientific.

What shared genetic marker would you accept as evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes?

The same basic quesion: What was an ape before it was an ape and how did apes acquire its traits from parents that did not have a gene for?

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

The only DNA comparison you have is the both have DNA. DNA cannot be used biologically to link species. It can only be use to distinguish one from the other. It an be used to distinguish between different species of apes. If we were apes, we could mate with them. WE are not apes based on DNA. I canot understand why that is so hard for some to understand.

You also can't use one fossil as evidence. You must have several with small changes and you must also provide the genetric evidende that cause these changes.

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

You hvae not. YOu have shown that there are some common similarities. That is not evidence. I can just as easy say God creaed them that way.

>>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?<<

Again lets start with one basic: What caused packicetus to to lose it legs and nose?

I dont reject any real scientific evidence. If you can explain the above quesiton, I will not ony jump on the evo wagon, I will pull it for you. Don't forget, the explanation must include how it is possible genetically.

Good luck.





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

 

[lasthero]

Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.

Why 'at least 10'? On what basis do you go for that exact number?

Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.

Only one similar trait? Now you're simply being disingenuous. There are way more than just one similar trait between each of those steps.

YOu continue to neglect the most important thing you need to do; explain how pakicetus and indohyus lost their legs and developed fins

First off, whales still have the DNA for making legs. This only makes sense if they once had them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog

They lost their legs through lack of use. In their new environment, they moved faster and were more agile without hind legs (just like fish) and so natural selection favored whales with smaller and smaller hind limbs.

Also these are drawings. did the fossil for ambulocetus show it had webbed feet?

No, that didn't go through fossilization. However, we can tell from the composition of their bones that these creatures spent a lot of time around water, and could likely ingest saltwater without the harmful effects that most animals are subject to - which, by the way, is something whales can do, and is exceedingly rare among land animals, which will avoid drinking saltwater if at all possible, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. At any rate, we can tell it spent a lot of time in the water both from that, and the fact that these animals are found in areas that were once estuaries.

Most animals that spend any time near water have webbed feet - amphibians, for instance, but all birds like ducks, mammals like beavers and otters, and even certain bears like Grizzlies and Polars. It's a very, very common adaption for semi-aquatic animals, and since the whales ancestors, by all indications, were semi-aquatic, it's more than reasonable to assume it, too, had this feature.

None of them had a blowhole until they became a whale.

Untrue. Well, at least not really true. In the latter steps, the nose on these creatures is moving upward.

That's basically what a blowhole is - a nose.

 

[lasthero]

That alawys tells me, everthing is not set in cement yet.

Nothing in science is ever 'set in cement'. It's always subject to change in light of new data.

. The link they gave me did not offer any biological evidence as how the first life form, according to the ToE, would not have had bones. So how did it ever produce a kid wih bones?

The link I gave you addressed this problem just fine.

Where did bone come from?

Following the violent moves of tectonic plates about 1.5 billion (1.5&#8195;×&#8195;109) years ago, huge amounts of minerals, including CaCO3, were washed into the oceans. This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines. At first, this helped unicellular organisms to cope with excessive amounts of minerals and to prevent over-crusting. It also led to the sharp increase in the diversity of multicellular organisms (and their fossils!) a little more than 0.5 billion years ago, known as the &#8220;Cambrian explosion&#8221; (Schopf 1994, Kawasaki et al. 2004). Furthermore, the appearance of a rigid outside skeleton extended the effective length of limbs, thus permitting more rapid locomotion in many organisms. The appearance of mineralized body parts is seen by many scientists as one of the forces that generally increased the pace of animal evolution (Kumar and Hedges 1998, Kutschera and Niklas 2004).

As much as exoskeleton added speed to the evolution of animal life in general and created opportunities for animals to expand their activity radius by using calcified extremities and protection shields, it also imposed limitations, associated mostly with limited body size and lack of surface sensory organs. In addition, rigid shells and shields did not allow much movement and locomotion; therefore, the next major change in the evolution of skeleton&#8212;dislocation of mineralized skeleton from the outside to the inside of animal bodies, proved to be a major adaptive advantage. Especially in animal lineages that later gave rise to vertebrates, the appearance of endoskeleton enabled the expansion of activity radius and habitation of entirely new environments (Bennet 1991). In addition, those developments encouraged the development of a strong muscular system and added further adaptive values such as greater overall mobility and the appearance of a regenerative and environment-sensitive outer dermis

Stop pretending like this is some completely unsolvable problem that no one has ever thought up or figured out.

 

[Doveaman]

Does old earth creationism also incorporate the common ancestor of humans and other apes as demonstrated by genetics?

Yes.

Two possible explanations:

(1) The first man was created from the bone cells of a prehistoric ape just as Eve was created from the bone cells of Adam.

(2) The first man was created from the cells of a prehistoric ape just as Dolly was created from the cells of a sheep.

 

[Smidlee]

Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.

Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.

Notice every one of the creatures on the chart branches off of a Unknown Mythological Creature ; UMC. This allows evolutionist with the greatest flexibility with their story telling. The idea that A evolved to B , B to C and C to D doesn't fit the theory. There are too many examples of A and C having traits that B and D don't. So all branches joins to a UMC. So you first starts with UMC which A evolved from then later B evolved from UMC then C and finally D.
The latest whale fossil discovery has screw up even this pattern . Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

This mean the Whale (D) evolved from this UMC before some of the immediates (B and C) that showed up later.

All you got to do to prove whale evolution is false is to prove this UMC didn't exist.

 

[lasthero]

There are too many examples of A and C having traits that B and D don't.

Such as?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yes.

Two possible explanations:

(1) The first man was created from the bone cells of a prehistoric ape just as Eve was created from the bone cells of Adam.

(2) The first man was created from the cells of a prehistoric ape just as Dolly was created from the cells of a sheep.

Both of those would be a (strange) version of theistic evolution rather than Old Earth Creationism. OEC can sometimes allow for evolution, but it explicitly rejects human descent from preexisting organisms, regardless of the mechanism. Once you cross that line, you join us in the realm of the theistic evolutionists.

 

[frogman2x]

I am reminded of something Michael Shermer once said. It was a joke, but it contained a kernel of truth. When Creationists are presented with a gap for which they demand a transitional fossil, and that gap is filled by a transitional fossil, then the Creationist will claim that there are now two gaps.

It is amusing but complely false. Show me one intemediate fossil. What it was before it was an intemediate and what it became. Please add the biology that makes it possible.

 

[frogman2x]

You need to stop spamming dishonest Creationist quote mines.

You need to stop; calling someone dishonest unless your can prove they are


Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

{Even evolutionists doubt fossil record shows transformation of one organism into another}

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. - Steven M. Stanley (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)"

Representative quote miners: Missouri Association for Creation: What Do the Fossils Say?, Institute for Creation Research: The Vanishing Case for Evolution, and Bible Believers: The Case for Evolution Has NOT Been Proved!

The quote comes from the start of Chapter 3 (see Point 5):

"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied.[/quote]

Impled doe snot mean proven.

](5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid

."

The quoted text is part of a list that Stanley believes supports "quantum speciation". And what is "quantum speciation"?

"For the present, we can define quantum speciation simply as speciation in which most evolution is concentrated within an initial interval of time that is very brief with respect to the total longevity of the new lineage that is produced. Implicit in this concept is the idea that during the rapid, early phase of evolution, the seminal population has not yet expanded from its small, initial population size." [bold in original] [pg. 26]

You get to define your term. How convient. Where is the evidence for the rest of what the said? How does he know the early evolution was rapid? Even if it was , it still not not explain how the first life form produced kids with traits the parents did not have a gene for.

And since, as we see on page 39, Stanley writes that "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon", there should be no doubt that he believes that evolution has occurred. However, he doesn't believe that evolution happens by changing an ancestral species into descendant species, but rather by descendants branching off from ancestors, as we can see on page 211:

I never said he doubted evolution has occured. What I quoted implied he did not think the fossil recrod supported evoluiton. What evidence did he offer that there wa such a thing as "quantum speciation?" At some point an ancestral descentant MUST evolve into something it ancestor was not. Descendants do not branch off from their ancestors. The remain the exact same species.

"Major trends in evolution are the result, not of phyletic transition, but of divergent speciation. Most are phylogenetic trends: net changes produced by multiple speciation events."

As usual not biological evidende that tell HOW it is possible.

He comes to this conclusion by examining the fossil record. But the mined quote would have the reader believe that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, where as Stanley believes that it does.

The quote I quoted of his, sure makes it seem like he does. Even if he doesn't, there are other evolutionists who don't think it does. I think that is why Gould invented P.E.

 

[biggles53]

Sure -- qv please:

Deer hunter explains Jacob's 'rods'.

That's just pathetic.....the mental contortions required to accept that story would make an Olympic gymnast proud...!

Deer are completely different animals to goats.

The females were already in heat when they were brought to the troughs.

And there is most definitely a link expressed between the placement of the sticks and the outcome produced.

Just give up...

 

[AV1611VET]

Just give up...

No, thanks -- before I do that, I'll just pull rank and say: GOD DID IT, as did Jacob.

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

That simply isn't true. I once "knew" in the same sense that you now claim to "know".

What did Jesus do for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am reminded of something Michael Shermer once said. It was a joke, but it contained a kernel of truth. When Creationists are presented with a gap for which they demand a transitional fossil, and that gap is filled by a transitional fossil, then the Creationist will claim that there are now two gaps.

Yes, indeed.

Why wouldn't we?

It's basic math.

As I explained to Wiccan Child though, there are now two gaps, but the sum total of the distance between them is less.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Yes, indeed.

Why wouldn't we?

It's basic math.

As I explained to Wiccan Child though, there are now two gaps, but the sum total of the distance between them is less.

Sounds like creationists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too skeptical that one footprint and the next were associated because of the gap betwen them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like creationists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too skeptical that one footprint and the next were associated because of the gap betwen them.

Sounds like evolutionists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too accepting that one footprint and the next, even though they are made by two different foots, were associated because of the gap between them.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Sounds like evolutionists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too accepting that one footprint and the next, even though they are made by two different foots, were associated because of the gap between them.

Heh. At least we get somewhere.

 

[Davian]

No, thanks -- before I do that, I'll just pull rank and say: GOD DID IT, as did Jacob.

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

What is your rank here?

 

[Forgiven777]

Heh. At least we get somewhere.

if you can call evolutionist who walk in circles tracking their own rational as getting somewhere .. well have at it...
But truth is the only thing humans and monkeys have in common is we both have the same Designer and that is God of all creation and God did not design us the same God created everything and gave everything seed after its "own kind"
( Genesis 1:1-31 )