Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[Kenny'sID]

Cut the verbiage, and try responding to post 260.

Speculative conclusion, or good evidence to one who has a need to get good evidence from it, but not proof of anything.

Any questions?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Most Christians accept the theory of evolution.

I accept at it is theory as well.

 

[USincognito]

ARHGAP11B and the human brain

Another claim Creationists make is that evolution is not subject to experimentation. This simply isn't true and this example, and the responses I normally get, show how they don't have a clue. When ARHGAP11B was identified as a possible mutation responsible for evolution and development of the human neocortex scientists experimented by inserting that allele into a mouse embryo. The embryo not only developed a more robust neocortex, but the brain exhibited folds, which mice brains do not have.

The jaw dropping response from several Creationists - genetic engineering isn't evolution.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1465.full

>> Finally, in half of the cases analyzed, ARHGAP11B expression in the normally smooth (lissencephalic) mouse neocortex, induced at E13.5, resulted in neocortex folding at E18.5, reminiscent of gyrification, a hallmark of human neocortex (Fig. 4). <<​

 

[lesliedellow]

I accept at it is theory as well.

Most Christians accept that it is a theory, the truth of which which scientists worldwide, including many many Christians, consider to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

As I have said more than once on here, I would not be able to find one single creationist in the congregation of my evangelical parish church in the uk.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I accept at it is theory as well.

Same here! Do you know the definition of theory in the scientific context? It's an explanation of facts.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[USincognito]

Then why even talk to me? Yet you do. But seems all we have going on now is your little fits because I'm Christian, and chose to believe what God says and I won't let you have your way. There is something more going on here. Again why do you care so much what I think? My beliefs are clearly getting under your skin, but refuting them will still not make God any less than he his.

I don't expect you to admit you are scared to death of him, but that's what I'm seeing here, it's the only thing that really explains your disdain towards me for simply not believing as you do.

edit - tone it down a bit.

Your verbal judo, Jedi mind tricks and red herrings aren't addressing the subject. Any chance you're ever going to actually address any of the evidences presented supporting evolution?
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

 

[USincognito]

Speculative conclusion, or good evidence to one who has a need to get good evidence from it, but not proof of anything.

Any questions?

More gibberish and vacuous rhetoric. Why can't you answer a simple question? You said you had looked into evolution and come away unimpressed. Wouldn't that have included trying to ascertain if there were any transitional fossils or not?

Come on slugger, just answer the question - "fully ape" or "fully human"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Setting: two men on stage with audience, each man sitting beside his own well built and beautiful car with super technology.

Audience asks the first man where did you get the car...he states "I made it", the audience is impressed.

Second man, the audience asks, where did you get it, he says, it just appeared, he gets "that look" from the audience and in desperation says, well it took a long time....they laugh at him.

That is my best attempt at the moment to explain why I'm not so open to things that just happen. Creation is sensible, things are created, I do it you do it. Virtually just happening, and especially for no particular reason is honestly, just laughable to me.

Not much as you will surely see it but I'd bet if you were honest, you'd laugh at the second dude too, and just as hard as the rest in the audience.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human" and why do you conclude as you do?

Fully human.

That is the skull of a Turkana person.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're a very confused gentleman. Your verbal judo, Jedi mind tricks and red herrings aren't addressing the subject.

I realize you're a newbie here, but this is the Creation and Evolution debate subforum. You chose to respond to a thread in this subforum. You chose to inject yourself into a subforum which has been around since 2002 and I have been a member of since 2003. You are the interloper, not me.

That said, any chance you're ever going to address any of the evidences presented supporting evolution? Or has the ennui become overwhelming?
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

I'm already aware of how you view yourself, and have been for some time. Not something I'd be talking about if I was such a much in my mind...I'd at least try to be more subtle but that's just me..

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't that have included trying to ascertain if there were any transitional fossils or not?

All [so called] transitional fossils are of the same kind.

 

[Kenny'sID]

More gibberish and vacuous rhetoric.

And what about verbal Judo? Honestly, you really need to try expanding that vocabulary...this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Come on slugger, just answer the question - "fully ape" or "fully human"?

*sigh

Guess you just weren't paying attention ...again.

 

[USincognito]

I'm already aware of how you view yourself, and have been for some time. Not something I'd be talking about if I was such a much in my mind...I'd at least try to be more subtle but that's just me..

Still talking about me rather than the evidences for evolution I provided?

Well, let's post some more for you to dance around.

How did bats evolve their wings?

Turns out that while several genes played a role, one appears to have played the biggest. Bone Morphological Protein 2.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.full

>>
To understand the underlying molecular mechanisms by which proliferation and differentiation are affected in bat forelimb digits, we took a clue from studies in mice and rats. In mice, numerous Bmps (2–5 and 7) are expressed within the growth plate and perichondrium of the developing digits (17, 18). Also, mouse and rat digits that are cultured in the presence of Bmp2 protein grow longer than their controls, whereas digits that are cultured in the presence of Noggin (a known Bmp antagonist) are shorter (19, 20). Bmp2 protein affects these changes by stimulating both chondrocyte proliferation and initial hypertrophic differentiation and inhibiting terminal hypertrophic differentiation (19), a pattern that is strikingly similar to the pattern of cartilage differentiation observed in bat wing digits.

By using a similar limb-culture system, we demonstrate that the addition of Bmp2 protein can stimulate the further elongation of bat forelimb digits and increase the hypertrophic zone whereas the application of Noggin protein stunts their growth and decreases the hypertrophic zone. These results suggest that either an increase in Bmp expression or a decrease in the expression of Bmp antagonists such as Noggin could have driven the developmental elongation of bat forelimb digits. Although the spatial expression of Bmp2, Bmp4, and Bmp7 are similar in bats and mice, we found that there is a dramatic change in the level of Bmp2 expression in the bat forelimb digits. This result was confirmed by semiquantitative RT-PCR. Also, Bmp signaling is greatly increased in the bat forelimb digits relative to bat hind limb or mouse, as assayed by the phosphorylation of the Smad proteins, the Bmp signal transducers.<<​

 

[Kenny'sID]

Since so many rules are being broken here, by all of us, I'll bow out for now out of respect for the OP and see if the thread won't stay afloat for while longer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How did bats evolve their wings?

Cletus told me they just pushed....real hard and pop! pop!

But seriously, I'll get back to you on that, all depending on the full content of the post.

 

[lesliedellow]

All [so called] transitional fossils are of the same kind.

So you don't know how evolution works. What's new?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't know how evolution works.

Maybe not, but I know where it comes from, who started it, how long it's been in operation, when it's going to end, and Who is going to put a stop to it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe not, but I know where it comes from, who started it, how long it's been in operation, when it's going to end, and Who is going to put a stop to it.

And where does it come from?

 

[USincognito]

Genome analysis shows that tetrapods are most closely related to lungfish.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature12027.html

>> Here we report the genome sequence of the African coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods. <<​