Creation Science Evangelism

[troodon]

well producing a mesonyx or Hyracotherium must be a pretty HUGE mutation, and it is funny the way the same mutation must have happened lots of times. why do these HUGE mutations not happen now?

ROFL, good point.

All those dino-birds I posted must have just been hyper-microevolved Tyrannosaurs. Because, you know, one or two mutations and you shrink body mass 2000%, grow a finger, develop an advanced scapula, grow longer arms, sprout barb-like feathers, show signs of a sickle-claw, etc.

 

[troodon]

"Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat!" answersingenesis.org/docs/1357.asp

-Chris320

I've read it before, your point?

Here, I'll start a new thread about why it's completely wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

No, what it says is that humans and chimps have some genetic similarities. So do cats and dogs - 4 legs, tail, etc.

do you know what retroviral insertions and transposons actually are, since you dismissed them so easily?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No, what it says is that humans and chimps have some genetic similarities. So do cats and dogs - 4 legs, tail, etc.

Then explain shared endogenous retroviral insertions between humans and chimps (which have nothing to do with legs, tails, etc). Refer to the post I linked for the details.

Darwin himself said evolution had not fossil support.

Nope. He merely lamented about the rarity of clear fossil intermediates at the time. You should read Origin of the Species some time. You can even read it here for free.

Of course, plenty of fossil intermediates have been found since. According to creationism, they shouldn't exist at all.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You are as free to reject my standards and premises as I am to reject yours.

The force of gravity is a mental concept.
The force could equally be understood and appreciated as the force and power of God. It is easy to transpose concepts and words.
Newton just didn't want to give God the credit or acknowledge Him as the sole power Who rules all space and time.
May the force be with you.

The god of gaps theory.

 

[chris320]

For example, in attempting to dismiss the fossil intermediates for human evolution, creationists often try to claim they are merely extinct apes or humans.

Then you know that the neanderthal man does not have similar DNA to humans? archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

-Chris320

 

[Jet Black]

Then you know that the neanderthal man does not have similar DNA to humans? archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

-Chris320

you do know this is not a direct ancestor?

 

[David Gould]

For example, in attempting to dismiss the fossil intermediates for human evolution, creationists often try to claim they are merely extinct apes or humans. QUOTE]

Then you know that the neanderthal man does not have similar DNA to humans? archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

-Chris320

And you of course must know that the neanderthal is not posited as a human ancestor.

Or maybe, since you posted that in response to Pete, you have absolutely no clue about that whatsoever ....

Decisions, decisions ....

 

[chris320]

Nope. He merely lamented about the rarity of clear fossil intermediates at the time.

Same thing as saying they don't exist.

-Chris320

 

[Jet Black]

And you of course must know that the neanderthal is not posited as a human ancestor.

Or maybe, since you posted that in response to Pete, you have absolutely no clue about that whatsoever ....

Decisions, decisions ....

tbh I don't even think he read the article, having skimmed it's contants.

 

[chris320]

And you of course must know that the neanderthal is not posited as a human ancestor.

Or maybe, since you posted that in response to Pete, you have absolutely no clue about that whatsoever ....

Decisions, decisions ....

It was when I was in 8th grade. Funny how you have to make changes in evolution, huh?

-Chris320

 

[Jet Black]

Same thing as saying they don't exist.

-Chris320

we have found them since though.

it's like a murder detective lamenting on lack of evidence at the murder scene, and then finding a bloodstained knife and clothes in a drawer in the neighbours house a few days later.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Then you know that the neanderthal man does not have similar DNA to humans? archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

Did you even read that article? Look at the summary at the top:

Fossils such as the Mauer mandible and the skull from Tautavel place this divergence before 500,000 years ago. Differences between Neandertal DNA, recently recovered by scientists working in Germany and the United States, and DNA of modern humans place the separation between 690,000 and 550,000 years ago.

Huzzah, genetic evidence confirms ideas based on physical evidence from fossils. Evolution is validated. Again.

Further down,

If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

Basically, they are saying that Neandertals likely did not contribute to the gene pool that from which arose humans.

But you knew that Neandertals were not considered to be the direct ancestors of modern humans, right?

 

[Jet Black]

It was when I was in 8th grade. Funny how you have to make changes in evolution, huh?

-Chris320

well it's what the evidence says. neandertal was stuck in back in the days when people just though that there was a direct lineage. it turns out that they were wrong because the evidence says to... so the evidence says that we diverged about 500kya

 

[Jet Black]

chris has all the style of a troll if you ask me.... doesn't read links, posts uneducated, uninformed one liners. *yawn*

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Same thing as saying they don't exist.

No it's not. Read Chapter 9 of origin of the species. I already provided the link.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

It was when I was in 8th grade. Funny how you have to make changes in evolution, huh?

-Chris320

Yeah, when new evidence is found, evolutionists tend to take it into account, not ignore it like some other alleged "scienists."

 

[Arikay]

Very telling right there.

Maybe you should read more about evolution then what you were taught in 8th grade.

8th Grade science didn't teach me much about quantum mechanics. I guess they dont exist.

It was when I was in 8th grade. Funny how you have to make changes in evolution, huh?

-Chris320

 

[Jet Black]

No it's not. Read Chapter 9 of origin of the species. I already provided the link.

<creationist>

no sorry, we only read selected quotes that are out of context, like the hawking one in my sig.

</creationist>

 

[David Gould]

I don't know - one day evolutionists are accused of dogmatically sticking to their viewpoint in the face of the evidence and the next they are accused of changing their view to take the evidence into account ...

I wish the creationists could make up their minds as to exactly what it is that we were doing ...