Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

Oncedeceived said:

No, it isn't. It is very relevant because it was due to the fact that evolution alone did not fit with the evidence so this convergent evolution was introduced to make it fit.

Click to expand...

Um, not even close. Convergent evolution is a prediction of evolutionary theory. It isn't something that is tacked on at the end. It is simply a logical consequence of the fact that survival requires organisms to solve many of the same exact problems, and different organisms will, from time to time, stumble upon very similar (but not identical!) solutions.

Oncedeceived said:

Why not? Nothing says that God has to start from scratch so to speak.

Click to expand...

Yes, but God can start from scratch. And any intelligent designer would start over from scratch when it made more sense than modifying an existing design. Any intelligent designer would also not be shy about re-using old designs.

But evolution can't do this. It can't start from scratch, as every species carries with it the properties of its ancestors. It also can't share designs between species unless those species descended from the same ancestor who had that design.

The reason why the similarities we see are evidence for evolution is not simply the fact that there are similarities, but it is because the pattern of similarities is limited to only those similarities permitted by evolution.

Chalnoth said:

Um, not even close. Convergent evolution is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

If that is the case you should be able to provide evidence when it was proposed and who proposed it and why it was supported by the ToE.

It isn't something that is tacked on at the end. It is simply a logical consequence of the fact that survival requires organisms to solve many of the same exact problems, and different organisms will, from time to time, stumble upon very similar (but not identical!) solutions.

Click to expand...

Stumble upon, no purposeful reason, but they all get the same result (but not identical)?

Yes, but God can start from scratch. And any intelligent designer would start over from scratch when it made more sense than modifying an existing design. Any intelligent designer would also not be shy about re-using old designs.

Click to expand...

I guess you would have to show how it made more sense. As Davian has repeated stated, common sense is not valid. Re-using old designs?

You can not provide evidence to claim that God would not design in this way. You are just making a unsupported claim that hold absolutely no evidence.

But evolution can't do this. It can't start from scratch, as every species carries with it the properties of its ancestors. It also can't share designs between species unless those species descended from the same ancestor who had that design.

Click to expand...

So would common designed forms.

The reason why the similarities we see are evidence for evolution is not simply the fact that there are similarities, but it is because the pattern of similarities is limited to only those similarities permitted by evolution.

Click to expand...

That is not true. For instance, Bioluminescence.

Oncedeceived said:

If that is the case you should be able to provide evidence when it was proposed and who proposed it and why it was supported by the ToE.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely not necessary. All I have to show is how the idea of convergent evolution follows naturally from the theory of evolution:

1. Living organisms will, from time to time, need to solve the same sort of problems.
2. Given that the solutions come up with by different living organisms will be, in part, random, and given that the number of possible solutions is generally rather small, different organisms are bound to, from time to time, come up with similar solutions.
3. Though similar, these solutions are guaranteed to not be identical, for the same reason as number two: the solutions that are come up with are, in part, random, and the statistics of genetics ensure that the exact same solution basically never happens twice.

Oncedeceived said:

Stumble upon, no purposeful reason, but they all get the same result (but not identical)?

Click to expand...

The reason is simple survival and reproduction. When different organisms are faced with the same challenge to survival and reproduction, sometimes, by chance, they will come up with similar results. But yes, absolutely not identical, because it's by chance. The only reason why the results are similar in the first place is because the possible types of solution are limited by the physical problem that needs to be overcome for survival.

And by the way, survival isn't guaranteed. Most species end up going extinct.

Oncedeceived said:

I guess you would have to show how it made more sense. As Davian has repeated stated, common sense is not valid. Re-using old designs?

You can not provide evidence to claim that God would not design in this way. You are just making a unsupported claim that hold absolutely no evidence.

Click to expand...

But don't you see? I don't need to. Evolution must design in a specific way. God has no such limitations.

Oncedeceived said:

So would common designed forms.

Click to expand...

Common-designed human forms absolutely, positively do not restrict themselves to the similarities that evolution allows.

Oncedeceived said:

That is not true. For instance, Bioluminescence.

Click to expand...

Uh, what? Why?

Chalnoth said:

Um, not even close. Convergent evolution is a prediction of evolutionary theory. It isn't something that is tacked on at the end. It is simply a logical consequence of the fact that survival requires organisms to solve many of the same exact problems, and different organisms will, from time to time, stumble upon very similar (but not identical!) solutions.

This is speculative at best. If traits are stumbled on there is no predictability but rather theories to explain what seems to be an anomoly.
Yes, but God can start from scratch. And any intelligent designer would start over from scratch when it made more sense than modifying an existing design. Any intelligent designer would also not be shy about re-using old designs.
I am not following this line. We cannot presume to know what God would or would not do. The thing is though that if life was not based on the same design we may not be able to assimilate nitrition from meat or vegetables. My guess would be this is why God had to use basic genetic similarities in all life.
But evolution can't do this. It can't start from scratch, as every species carries with it the properties of its ancestors. It also can't share designs between species unless those species descended from the same ancestor who had that design.
But the assumption of convergent evolution seems to contradict you.
The reason why the similarities we see are evidence for evolution is not simply the fact that there are similarities, but it is because the pattern of similarities is limited to only those similarities permitted by evolution.

Click to expand...

The fact that a theory, in this case evolution, can be saved from refutation by proposing wildly speculative and unfalsifiable scenarios does not mean that theory holds merit.

Chalnoth, can you truly say convergent similarities are those only permitted by evolution. Where did you get that from? Evolutionists can only speak to this in hindsight, there is no predictablilty.

When the drosophila research showed changes to Hox genes could produce a fruitfly with an extra set of functionless wings it was demonstated that there is more to evolution than this simple tinkering.

Wings are a good example. We hear all the debate and assertions as to whether or not a half wing would be usefull and would be selected. There are many assertions around this.


For me the fruitfly research demonstrates that mutations are not going to change one kind into another kind. Rather, the opposite is what I take away from this research. What this demonstrates is limits to variation as seen in this ecoli research below.
Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say

I also post this research below as an example of the lack of information really known about the sort of changes required to bring about macroevolution.

"Robustness is a measure of how genetic mutations affect an organism's phenotype, or the set of physical traits, behaviors and features shaped by evolution. It would seem to be the opposite of evolvability, preventing a population from adapting to environmental change. In a robust individual, mutations are mostly neutral, meaning they have little effect on the phenotype. Since adaptation requires mutations with beneficial phenotypic effects, robust populations seem to be at a disadvantage. The Penn-led research team has demonstrated that this intuition is sometimes wrong."
How organisms can tolerate mutations, yet adapt to environmental change

This research shows scientists are unclear about much. Adapting to climatic conditions is a long way away from a dinosaur sprouting wings, which BTW is also being challenged.
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

For me it is not about which evolutionist is wright or wrong. It is about speculation not being evidence.

Can you see at least, that the drosophila research may lead a creationists to actually see that macroevolution is impossible. The beginning of a wing structure was not produced, it was not the beginning of a macrochange, it was a deleterious mutation that would have been deleted from the gene pool. It is testimony to the irreducable complexity of systems within kinds.

So to propose wildly speculative scenarios that are also unfalsifiable is a curious way to provide 'facts' don't you think?

USincognito said:

They're not being "challenged as ape ancestors". They are hominids that might or might not be members of a population of direct H. sapiens ancestors. They are perfect examples of the proverbial "ape men" that Creationist claim don't/shouldn't exist.
Might or might not is not scientific terminology.


They're not "apes" though they - and we - are apes (you really need to start using correct terminology). They are members of the genus Homo and are just as human as us, neanderthals and other members of the genus.

I do not need to use incorrect terminology at all. Turkana Boy is an ape and I have shown his side view which looks nothing like a human but rather an ape like Lluc with reduced features. My claim is as irrefutable as yours

How ironic. You base your proclaimation on a single view of the face and you are 100 % correct. Those Creationists calling him human are compromising and the scientists who have actually studied all of his characteristics are deluded or lying. What a fantasy world you live in.

Creationists that call him human have been taken in by your misrepresentations. Many creationists do not take Turkana Boy to be human.


Actually there's plenty of "junk DNA" and some of it is non-functioning or non-coding.
The point being that as more data comes to light the more function is being found in non coding dna, which for a time was seen as junk. Where again is the predictabiity of your science?

Creationists have made a prediction and stuck to it. They do not change their predictions at the drop of new information, as evolutionists do. No junk is a creationist prediction that continues to be validated now and will continue to do so. That is science!.


When you can accurately discern between Salem and Lucy, and a modern H. sapiens skeleton and Lucy then, perhaps, we might take such bluster seriously.Again are you denying your own researchers. I don't blame you!

Click to expand...

I have just seen this post.

Are you saying that Lucy's child is a forgery. Lucy's skull was found in peices and then reconstructed.

Lucy's child was found in tact, it appears. Lucy's child clearly demonstrates that there is no robust eye brow ridging..and the bluster is not mine.

I have posted the picture and the link. Why do you oppose your own scientists.

"Lucy's Baby" -- World's Oldest Child -- Found by Fossil Hunters
Evolution's child: fossil puts youthful twist on Lucy's kind. - Free Online Library

Are you claiming these sites are forging their information? I think not. Lucys child is dated much the same as Lucy at 3.3 million years, and her skull was found intact. I'd say they have reconstructed Lucy's skull based on Lucys child.

You still haven't explained why Lucy's child, which is the same as the reconstruction made of Lucy's bones, looks more human that homo erectus. Lucy's child looks like a Bornean Orangutan as posted.

You appear to be simply trying to deny the evidence.

I do not see this purported graduation evolutionists speak to. You have not explained why robust eye brow ridging is not apparent in Lucy's child or Lucy's reconstruction while being very prominent in Homo erectus.

Astridhere said:

The fact that a theory, in this case evolution, can be saved from refutation by proposing wildly speculative and unfalsifiable scenarios does not mean that theory holds merit.

Click to expand...

Chalnoth clearly states that it is falsifiable through clear violations of the nested hierarchy.

Let's use ducks and platypusses as an example. Superficially, their bills look similar. It is a case of convergent evolution. However, the specifics of each bill harken to their ancestors. In the duck, the bill is covered in horn like other bird beaks and there are three bones in the lower jaw without any hint of cusped teeth during development. In the platypus, the bill is covered in skin while the lower jaw is made up of the single mammalian dentary bone, and there are also mammalian cusped teeth present during development. YOu can look at the two skulls here:

Platypus:
http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-026-lg.jpg

Duck:
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_3287.jpg

The substructures that make up the bill in each species could not be more different. So why do we have two different designs for the same feature?

Chalnoth, can you truly say convergent similarities are those only permitted by evolution. Where did you get that from? Evolutionists can only speak to this in hindsight, there is no predictablilty.

Click to expand...

The nested hierarchy predicts that you will not find a fossil with feathers and three middle ear bones. Using the nested hierarchy, the theory can make tons of predictions, and we have only found mixture of characteristics that the theory predicts we should see.

Wings are a good example. We hear all the debate and assertions as to whether or not a half wing would be usefull and would be selected. There are many assertions around this.

Click to expand...

Why don't you ask a penguin or an ostrich.

For me the fruitfly research demonstrates that mutations are not going to change one kind into another kind.

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution agrees. Descendants will always be what their ancestors were with the addition of modifications.

I also post this research below as an example of the lack of information really known about the sort of changes required to bring about macroevolution.

Click to expand...

Why don't you compare the human and chimp genomes and then tell us which differences could not be produced by the observed mechanisms of evolution.

Adapting to climatic conditions is a long way away from a dinosaur sprouting wings, which BTW is also being challenged.

Click to expand...

Dinosaurs didn't sprout wings. Their forelimbs were adapted to flight.

For me it is not about which evolutionist is wright or wrong. It is about speculation not being evidence.

Click to expand...

Fossil transitionals and genetic evidence are not speculation.

Can you see at least, that the drosophila research may lead a creationists to actually see that macroevolution is impossible.

Click to expand...

Can creationists show a single difference between the genomes of chimps and humans that could not be produced by random mutation and natural selection?

The beginning of a wing structure was not produced, it was not the beginning of a macrochange, it was a deleterious mutation that would have been deleted from the gene pool.

Click to expand...

Evidence please.

Chalnoth said:

That's absolutely not necessary. All I have to show is how the idea of convergent evolution follows naturally from the theory of evolution:

1. Living organisms will, from time to time, need to solve the same sort of problems.
2. Given that the solutions come up with by different living organisms will be, in part, random, and given that the number of possible solutions is generally rather small, different organisms are bound to, from time to time, come up with similar solutions.
3. Though similar, these solutions are guaranteed to not be identical, for the same reason as number two: the solutions that are come up with are, in part, random, and the statistics of genetics ensure that the exact same solution basically never happens twice.

Click to expand...

Well if it is guaranteed to not be identical then you are in for a rude awakening.

"Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land."
Alternatively, algae and land plants may have evolved the identical compound independently, after they diverged.
"The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing," says Denny. "Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence."
(Imphasis mine)
Source

So what kind of explanation will scientists come up with to allow evolution to "predict" this guaranteed not to happen event?

The reason is simple survival and reproduction. When different organisms are faced with the same challenge to survival and reproduction, sometimes, by chance, they will come up with similar results. But yes, absolutely not identical, because it's by chance. The only reason why the results are similar in the first place is because the possible types of solution are limited by the physical problem that needs to be overcome for survival.

Click to expand...

So, since this is by "chance" we know this could not have happened. That is because the processes of evolution do not explain in reality the true nature of nature.

And by the way, survival isn't guaranteed. Most species end up going extinct.

Click to expand...

So?

But don't you see? I don't need to. Evolution must design in a specific way. God has no such limitations.

Click to expand...

But don't you see, God's design is apparent and meant to be studied. It is that you leave out God that things just as above don't fit.

Common-designed human forms absolutely, positively do not restrict themselves to the similarities that evolution allows.

Click to expand...

This statement has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it and is totally absurd.

Uh, what? Why?

Click to expand...

The same problem as above.

Oncedeceived said:

Well if it is guaranteed to not be identical then you are in for a rude awakening.

Click to expand...

You might want to have included the paragraph right before the one you posted for context.

""Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land.""

In this paragraph they suggest that lignin evolved before red and green algae diverged. In the paragraph you quoted they suggest an alternative scenario where an identical complex molecular system evolved convergently, but poo poo that being what happened.
"Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence."

Context matters.

USincognito's response is good for the first bit, and I have nothing to add to that, so I'll just respond to the later bits.

Oncedeceived said:

This statement has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it and is totally absurd.

Click to expand...

Say what? You think it's totally absurd that human-designed forms don't restrict themselves to the similarities required of evolution? It is pretty blatantly obvious: things designed by humans do not fit neatly into nested hierarchies (groups within groups). We re-use designs over and over again, wherever they are useful. We simplify old designs all the time, cutting out inefficiencies. We redesign things from scratch when there is too much baggage in a design that has been modified piecemeal over a long time.

Oncedeceived said:

The same problem as above.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained why you mentioned bioluminescence.

Astrid, I'm not even going to bother to respond to your attempt to revise history. Instead I'll just quote posts going back the the 17th and see what happens.

Astridhere said:

Lucy's skull{snip]

Click to expand...

You posted a link to Salem (or Lucy's Child - a misnomer since Salem is a couple hundred thousand years older than Lucy) and label it "Lucy's skull". You do not label it "Lucy's Child's Skull".

USincognito said:

She does. The photo you're posting looks more like Taung Child than Lucy. Are you sure that's really Lucy? And if it is Taung Child, can you think of a reason it might have less pronounced brow ridges (hint, look at the juvenille Orang skull vs. the adult one).
Here's mock up of Lucy's skull.

which clearly has brow ridges. Here's a male Au. afarensis

again, with prominent brow ridges. I'm not sure where you're getting this claim that Lucy lacked brow ridges.

Click to expand...

In this post I correct you and post links to a reconstruction of Lucy's skull as well as a male Au. afrarensis - one can clearly see the brow ridges on both.

USincognito said:

Ah, not Lucy nor Taung child, but Salem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)

Click to expand...

Taking a closer look I realized that "Lucy's skull" photo you were posting was too complete and shaped differently than Taung so I did some more digging and found the Salem photo on the Wikipedia page above is exactly the one you've been claiming is "Lucy's skull".

cont. -

Astridhere said:

Lucy

Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton

Above is Lucy, with curved fingers, no heavy eye brow ridging...and still an ape.

Click to expand...

I went back to a link you posted in the 14th where you posted this photo of a modern H. sapiens and claim it's Lucy and where you seem to first post Salem and claim it's Lucy. I corrected you - again - with a post on the 17th.

Astridhere said:

Lucy, Australopithicus afarensis

Click to expand...

You continue to post photos of Salem claiming it's Lucy despite my repeated corrections.

For nearly a week you posted a photo of a different fossil skull and called it Lucy, as well as a photo of a modern H. sapiens and said it was Lucy's skeleton - despite repeated attempts by me to correct your errors. Now you're trying some sort of weird historical revisionism or creating a straw man or whatever the heck it is you're trying.

Tell me honestly why I should take a word you post about this subject seriously?

USincognito said:

You might want to have included the paragraph right before the one you posted for context.

""Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land.""

In this paragraph they suggest that lignin evolved before red and green algae diverged. In the paragraph you quoted they suggest an alternative scenario where an identical complex molecular system evolved convergently, but poo poo that being what happened.
"Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence."

Context matters.

Click to expand...

Well you are right I should have added that just out of courtesy. Regardless, lignin was considered an evolutionary result of being land based. Why then would evolution select for something that had no apparent need until the plant went onto land? So on one hand it is either an identical event which is guaranteed not to happen or we have something that had no apparent need for it to arise on the other.

Oncedeceived said:

Well you are right I should have added that just out of courtesy. Regardless, lignin was considered an evolutionary result of being land based. Why then would evolution select for something that had no apparent need until the plant went onto land? So on one hand it is either an identical event which is guaranteed not to happen or we have something that had no apparent need for it to arise on the other.

Click to expand...

Old features of organisms are routinely repurposed to perform entirely different tasks.

Oncedeceived said:

Regardless, lignin was considered an evolutionary result of being land based.

Click to expand...

That's because no one had observed lignin in algae before. Now they have.

Why then would evolution select for something that had no apparent need until the plant went onto land?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that, in algae, lignin is a vestigial feature?

USincognito said:

Astrid, I'm not even going to bother to respond to your attempt to revise history. Instead I'll just quote posts going back the the 17th and see what happens.

You are posting evidence of denial.


You posted a link to Salem (or Lucy's Child - a misnomer since Salem is a couple hundred thousand years older than Lucy) and label it "Lucy's skull". You do not label it "Lucy's Child's Skull".

You can't just say that when clearly YOUR researchers call Lucy's child the same species as Lucy, found in the same region and dated by your researchers at 3.3myo.

In this post I correct you and post links to a reconstruction of Lucy's skull as well as a male Au. afrarensis - one can clearly see the brow ridges on both.

This does not detract from the point that the reconstructions of Lucy and Lucy's child do NOT have eye brow ridging and look more human that Homo Erectus. Lucy's child looks like a Bornean Orang. ..and I do not mean close, I mean almost exactly the same.

Taking a closer look I realized that "Lucy's skull" photo you were posting was too complete and shaped differently than Taung so I did some more digging and found the Salem photo on the Wikipedia page above is exactly the one you've been claiming is "Lucy's skull".
You can look as much as you like. Unless you have presented some paper for peer review that disproves Lucy's child skull, found complete, is not who your researchers say it is then you are calling your reseachers idiots.
cont. -

Click to expand...

So this post is just a denial of your own fossil record, and your researchers findngs. Well done! I agree.

USincognito said:

I went back to a link you posted in the 14th where you posted this photo of a modern H. sapiens and claim it's Lucy and where you seem to first post Salem and claim it's Lucy. I corrected you - again - with a post on the 17th.

You have not corrected anything. You are simply unable to assimilate information from you rown scientists

You continue to post photos of Salem claiming it's Lucy despite my repeated corrections.
..and I'll keep,posting them until you come up with some rational and intelligent reply.


For nearly a week you posted a photo of a different fossil skull and called it Lucy, as well as a photo of a modern H. sapiens and said it was Lucy's skeleton - despite repeated attempts by me to correct your errors. Now you're trying some sort of weird historical revisionism or creating a straw man or whatever the heck it is you're trying.
I said you have corrected nothing. You do not know your own fossil evidence
Tell me honestly why I should take a word you post about this subject seriously?

You should take me seriously because you have no idea how to explain this anomoly in your fossil record. You are blatantly denying the fossils that I have posted and what your researchers say they are. That is not a refute, my dear

Click to expand...

Now what is it about your ability to comprehend that stops you from assimilating this information. You have gone on and on and have said nothing of any substance. You have gone on about dating and bla bla, when clearly your researchers call Lucy's child the same species as Lucy. You are in denial and I do not blame you really. There is no graduation and Lucy's childs skull, not reconstructed, looks more human that the heavy eye brow ridged Homo erectus.

You cannot explain this and denial is your last resort.


"Lucy's Baby" -- World's Oldest Child -- Found by Fossil Hunters

The world's oldest known child has been discovered in East Africa in an area known appropriately as the Cradle of Humanity.
The 3.3-million-year-old fossilized toddler was uncovered in north Ethiopia's badlands along the Great Rift Valley



The skeleton, belonging to the primitive human species Australopithecus afarensis, is remarkable for its age and completeness, even for a region spectacularly rich in fossils of our ancient ancestors, experts say.
The new find may even trump the superstar fossil of the same species: "Lucy," a 3.2-million-year-old adult female discovered nearby in 1974 that reshaped theories of human evolution. (Related: "Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say" [April 2006].) Some experts have taken to calling the baby skeleton "Lucy's baby" because of the proximity of the discoveries, despite the fact that the baby is tens of thousands of years older. (See a historical photo gallery on A. afarensis and more information about Lucy.)

"Lucy's Baby" -- World's Oldest Child -- Found by Fossil Hunters


So this refute you seem to be so proud of is simply a denial of your own researchers ability to know what they are talking about.

Again ..well done!....and I agree!

.

Astridhere said:

There is no graduation and Lucy's child, not reconstructed, looks more human that the heavy eye brow ridged Homo erectus.

Click to expand...

What we are saying is that the brow ridges increase as they age, as is shown in the adult specimens of A. afarensis. Do you agree or disagree?

It has been long suspected that the lack of brow ridges in H. sapiens is due to neotony.

Neotony: also called juvenilization or pedomorphism[2], is the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles, and is a subject studied in the field of developmental biology.
Neoteny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astridhere said:

Now what is it about your ability to comprehend that stops you from assimilating this information.

Click to expand...

And with that my irony meter reaches orbit...

You really are funny Astrid.

Exiledoomsayer said:

Okay then. Lets say that all we look at in the creation narrative is the order.

Order of Biblical Creation • ChristianAnswers.Net
Day Five

1. Water creatures of all kinds. (All that had “the breath of life” were vegetarian.)
2. Birds (all vegetarian).

Day Six

1. Land animals (all vegetarian): (a) creatures that move close to the ground (small animals), (b) large animals, and (c) animals of use to man as livestock.

You may notice that the fossil record shows..
1. No birds before land animals.
2. Land animals before Marine mammals
No actually you really cannot hold up your ave mess as evidence of anything.
Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate.
Evolution of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link below shows the dino to bird theory is challenged.
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

and this one below demonstrates your theoretical base is flawed.

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links | e! Science News


There for, your claim is false.
No I'd say your claim is false based on the evidence.
I do not know.

But I would like to direct your attention to the following..




Same genes? Evidence for 'Common Designer' God.
Different genes? Evidence for 'Wonderful Designer' God.

I'm sorry but what the heck? Talk about unfalsifiable.
Clearly you do not understand that there are no new genes. All that happens in vertical transmision is they duplicate, fuse etc. It takes a vertical transmission to introduce anything new. So much for Darwin. Rather the genetic differences of 30% gained over 6my highlights humans and chimps are not related.

The frog/human leg info demonstrates different genes producing the same homology which means homology means nothing in relation to common descent as far as evidence goes.
Atleast evolution explains and predicts why we'd see this.

Click to expand...

Hi there Exiledoomsayer

What do you mean by your reply to me re the frog info?

What you have not explained is why homologous structures that are produced by the expression of different genes or gene families are still called homologous at all. Obviously there is no common ancestor between frog and human as the homology you see is not related at all due to the differences in the genes that regulate the trait, legs. The evidence demonstrates no ancestry and no common descent.

Similarly why would you say there is homology between the chimp and human brain when clearly they are vastly different.

This is not just the case in what you class as distantly related species such as frog and human but also between human and chimp.

"The team discovered that many genes playing a main role in cerebral cortex networks in humans did not in the chimpanzee and were significantly different between the two species"
Genes Function Differently in Human and Chimp Brain - Softpedia

This info above is what you found. This is the data. Below is how your researchers reckon it in with evolution the hypothesis made of the data.

"It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

As I have stated previously, the fact that a theory is saved from refutation by proposing wildly speculative and unfalisfiable scenarios does not mean that theory holds merit.

It is also possible that the reason why a chimp and human brain are so different is because apes and mankind were created independently and are not related ancestors. The reason why different genes form the legs of humans and frogs also demonstrates the two never shared a common ancestor.

It is not unlike heralding the 99% chimp/human comparison, then finding it is 95% similar, or finding that indeed a chimp is 30% different to a human. This does not include the differences in the genome surfaces nor the 10% difference in size. More and more differences are being found all the time as the info above demonstrates.

The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

You see the difference here is that you have found major differences in structure and functions between chimp and human genes. Rather than accepting what the data clearly demonstrates evolutionists must work how this came to be under an evolutionary paradigm.

Creationists do not need the added convolution of having to come up with unfalsifiable scenarios like you do. I can simply see the data and take it for what it is...that chimps and humans are so very different. Humans are not the product of adaptation from some ape as the data demonstrates. Frogs and mankind did not share a common ancestor because the gene function clearly demonstrates that we are not related.

This is science, the data aligning with a paradigm. Possibly, probably, maybe and likely used to propose wildly speculative and unfalsifiable scenarios is not.

Hence Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

Loudmouth said:

What we are saying is that the brow ridges increase as they age, as is shown in the adult specimens of A. afarensis. Do you agree or disagree?
Disagree. Really you have no idea as I don't think any complete afarensis skulls have ever been found. They are either reconstructions from bits or totally made up on the basis of a chard of bone. The link demonstrates what you actualy have.
Australopithecus afarensis - Australian Museum

It has been long suspected that the lack of brow ridges in H. sapiens is due to neotony.
Is that so? 'Suspected' is not evidence. Well here is Lucy's reconstruction out of a few pieces of skull pictured in brown.
Lucy

.

And still no eye brow riding across the top of the eyes such as is found in Erectus. So it seems neotony did not give rise to eyebrow riding across the top of the eyes in the adult afarensis as demonstrated above. So I say you are wrong. Your explanation does not explain how ridging suddenly appears in the human line within one million years or so of Lucy.

The reason why Erectus has strong ridging and an ape head is because it is unrelated to mankind.



Neotony: also called juvenilization or pedomorphism[2], is the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles, and is a subject studied in the field of developmental biology.
Neoteny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

What you did find complete is Lucy's babys skull. Lucy's baby looks like a Bornean orangutan. The rest of this so called evidence is best guessig at best on the basis of trying to humanize a creature in line with evolution.

Indeed Lucy has curved fingers, her child looks like an orang and still you guys want to postulate her as a human intermediate.

Clearly the creature is some sort of ape. Apes may have looked quite different at the creation. They were vegetarian and may have had shorter arms with knuckle walking and arm extension being an adaptation. When Adam looked into Lucys eyes he saw an ape, not an intermediate, as the human footprints found, dated to 3.8my, demonstrates.

And the icing on the cake is Lucy is now challenged as being a human ancestor at all, the same as Ardi. So much for the case of evidence for human ancestry to apes.

The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Lucy's child looks like a Bornean Orangutan and her mother, Lucy, has gorilla features. They are apes, not human intermediates.

A modern adult female ornag skull looks more human than Lucy or Erectus. Any skull piece or chard found could easily be misrepresented as a human intermediate in desperation.

Evolutionists enjoy constructing a complete species from one bone.

Then you have many erectus with the sagital keel and huge differences to mankind, despite the nit picking of a few similarities. Turkana Boy, your best example, still looks like an ape and less human than Lucy's baby or Lucys reconstruction.

I have displayed Lluc, 12myo, seen totally as an ape, but flat faced. Why evolutionists insist flat faced morphology is a rise to humanity is truly mind boggling and in total ignorance of the data they themselves produce.

Seriously, the evidence does not support the commom descent of ape and man. The evidence shows that apes were created independently of mankind as is demonstrated in both the fossil and genomic evidence.

.