Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[British Bulldog]

Such as?

You could start with this:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

 

[Chalnoth]

Such as?

Endogenous retroviruses:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

If you run the numbers, the probability of getting this tree (which matches with the tree computed from looking at physical characteristics) assuming there is no actual relationship is around one in a hundred trillion.

I find it interesting that during these immense extinctions, how do we find common ancestry in all living forms today? Also, if you find it positively hilarious that the fossil record proves gradual evolution, do you find it equally funny to find that since the Cambrian Era there have been no new phyla? Do you find it funny that Darwin and evolution claim that life is from simple to complex in small graduations along long periods of time. The cambrian era does not fit with this claim.

You do realize that those phyla originated gradually during the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian, right? Over a span of tens of millions of years?

So no, I don't find these things funny. I find them interesting.

 

[USincognito]

Oh brother, more substance free bluster - and you're continuing to make incorrect assertions despite repeatedly being corrected.

Oh you mean like the definition of species as speciation to the point of inablity to mate thrown in the garbage bin with so many contradictions

More bluster. Ring species have been known for years. That the lines between species are blurry has been known for years. That some interfertile species don't interbreed because of sexual selection has been known for years. None of these facts effect the defining of species one bit, nor does it give any credence to the concept of "kinds".

Baramins are just as good as your species definition mess.

You keep myopically focusing on species while ignoring the fact that my list isn't comprised solely of species. And baramins have proven to be worthless when Creationists try to actually do some science with the concept. Todd Wood is the only one who has tried and his results for hominid baramins was a mess while his horse barmin work was basically him throwing up his hands and saying everything from Hyracotherium to Equus is "horse kind". Of course he never did show any work demonstrating "horse kind" to not be related via common ancestry to Perissodactyla, Laurasiatheres, Eutherians or other Mammals, etc. etc.

For baramins to be a valid, competing concept to standard taxonomy/phylogenetics, it can't merely say "these species are a kind", it aslo has to show why those species aren't related to other species via common ancestry.

and so is evolutionists sending Ardi and Lucy to the scrap heap.

I must have missed when that happened. Both Ardi and Lucy are still classified as Hominina and I don't know what this red herring has to do with you demonstrating that "kinds" is scientifically valid. I'd also note that since you continue to post photos that are not Lucy, you don't know anything about her.

Humour is also the rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past such as knuckle walking ancestry, LUCA, brain size tied to bipedalism, junk DNA, all once irrefuteable evidence for common ancestry, that now resides in the garbage bin.

More red herrings and Gish Gallop. Why don't you just buck up and tell me what "kind" each of the beings are and why or why not they are related and how the groups of three themselves are or are not related? Here's the list again.

Shiitake mushroom
Bakers (or brewers) yeast
White truffle

Lilac
Apple Tree
Saguaro cactus

Cuttlefish
Scallop
Banana slug

Lobster
Dragonfly
Tarantula

Sea lion
Manatee
Humpback whale

As always, please show your work.

Oh you mean like the rubbish evolutionists used to sprook about untill they found human footprints over 3.5 million years old and tried to attribute them to the ape Lucy with her ape fingers and no feet, who is now being thrown into the ape line of descent?This is more hilarious

Instead of your babble and bluster, how about you use specific references instead of buzz words and Gish Gallop gotchas. Are you referring to the Laetoli footprints? They are hominid footprints, not H. sapiens footprints and they were found in Tanzania. Lucy (the real Lucy, not the fossils/bones you've been incorrectly posting for a week now) was found in Ethiopia. Whereever did you get the crazy idea that the Laetoli footprints were attributed to Lucy? And here you are again with the myopia. You focus on her fingers possibly facilitating brachiation, but ignore the fact that the rest of her and other Australopithicene characteristics indicate bipedalism.

Considering the state of your species definitions, I think it quite comical that you suggest any truth lies with a precise definition of kind.

Your myopic focus on species is making you miss the points I have been making and which all of your bluster and bloviation has failed to address
- Not every common name I listed is a species.
- All of the beings in the groups of three are related by common ancestry.
- All of the groups of three listed are related are related by common ancestry.

If "kinds" is superior to taxonomy/phylogenetics, then you should not only be able to tell me which specific beings listed are related as a "kind", which are not and more importantly why they are or are not related. Thus far all you have done is bluster more and do the Gish Gallop.

 

[USincognito]

The IDers have come up with Baraminology. Biblical creationists can use a form of baraminology, discontinuity, to assert a definition of kind. So if you have never heard of any definition of kind I suggest you are speaking from an ignorant base.

{snip link}Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

I'm quite familiar with the hypothetical content of that article and it suffers from the same fatal problem that most Creationist "science" does - it doesn't present any real evidence, any real falsification of countering evidence or any potential falsifications of its own hypothesis(ses). It also contains a number of factual errors.
"An important example of a holobaramin would be humans, Homo sapiens. At the tips of the holobaraminic branches are the various races (Caucasians, Ethiopians, Mongolians, Amerindians [Amerinds or Native Americans], etc.). See Figure 3"

First, there are a number of other speices that are "known to share genetic relationship" and a demonstrated one - Neanderthals. Also, and this is a bit of a nit pick, Amerinds aren't genetically separate from "Mongolians", they are a subgroup of them.

Further:
"Additionally there is a “dog” holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves, another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals, and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds."

Hyenas aren't "dogs". They're more closely related to cats in the Feliformia.
Feliformia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
†Barbourofelidae
Eupleridae
Felidae
Herpestidae
Hyaenidae
Nandiniidae
†Nimravidae
†Stenoplesictidae
†Percrocutidae
Viverridae

I use discontinuity also. Given neither side of the debate knows for sure what the initial creation or so called common ancestors looked like, it is folly to make assumptions.

Assumptions, the magic word for Creationists. Actually we do have a good idea of what a common ancestor would look like for given subspeciations. An Urprimate would be quadrapedal, have binocular vision, particular dentition, hair and claw characteristics, etc. We also can look at extinct species and place them within a proper classification based on characteristics - even if they aren't ancestral to descended species, but more of an ancient cousin. Here'a great example - Dimetrodon.

It's a dinosaur right? Or at least a reptile like a croc or a turtle?
Actually, it's not. It's an ancestor (or ancestral cousin) of mammals.
Dimetrodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is huge range in every species. Rather I use the most obvious distinction between two kinds to differentiate.

Which is getting you into trouble with quite a few hominid fossils since you look at 1 or 2 characteristics of the skull or a finger bone and ignore all the other morphological evidence. I'd say your system is one rife with error.

In the case of mankind and ape it is high functioning reasoning ability and perception as well as sophisticated language that distinguishes them apart.

Well, yeah, it's right there in our binomal name "sapiens". That distinguishes us from our fellow species in the genus Homo and our fellow genera in the subtribe Hominina to whom we are all related via common ancestry. Here's a question though, what characteristics do all other Hominidae have that we lack. That is the question.

Astridhere - A kind are the ancestors of the initial creations of God.
-- Not a scientific statement.

Astridhere - Turkana Boy has a small neural canal and was unable to use sophisticated speech.
-- Most likely was unable to use sophisticated speech =/= lacked the ability to communicate using speech.

Astridhere - His skull resembles that of a non human primate and is discontinuous with the range and variety of the human skull.
-- Horsefeathers. As shown by the skulls comparison posted previously in this thread. Ergaster skulls do exhibit a number of characteristics that show they are not H. sapiens, but they exhibit enough to show they are Homo.

Astridhere - Turkana Boy and other Erectus were incapable of sophisticated speech. It is an ape and is your best example.
-- Horsefeathers. "Ape" is not determined by the ability to speak in a sophisticated manner, nor does "ape" exculde humans including H. sapiens. As I mentioned above, you look at one or two characteristics on Turkana Boy's skull and make your judgement based on gut feeling all the while ignoring the rest of the skull characteristics and more importantly the rest of the body.

Astridhere - Turkana Boy was also found in pieces and may well be a head placed on another individuals body.
-- Citation please, otherwise an appeal to conspiracy theory.

- cont.

 

[Astridhere]

Oh brother, more substance free bluster - and you're continuing to make incorrect assertions despite repeatedly being corrected.

You have corrected nothing. You have just provided woffle

More bluster. Ring species have been known for years. That the lines between species are blurry has been known for years. That some interfertile species don't interbreed because of sexual selection has been known for years. None of these facts effect the defining of species one bit, nor does it give any credence to the concept of "kinds".

I spoke to cryptic species as an example of your inconsistencies which had nothing to do when you found this anomoly. Do you have problems with comprehension?

It would be hypocritical to expect more from a less funded and newer field of baraminology. However, your assertion that there is no definition of kind is a blunder. Suck it up! You do not have to like it any more than I have to like your defininitions of species.

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology

You keep myopically focusing on species while ignoring the fact that my list isn't comprised solely of species. And baramins have proven to be worthless when Creationists try to actually do some science with the concept. Todd Wood is the only one who has tried and his results for hominid baramins was a mess while his horse barmin work was basically him throwing up his hands and saying everything from Hyracotherium to Equus is "horse kind". Of course he never did show any work demonstrating "horse kind" to not be related via common ancestry to Perissodactyla, Laurasiatheres, Eutherians or other Mammals, etc. etc.

For baramins to be a valid, competing concept to standard taxonomy/phylogenetics, it can't merely say "these species are a kind", it aslo has to show why those species aren't related to other species via common ancestry.
Oh what nonsense. I do not have show why something I do not believe exists or is or isn't there. Wolves led to the dog kind but further back than wolves you have a mess of a bunch of hugely varied creatures thrown together in a mess and use this mess as evidence of intermediates.


I must have missed when that happened. Both Ardi and Lucy are still classified as Hominina and I don't know what this red herring has to do with you demonstrating that "kinds" is scientifically valid. Lucy is a variety of Orangutan from what I see. What sort of ape they are, either living or extinct is not the point and a desperate aside.

Are you unable to comprehend? I am saying you have no intermediate humans/apes, which in case you have forgotten, includes Ardi, Lucy, Erectus. Erectus is also being challenged as a human ancestor in favour of eragaster. I am not going to repost over and over. Get with the program. If you are ignorant of anything I speak to, then admit it, and I will repost the links.

I am using one specific example to demonstrate how science eg fossil evidence for mankind and apes, supports creation rather than evolution in refute to the threads proposals. Get it?


I'd also note that since you continue to post photos that are not Lucy, you don't know anything about her. How self soothing. Do you think you are the only one hear that can read? The pictures are of Lucy and Lucys child. If you do not like or disagree with the links, then go whine to someone that cares, like your researchers.


Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton

Lucy..no eyebrow ridging..WHY??????????????????

Evolution: Library: Laetoli Footprints

These are the human footprints you and your researchers say a 3ft tall, curved fingered, long armed, ape that resembles a bornean orangutan is responsible for, dear. Wake up!


More red herrings and Gish Gallop. Why don't you just buck up and tell me what "kind" each of the beings are and why or why not they are related and how the groups of three themselves are or are not related? Here's the list again.
Oh goodie a game of "answer ever question in the world if you can" despite the fact that evolution theory itself has many unanswered questions, debates and contradictions and is as clear as mud. 100 years of history that have got it nowhere other than shown that Darwin was simplistic! Great game. Too bad you evos have yet to answer a few of my questions before demanding a plethora of your own.

Shiitake mushroom
Bakers (or brewers) yeast
White truffle

Lilac
Apple Tree
Saguaro cactus

Cuttlefish
Scallop
Banana slug

Lobster
Dragonfly
Tarantula

Sea lion
Manatee
Humpback whale

As always, please show your work.

OK.. so now you want to play games. You have been unable to answer my questions and are now playing games in defence. Is this the game of creationists having to provide an answer to every question or else they are boofheads? What is a hypocrite? I am not going to spend hours classsifying these into kinds just for you to be able to say bla bla back. And what if I did? Would that satisfy you in any way? Would you concede? I doubt it, you would simply go on and on and on wanting and demanding more and more and better than you can provide yourself.

I'll tell you what for species around recently..generally I find the sub family is akin to kind or family where no sub family exists as a rank. Now you know many of your species get shuffled around, so we all have to work with this mess.

As for pre flood or extinct kinds, let me say I tend to support the mega flood. None the less given time I and other creationists would be able to put up a theoretical base for classification just like you and many have been done already. For example..

The Humpback whale you speak to above I will do.

It belongs to a kind akin toBalaenopteridae. I am not a biologist, but I would say this family is
based on phylogony etc. The same goes for sea lions etc.

As for extinct species. Indohyus is a mouse deer. It is continuous with the mouse
deer alive today.

I'll speak to it further below.





Instead of your babble and bluster, how about you use specific references instead of buzz words and Gish Gallop gotchas. Are you referring to the Laetoli footprints? They are hominid footprints, not H. sapiens footprints and they were found in Tanzania. Lucy (the real Lucy, not the fossils/bones you've been incorrectly posting for a week now) was found in Ethiopia. Whereever did you get the crazy idea that the Laetoli footprints were attributed to Lucy? And here you are again with the myopia. You focus on her fingers possibly facilitating brachiation, but ignore the fact that the rest of her and other Australopithicene characteristics indicate bipedalism.

They are whatever your researchers need them to be. For heavens sake you woffle on. They are classed as human footprints with arches and bla bla bla.

dated to 3.6my

If you want to believe a 3ft curved fingered, ape chested, long armed, creature that resembles a bornean orangutan had feet like that left thse footprints, then good for you. As for me I happen to have some common sense and eyes and say these footprints could not possibly belong to Lucy the ape at 3.2mya. Humans were around way before this ape ancestor, Lucy, lived.

Your myopic focus on species is making you miss the points I have been making and which all of your bluster and bloviation has failed to address
- Not every common name I listed is a species.
- All of the beings in the groups of three are related by common ancestry.
- All of the groups of three listed are related are related by common ancestry.
Then go look at your classifications either linneaus or cladistic and see what they say according your families and sub families. You do the work. I have better things to do than play games with long lists.

BTW, seeing as you are mentioning whales in your list of glory look at what you have done with Indohyus...

"Previously grouped with Helohyidae, Raoellidae is now a family in the Suborder Cetancodonta. It is found in Eocene of South and Southeast Asia." (Wiki Indohyus)

See what I have to put up with when using your science? Indohyus is a variety of deer, like a mouse deer and there is no need for all this convoluted confusion while trying to mythize it into your ranks as an intermediate.

If "kinds" is superior to taxonomy/phylogenetics, then you should not only be able to tell me which specific beings listed are related as a "kind", which are not and more importantly why they are or are not related. Thus far all you have done is bluster more and do the Gish Gallop.You have intentionally mesrepresented me. I have said baramins are at least as good as your mess

Whales today are classified according to your phylogeny back to family ranks. The same for sea lions etc.

As for extinct species, really who cares except for evos. However an example would be Indohyus, as mentioned, that is a variety of mouse deer. You lot say it is evolving into a whale. I say rubbish. It is a variety of mouse deer that is alive and classified today. It may resemble the first created kind.

The fossil will show aquatic adaptations not unlike one alive today that has been seen to dive, the tail being the only difference when one looks at the fossil, rather than the misrepresentation sketched. Your basis for misrepresenting this as anything other than a variety of deer is biased and reflective of your needs to establish ancestry, but not on science.

Some whales have neural spindles like humans...oh yeah that's there due to the magic of convergent evolution.

Therefore Indohyus from the fossil evidence is more continuous with a mouse deer alive today. It is NOT continuous with a whale. So without the presumption of evolution and the desperate need to find intermediates, Indohyus fits nicely with the creation model and out of your taxonomy and into the line with mouse deer. So now I have given you an example of one.
BBC - Earth News - Aquatic deer and ancient whales

A sea lion is from a kind akin to Otariidae and those species placed there. Other kinds are odobenidae and phosidae
by whatever names you want to call them
"Formerly classified as a separate biological suborder, Pinnipedia is now sometime
considered a subgroup within the suborder Caniformia of the order Carnivora." Wiki

It seems you guys are as clear as mud on this one also.


So even your researchers see the resemblance in indohyus and the mouse deer, but they need intermediates. This fossil is not evidence of a deer morphing into a whale at all. It is a variety of mouse deer with the aquatic aparatus it requires today, not because it is evolving into a whale. This is rubbish and truly straw grabbing at its best.

The same goes for ambulocetus natans, that resembles what may be a primitive crocodile rather than a deer-whale intermedite.

The thing is you cannot answer my questions and you still have faith in evolution. Now you play games as a refute, and want me to spend hours speaking to a list of species just to satisfy you. Get real!

You do not have human intermediates anymore, particularly ones that are direct human ancestors. They are challenged to the hilt. You have few chimp ancestors. Why? Your best Erectus example Turkana Boy looks like an ape, also, and I have spoken to this at length.

Therefore this is just one point of evidence that supports the kind 'apes' and then humans having been created individually and in the order definded in the bible.

This is my point and one example of a plethora.

Creation=Science Evolution=Philosophy in evolution

 

[Chalnoth]

Whales today are classified according to your phylogeny back to family ranks. The same for sea lions etc.

As for extinct species, really who cares except for evos. However an example would be Indohyus, as mentioned, that is a variety of mouse deer. You lot say it is evolving into a whale. I say rubbish. It is a variety of mouse deer that is alive and classified today. It may resemble the first created kind.

You're hilarious, you know that?

The reason why Indohyus is known to be a whale ancestor is because it has a unique type of ear that, among living animals, is only seen among whales. This type of ear does not exist in mouse deer.

 

[Astridhere]

I'm quite familiar with the hypothetical content of that article and it suffers from the same fatal problem that most Creationist "science" does - it doesn't present any real evidence, any real falsification of countering evidence or any potential falsifications of its own hypothesis(ses). It also contains a number of factual errors.
"An important example of a holobaramin would be humans, Homo sapiens. At the tips of the holobaraminic branches are the various races (Caucasians, Ethiopians, Mongolians, Amerindians [Amerinds or Native Americans], etc.). See Figure 3"

First, there are a number of other speices that are "known to share genetic relationship" and a demonstrated one - Neanderthals. Also, and this is a bit of a nit pick, Amerinds aren't genetically separate from "Mongolians", they are a subgroup of them.
Who cares? You should be smart enough to get the general idea of an example that is not exhaustive. Surely you are not a nit picker!!!!!!
Further:
"Additionally there is a “dog” holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves, another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals, and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds."

Hyenas aren't "dogs". They're more closely related to cats in the Feliformia.
Feliformia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
†Barbourofelidae
Eupleridae
Felidae
Herpestidae
Hyaenidae
Nandiniidae
†Nimravidae
†Stenoplesictidae
†Percrocutidae
Viverridae

Bla Bla. Felimformia is a great example of a rank with heap of species thrown into it by some connection including teeth. The families therein represent kinds. The methods used to show common ancestry are biased nonsense based on assumptions and probabilities. Convergent evolution, physical and genetic homoplasy staged evolution are invented to keep the obvious inconsistencies at bay.

"Systematic classifications dealing with both extant and extinct taxa vary more widely. Some [4] separate the feliforms (extant and extinct) as: Aeluroidea (superfamily) and Feliformia (suborder). Others[3] include all feliforms (extant, extinct and "possible ancestors") into the Feliformia suborder. Recent studies suggest this inclusion of "possible ancestors" into Feliformia (or even Carnivora) may be spurious (Wesley-Hunt and Flynn 2005).[5] The extinct (&#8224 families as reflected in the taxa chart at right are the least problematic in terms of their relationship with extant feliforms (with the most problematic being Nimravidae)." Wiki feliformia

Another mess you expect me to sort out betterthan you, hey???? Get real!

Assumptions, the magic word for Creationists. Actually we do have a good idea of what a common ancestor would look like for given subspeciations. An Urprimate would be quadrapedal, have binocular vision, particular dentition, hair and claw characteristics, etc. We also can look at extinct species and place them within a proper classification based on characteristics - even if they aren't ancestral to descended species, but more of an ancient cousin. Here'a great example - Dimetrodon.

It's a dinosaur right? Or at least a reptile like a croc or a turtle?
Actually, it's not. It's an ancestor (or ancestral cousin) of mammals.
Dimetrodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The significance of this classification of Dimetrodon depends on the system used. In the classical Linnaeïsche system, it belongs to the genus order Pelycosauria. Since this classification, the Therapsida and mammals traditionally been placed in the order Pelycosauria, this order is in fact paraphyletic as not all descendants belong to it. Not only the order as a whole is paraphyletic but the family within that order which contains the ancestor of the later therapsiden and mammals. Now it is the family Sphenacodontidae to which Dimetrodon belongs."

Oh goodness confusion for you yet again. It is extinct and likely not related to anything here today other than in your imagination.

Which is getting you into trouble with quite a few hominid fossils since you look at 1 or 2 characteristics of the skull or a finger bone and ignore all the other morphological evidence. I'd say your system is one rife with error.

Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

This is what you get when offering evidence based on foundations of straw. Homo erectus is or is not the human ancestor.

Given you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like you have demonstrated the foley in your ways. Hence knucklewalking bites the dust and lucy and ardi are now being challlenged as being nothing more than ape ancestors. Erectus did not co exist with mankind anywhere. You call this never ending chain of rubbish evidence..again..good for you!



Well, yeah, it's right there in our binomal name "sapiens". That distinguishes us from our fellow species in the genus Homo and our fellow genera in the subtribe Hominina to whom we are all related via common ancestry. Here's a question though, what characteristics do all other Hominidae have that we lack. That is the question.

Astridhere - A kind are the ancestors of the initial creations of God.
-- Not a scientific statement.

Astridhere - Turkana Boy has a small neural canal and was unable to use sophisticated speech.
-- Most likely was unable to use sophisticated speech =/= lacked the ability to communicate using speech.
It does not matter the about the arms and legs its side view shows an ape. You have no idea if long arms arose independently like knucklewalking. You are assuming much to your constant detriment.
Astridhere - His skull resembles that of a non human primate and is discontinuous with the range and variety of the human skull.
-- Horsefeathers. As shown by the skulls comparison posted previously in this thread. Ergaster skulls do exhibit a number of characteristics that show they are not H. sapiens, but they exhibit enough to show they are Homo.
Oh twoddle.. I'll bet they never threw in any insertion values against the variety of Orangutans eg bornean. They make up the criteria themselves already assumming a human ancestor, then apply it and call this evidence. I think not!

Astridhere - Turkana Boy and other Erectus were incapable of sophisticated speech. It is an ape and is your best example.
-- Horsefeathers. "Ape" is not determined by the ability to speak in a sophisticated manner, nor does "ape" exculde humans including H. sapiens. As I mentioned above, you look at one or two characteristics on Turkana Boy's skull and make your judgement based on gut feeling all the while ignoring the rest of the skull characteristics and more importantly the rest of the body.
Twoddle'



This is an ape, no matter what garbage you invent to make it human.

There were flat faced apes around 12mya eg Lluc. Why is Lluc not in the human line???? Only because of dating. If Lluc was dated recently he'd be shoved into the human line as well. It just shows your researchers really have no idea. It is all the wish listing of intermediates and tht is why you have few, if any, chimp and other primate ancestors.

Astridhere - Turkana Boy was also found in pieces and may well be a head placed on another individuals body.
-- Citation please, otherwise an appeal to conspiracy theory.
Given you do not know what earlier apes look like, the head and brain are the most stable differentiating feature for comparison here, regardless.
- cont.

Turkana Boy is an ape. His skull looks nothing like a human skull despite your attempts to find this and that which appears similar. It is straw grabbing after looking at the side view of Turkana Boy and a straw grab at using similarities at all. Flat facial moprphology has arisen before and is only evoked as it suits you. Turkana Boy looks nothing like any variety of human, black or white, it is a nonsense to say this thing is a human.

I'll remind you again of the apey bent over Neanderthal presented by the fossil evidence when it suited and then the perfectly human looking neanderthal after DNA comparisons were done...he morphed as if by magic.

Your researchers make these values up themselves and then apply it and call this evidence. It is not. Rather, good old common sense and good eye sight is all one needs to see the misrepresentations you use as evidence.

 

[Nostromo]

Now we know that is not true. Science as we have both agreed has metaphysical elements that can not be empirically tested. In fact, that science is based on these assumptions that are untestable due to their nature, means that you are using special pleading to exclude God as a possible cause for the universe.

I don't know what it is that you do when you look at my posts, but it isn't reading them.

 

[Astridhere]

You're hilarious, you know that?

The reason why Indohyus is known to be a whale ancestor is because it has a unique type of ear that, among living animals, is only seen among whales. This type of ear does not exist in mouse deer.

I have produced a research based article that shows indohyus to be aquatic, it dives. The researcher also speaks to the similarities

You have provided woffle. If a mouse deer dives it must have aquatic adaptations, that is the basis of the article.

Now you put some research where your attitude is.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have produced a research based article that shows indohyus to be aquatic, it dives. The researcher also speaks to the similarities

You have provided woffle. If a mouse deer dives it must have aquatic adaptations, that is the basis of the article.

Now you put some research where your attitude is.

Um, not even other aquatic mammals have the cetacean ear. But this one does.

 

[Astridhere]

Um, not even other aquatic mammals have the cetacean ear. But this one does. Is that so? What do you mean by that broad statement. Are you saying Indohyus has a cetacean ear and other aquatic mammals do not? If so great and even more reason to assert Indoyhus has nothing to do with whales and it sure does not look like one.

It appears from this that many aquatic mammals have the cetacean ear
"A mammalian order comprising approximately 90 living species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises and their fossil relatives. Like all other mammals but unlike all fish, cetaceans nurse their young with milk produced by the mother, are endothermic (warm-blooded), breathe air, have a lower jaw that consists of a single bony element (the dentary), and have three small bones (hammer, anvil, and stirrup) subserving sound transmission within the ear."
Catecean definition of Catecean in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

and

Hearing in Cetaceans and Sirenians, the Fully Aquatic Ear

The whole thing is irrelevant anyway when Indohyus and the earliest whales co existed..Don't you think?????????

*[Keep in mind that Indohyus was not the last common ancestor of all whales and that it may have differed significantly from the true ancestor of earliest whales. Indeed, Indohyus and some of it's raoellid relatives lived at the same time as the earliest known fossil whales. Its use as a model for the ancestor of early whales is a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed by further fossil evidence. Thanks to Neil for reminding me to make this point clear.]'
Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science | Wired.com


If known Indohyus fossils coexisted with your earliest whale fossils then effectively, and again, you have evidence for the 2 kinds, deer and whales, being created independently. This is the evidence based on the fossil record. To theorise or need some other common ancestor is just that,..... theory, assumption, faith and wishfull thinking.

Creation=Science, Evolution=theory, philosophy, faith and wishfull thinking.


And here below a research paper, that speaks to Indohyus NOT being so close to cetacea, despite the researchers basic presumption of common descent with something for sure because evolution says so. Sadly, it is a matter of the blind leading the blind in only looking for common descent.


Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution: 2009

Examination of the node allying †Indohyus with other cetaceamorphans indicates that presence of the pachyostotic bulla is one key feature supporting this clade. The base of Cetaceamorpha is united by the presence of a third trochanter and the absence of a meatal tube on the auditory bulla

The condition of the auditory tube in basal cetaceamorphans is only recorded for †Diacodexis pakistanensis [55], [56] (other taxa are represented by “?” for this feature) as inferred from a line drawing in the cranial description of this specimen (the original specimen is lost to science, personal communication, J. G. M. Thewissen). This drawing suggests that the meatal tube is essentially absent, a very rare feature for noncetacean artiodactylans

The relationships of †Mesonychia and †Indohyus are highly unstable, however - in trees only two steps longer than minimum length, †Mesonychia falls inside Artiodactyla and displaces †Indohyus from a position close to Cetacea.

Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution

If any creationist doubts the convolutions and complicated mathematical algorithms and asumptions behind all this so called evidence, they just need to read this article.

 

[Chalnoth]

Is that so? What do you mean by that broad statement. Are you saying Indohyus has a cetacean ear and other aquatic mammals do not? If so great and even more reason to assert Indoyhus has nothing to do with whales and it sure does not look like one.

So, finding that Indohyus has something in common with whales, something no living animal has in common with whales, not even other aquatic mammals, makes it less likely to be closely-related to the ancestors of whales? Why?

And by the way, the "many mammals" that share this kind of ear are all cetaceans. I only say "whales" here because cetaceans doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily. The point is that seals, sea lions, walruses, manatees, dugongs, and otters do not have this kind of ear. While some of these animals have somewhat similar adaptations, they do not have the same adaptations that we see in whales, and Indohyus also likely still had external ears, it's just that the surrounding bone structure is only in common with cetaceans.

The whole thing is irrelevant anyway when Indohyus and the earliest whales co existed..Don't you think?????????

Not really. Humans and chimpanzees coexist, while we expect chimpanzees to have changed much less visibly from our common ancestor, making them a pretty good match to what our ancestors looked like some 6-7 million years ago.

But none of your links support the point that Indohyus and early whales coexisted. Where did you get this idea from?

 

[USincognito]

But none of your links support the point that Indohyus and early whales coexisted. Where did you get this idea from?

Probably from the same place she got the idea that Salem is Lucy.

 

[USincognito]

Lucy, even with her resemblance to a Bornean orangutan looks more human than Turkana Boy.
{snip images}
Lucy, Australopithicus afarensis

How would you know? You keep posting a picture of Salem - as I have told you at least 4 times now - claiming it's Lucy. If you're so ignorant of this topic that you would confuse two entirely different fossils, I find it hard to take anything else you have to say seriously.

As you see Lucy does not have eye brow ridging.

No I don't see that as you keep posting a photo of Salem, not Lucy. I did, however, post an actual photo of Lucy's skull reconstruction a few days ago
http://www.christianforums.com/t7583114-31/#post58313652
which shows she has eyebrow ridges and the male skull has even more pronounced ones.

However 2 million years later your intermdediates do show marked and heavy eye brow ridging. This does not make any sense and demonstrates that there is no graduation at all in the fossil record.

Actually, what doesn't make any sense is why you keep posting a photo of Salem and claiming it's Lucy despite being corrected numerous times.

Turkana Boy is discontinuous with mankind and is therefore NOT mankind.

I have corrected this before. Turkana Boy fits in exactly with other Homo species. He's gracile, bipedal and has a cranial capacity larger than earlier Homo species, but not as large as neanderthal or sapiens.

Your species definitions are full of contradictions. Allele frequencies relate to adaptation. You have had to invent terms like cryptic species etc, convergent evolution, morphological homoplasy and genetic homoplasy and a host of other terms to keep your theory of common descent from death.

What the heck does convergent evolution have to do with "species definitions"? This bit of Gish Gallop makes no sense what so ever.

The icing on the cake is that you have few, if any, examples of chimp ancestry. This is because they are all thrown into the human line for headlines and glory.

How would you know? You keep posting a photo of Salem and calling it Lucy. You keep posting a picture of a complete H. sapiens skeleton and calling it Lucy. You keep talking about Turkana Boy's face while ignoring all his other Homo characteristics. If you make such simple errors - and refuse correction - how should we trust your evaluation on Chimp evolution?

{snip blather}You do not have human intermediates. Erectus are apes, Lucy and ardi are challenged, and therefore the evidence supports creation as a science...and this is just one example of a plethora too long to speak to in one thread.

Creation=Science. Evolution=Wishfull thinking

Funny stuff. I like the way you take yourself so seriously while spewing a fountain of error.

 

[USincognito]

If your intermedites such as Lucy and Ardi are now being challenged as being ape ancestors then they are not evidence.

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.

If your Erectus are also apes...

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.

It is very clear from Turkana Boys side view tht he is not human, nor becoming human. Some creationists accept him as human vecause they have put too much faith in the reasonings of man and false and biased reconstructions.

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.

You do remember a time when evos used to serve up junk dna as being solid evidence of evolution and solid evidence against creation. Well that is in the scrap heap now. This is an ongoing creationist prediction that has always been asserted and continues to be validated more and more.

Actually there's plenty of "junk DNA" and some of it is non-functioning or non-coding.

Evolution is based on misrepresentations and theories that change like the wind. If you wish to have faith in this...good for you.

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.

 

[USincognito]

This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. 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."

Remember in 2010 when Creationists jumped all over this story and acted like the objections of one paleontologist were Gospel truth and not to be questioned?

Well, those days are still here I guess. Perhaps they didn't get the rest of the story from their Creationist websites... the debate isn't over.
Response to Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus
"We assigned Ardipithecus to the Hominidae based on numerous dental, cranial, and postcranial characters. Sarmiento argues that these characters are not exclusive to hominids, contending that Ardipithecus is too old to be cladistically hominid. His alternative phylogeny, however, is unlikely because it requires tortuous, nonparsimonious evolutionary pathways."

"It appears your irrefuteable evidence for ancestry to these creatures is as clear as mud."

Apologetics press? Oh please.

"I am sorry to say that it is only overwhelmingly misrepresented."

Really? You can't even keep Salem and Lucy straight. How the heck are you going to know if genetic evidence of human evolution is misrepresented?

"Do not forget that now with HGT the idea of a single cell arising to life is dead."

What the heck does this have to do with the genetic evidence for human evolution? Red herring or more Gish Gallop.

"It happens to be a chimp for most genomic regions and orangutan for some others."

Evidence?

"In fact chimps are 30% different to mankind and more differences are constantly being found. Gene surface is different and the chimp genome is 10% larger.Your researchers have taken one little part, MtDNA, the cells powerhouse, and the only genomic region with such similarity as 94% to try to show descent.(chimp genome project Wiki)."

Cool. There's a member here who worked on the Chimpanzee Genome Project and is one of the authors of the article cited in the Wiki entry. For some reason he still accepts chimp/human common ancestry, but I suppose you know better than he does.

"Then you have the Y chromosome. It is remarkably different in the chimp and human....and your excuse is 'accelerated evolution'. Rubbish!"

Yes, random laywoman on Internet who doesn't know the difference between Salem and Lucy claims mutation rates in Y Chromosome is "rubbish", therefore it's true. Hey, remember when this story first broke and how Creationists lied about the implications of the study? I do.
Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?

"ERVs are nothing more than dead and lifeless particles and ghosts and remnants."

Virus DNA inserted into germ cells which survive the infection, happen to be the one to result in fertilization and are found in orthologous locations in patterns that form a nested hierarchy (aka phylogenetic tree) very powerful evidence for common ancestry. And I'm sorry, but we do know if they are present because of common ancestry or HGT - when they are found in orthologous locations, they were passed down through the generations.

"The evolutionary warcry that junk DNA disproves creation and support evolution has turned to manure with functionality being attributed to junk DNA and ervs"

Could you tell us what function it has or give a few examples? And some ERV DNA has been incorporated into functioning parts of the genome - that doesn't change the fact that it's virus DNA and when it is found in orthologous positions, it's evidence of common ancestry.

"The same goes for vestigal organs that are now being found to be functional.eg appendix"

So, in all your "study" of evolution, you never learned that "vestigial = useless" is as anachronistic as "missing link"? Well, given that you continue to confuse Salem with Lucy, I can see how you might make such a mistake.

{snip bluster}

 

[USincognito]

I have said this so many times......

You seem to say a lot of things that are incorrect repeatedly.

Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God.

None of these characteristics are what make us human physiologically. None of these characteristics exclude us from being apes physiologically.

Only evolutionists see 4 similar limbs and a head and say humans are apes with total disregard for the huge and obvious differences between beast and mankind.

You mean "evolutionists" like Linneaus?
Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually there's plenty of "junk DNA" and some of it is non-functioning or non-coding.

I believe nearly all of the non-coding DNA is entirely non-functional, though there are snippets here and there that do have extremely important functions.

 

[USincognito]

Wow, this starting to border on the pathetic.

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology

Objective Ministries? Really? You do realize that's a Creationist parody site, right?

Lucy is a variety of Orangutan from what I see.

How can you tell? You have yet to show you even know what she looks like!

How self soothing. Do you think you are the only one hear that can read? The pictures are of Lucy and Lucys child. If you do not like or disagree with the links, then go whine to someone that cares, like your researchers.

Your hubris is a bit annoying, but the fact that you are so wrong and making such a fool out of yourself makes it a lot easier to handle. To wit...

Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton

I don't know what the heck buzzle.com is, but it's not a science site and that photo is not Lucy. If you check the Wikipedia page you can see not 1, not 2 but 3 different representations of Lucy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
The first is her fossil remains.

Note how her skull is in pieces, not complete as in the photo you've continued to post despite my repeated corrections of you.
The second is a reconstructed side view.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Lucy_(Frankfurt_am_Main).jpg
(this photo is giant and fills up too much of the page, click on the link)
Note how her legs are only partially present while they are complete in the photo you've continued to post despite my repeated corrections of you.
The third is a front view.

Again, compare the legs in this photo with those of the modern human you've continued to post claiming it was Lucy despite my repeated corrections of you and then compare the skull with that of the modern human you've continued to post claiming it was Lucy despite my repeated corrections of you.

If you continue to post incorrect material and make incorrect claims despite repeated corrections, then why should anyone take you seriously or bother to try and help you look less foolish, especially when you've got such a smug attitude?

 

[USincognito]

I believe nearly all of the non-coding DNA is entirely non-functional, though there are snippets here and there that do have extremely important functions.

Ah yes. Thanks.