Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

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

What process would allow for old features of organisms to routinely re-purpose to perform entirely different tasks?

 

[antde2001]

What process would allow for old features of organisms to routinely re-purpose to perform entirely different tasks?

It's called vestigiality and the physiology is quite understood in the medical field. Ever tried to move your ears or wiggle your nose? Other vestigial structures include the appendix, the tailbone, the accessory olfactory system and the
plica semilunaris in the eye. Though the list is longer, that should prove sufficient for now. Though I did notice you asked what process would cause such re-purposing to occur and in physiology there have been a host of elements found to cause this. Change of environment, diet; the structure could have become hazardous to the health of the organism (See appendicitis and removal of lymph nodes), prone to cancer, etc. Hopefully that answers your question if indeed that is what you were asking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

There for, your claim is false.

I don't know what that link is for. Anyway, Birds were mesozoic which comes before our current era with cattle and humans.

I do not know.

OK

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.

Homologous features that are similar due to inheritance of a common ancestor, Homoplasious features are features similar not due to inheritance.

Same features-common ancestry
Same features-not common ancestry

I'm sorry but what the heck? Talk about unfalsifiable.

At least evolution explains and predicts why we'd see this.

Evolution explains, it doesn't predict it due to the fact that "convergent' evolution was called archetype a long time before Darwin.

Not only that, the mechanisms or processes are not even known.

 

[Chalnoth]

What process would allow for old features of organisms to routinely re-purpose to perform entirely different tasks?

Random mutation.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I don't know what that link is for.

Just sourcing where I got the days from.

Anyway, Birds were mesozoic which comes before our current era with cattle and humans.

This is the bible verse you used: (I have been unable to find the bible that uses this wording)
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.


On which you said:
- "This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's "

But, nothing in the verse even remotely indicates the appearance of dino's. Nor that it includes their time period. You litterly just pasted them on to it without any justification. Because if you don't it conflicts with the fossil record.

Somehow all the land dwelling animals from the mesozoic are exempt from being land animals which are created later

You cannot look at the verse and honestly say speaks of Land dwelling reptiles, Dinosaurs and early mammals. All of which appeared before birds.

The verse is wrong. Especially when you consider the following:


24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

"Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period."

Clearly indicating that any and all life before this verse DID NOT live on land.
And to make matters worse, Mammals came before birds. The first mammals lived in the Triassic and the first birds lived in the Jurassic.

If you want to say day 5 created the modern animals that that still does not take away the bible neglects to mention their ancestors walking on land and would merely mean that you can fit any creation order to the verses without ever being wrong so long as you are willing to twist it enough.

The bottem line is that genesis is wrong about the order of life. And you merely try to make it right by saying 'it really means' without any reason for the things you are adding to it other then that genesis would be wrong if you did not do it. Even if it is directly contradicted by the very next verse.

Homologous features that are similar due to inheritance of a common ancestor, Homoplasious features are features similar not due to inheritance.

Same features -common ancestry
Same features -not common ancestry

I'm sorry but what the heck? Talk about unfalsifiable.

Uhm, I realize that you were trying to turn the point around. But what you wrote makes no sense.

Evolution explains, it doesn't predict it due to the fact that "convergent' evolution was called archetype a long time before Darwin.

Well its nice to confirm it explains and here is one prediction you can make, both of which is more then can be said for goddidit.

Based on the 'tree of life' you can predict wether a given trait between two animals is due to ancestry or due to convergent evolution. Which you can confirm by checking what genes are responsible for that trait in the two animals which will either be the same(common decent) or different (Convergent)

Not only that, the mechanisms or processes are not even known.

What do you mean? They are known just fine. Random Mutation and Natural Selection.

 

[Psudopod]

They are apes, not human intermediates.

Still waiting for you to answer the question from earlier. What part of the criteria for apes do humans not meet?

At least you've managed to label Lucy correctly, this time, even if your argument hasn't developed further than "I think it looks like an ape." If you're going to carry on down that line, you need to correctly distinguish humans from other apes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Still waiting for you to answer the question from earlier. What part of the criteria for apes do humans not meet?

So....apes are Humans then? By law, Humans are not animals.

 

[USincognito]

So....apes are Humans then?

How did you possibly read that in what pseudopod wrote?

By law, Humans are not animals.

Good thing we're talking phylogenetics here and not the law then huh?

 

[Psudopod]

So....apes are Humans then?

No, humans are apes. Some apes are human, others are chimpanzee, orangutan, gorrilla etc.

By law, Humans are not animals.

What law? Not science, certainly. Perhaps you could assist Astridhere in explaining what part of the criteria for apes humans fail to meet.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, humans are apes. Some apes are human, others are chimpanzee, orangutan, gorrilla etc.

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

What law? Not science, certainly. Perhaps you could assist Astridhere in explaining what part of the criteria for apes humans fail to meet.

Law gets one thrown in jail or electrocuted until dead.
Science gives out ribbons & awards.
I really only care about the Law of the land.
Every state in the Union has specifically laid down in law that Humans are not animals.
Science books get thrown out from my city library every few years.

 

[USincognito]

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

Wow, a semantic, logic and argumentative fail in one syllogism. Kudos.

Let's try this on for size.
Apes>humans
so
Humans<Our fellow apes.

Or in a text version of a Venn diagram...

{Apes(chimpanzees)(gorillas)(orangutans)(extinct hominins)(humans)}

Law gets one thrown in jail or electrocuted until dead.
Science gives out ribbons & awards.

Empty bluster and red herring. We're talking about scientific classifications her and your attempt to change the subject will be met with dismissal.

I really only care about the Law of the land.

Awesome, then why are you engaging in scientific discussion?

Every state in the Union has specifically laid down in law that Humans are not animals.

Here's a fun challenge. Since you assert this, can you cite every state law that says such a thing? Bet you can't.

Science books get thrown out from my city library every few years.

More bluster and red herring. Humans and our fellow apes have been connected taxonomically since Linneaus and through phylogenetics since the 19th Century. Can you tell us the title of any of the "science books thrown out from {your} city library" thrown out recently because it correctly classified humans as apes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's called vestigiality and the physiology is quite understood in the medical field. Ever tried to move your ears or wiggle your nose? Other vestigial structures include the appendix, the tailbone, the accessory olfactory system and the
plica semilunaris in the eye. Though the list is longer, that should prove sufficient for now. Though I did notice you asked what process would cause such re-purposing to occur and in physiology there have been a host of elements found to cause this. Change of environment, diet; the structure could have become hazardous to the health of the organism (See appendicitis and removal of lymph nodes), prone to cancer, etc. Hopefully that answers your question if indeed that is what you were asking.

I meant inwardly. Not the outside factors, but the inside mechanism that would cause the embedded gene to work again. We are talking deeply embedded Genes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This looks familiar...

Did you ever come up with a solution to those discrepencies?

According to science, fruit-bearing trees evolved at most 140 million years ago, corresponding to the Jurassic/Cretaceas periods of the Mesozoic Era. According to you, they were created on the Third Day, which you say corresponds to Palaeozoic Era. So, which is it? Did fruit-bearing plants arrive in the Mesozoic Era or the Palaeozoic Era?

And what about the Fourth Day? Where does this fit into all of this?

No, as I said in our other thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you did find complete is Lucy's babys skull. Lucy's baby looks like a Bornean orangutan.

Also similar to baby chimps which also lack a prominent brow ridge that grows later. Here is a pic of an 11 month old chimp skull:

Also, are you ignoring the Lucy specimen? It has a piece from the brow ridge, and it is definitely there. The same piece of bone also gives the angle of the forehead. So with Lucy's Child we have a lack of an eyebrow ridge and in Lucy there is an eyebrow ridge. The same pattern of development is seen in chimps as well. We also have fossils from the closely related A. africanus, one of which is very complete:

Pictures: New Human Ancestor Fossils Found

Every fossil of an adult Australopithecine that has ever been found with the orbital area intact has pronounced eye brow ridges.

]So it seems neotony did not give rise to eyebrow riding across the top of the eyes in the adult afarensis as demonstrated above.

T

I guess you still don't understand what neotony is. The lack of eyebrow ridges in H. sapiens is due to neotony, not the eyebrow ridge in A. afarensis.

Perhaps you could help educate all of us crazy evolutionists. It is obvious that you do not accept any of the current fossils as being intermediate between humans and a common ancestor with chimps. Perhaps you could tell us what features a real intermediate would have. Tell us what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is intermediate or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans. Why is this so hard to understand? The nested hierarchy is one of the most basic concepts in biology, yet creationists continue to get it wrong.

Every state in the Union has specifically laid down in law that Humans are not animals.

So humans do not ingest food and move about in a planned manner, all because the law says so?

 

[Chalnoth]

Tell us what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is intermediate or not.

Pretty sure her criteria are, "There aren't any intermediate fossils, therefore no fossils are intermediate."

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretty sure her criteria are, "There aren't any intermediate fossils, therefore no fossils are intermediate."

That would certainly go a long way towards confirming the topic of this thread.

 

[Nathan Poe]

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

poodles = dogs
so
dogs=poodles

Unless you go back and take a remedial logic class?

 

[Nostromo]

Unless you go back and take a remedial logic class?

Even using the word 'back' might be a touch presumptuous.

 

[Astridhere]

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?


Law gets one thrown in jail or electrocuted until dead.
Science gives out ribbons & awards.
I really only care about the Law of the land.
Every state in the Union has specifically laid down in law that Humans are not animals.
Science books get thrown out from my city library every few years.

Yes you are correct generally any book related to evolution is out of date by the time it hits the book shelves. Only an evolutionist can look in the mirror and see an ape. I am glad you and I do not.

Originally Posted by Psudopod
No, humans are apes. Some apes are human, others are chimpanzee, orangutan, gorrilla etc.
humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

What law? Not science, certainly. Perhaps you could assist Astridhere in explaining what part of the criteria for apes humans fail to meet.

This question, Psudopod, has been asked so many times adnauseum that I do not know why I keep speaking to it.

I have said there is no use trying to use comparisons to a creature you have no idea of what it looks like. Evolutionists use presumptions all the time and look where it gets you.

You thought we 'evolved' from a chimp like creature once upon a time. Now they think we evolved from something that is nothing like a chimp or gorilla. The first created ape may have had shorter arms that lengthened via adaptation. They may have been bipedal. They may have looked much the same as they do today. The point being that while reserchers give biased interpretations of the fossil record I can not rely on much of what they say.

The stark and obvious difference between mankind and beast is not in the sharing of 4 similar limbs and a head. It is about mankinds highly sophisticated language, superior reasoning ability and perception including the ability to percieve of a Creator and pay homage to a God. No beast has the perceptual ability to give praise to God as only mankind was created in Gods image and given this privelidge.

Turkana Boy, does not demonstrate this ability, regardless of the length of arms and presumed bipedalism. His neural canal is that of apes as is his skull. Many erectus have a sagital keel. The few similarities, that are focused on, are far outweighed by the differences. Many teeth features are akin to apes and dentition is very much to do with diet, longer spines on the vertebrae, could not speak, narrower pelvis, elongated neck on the femur, the sides of the brain case are flattened instead of arching, rib cage is unlike humans, a 6th lumbar vertebra as found in complex apes.

Let's not forgetPithecanthropus erectus, now Java man, initially dubbed a deformed ape, now classed as Homo erectus.


Lucy is being challenged, and takes with her Selam and all the Australopithecus afarensis mates.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568

Ardi is being challenged also as being and ape ancestor.

A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled
Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME


Evolutionary scientists have gone on and on about Ardi's and Lucy's bipedalism. Now if these are challenged where does this leave all this bipedalism?

It appears, if anything any researcher proposes can be taken seriously, that Ardi supposedly being partially bipedal and Lucy being fully bipedal to explain the 3.8myo footprints, were the ancestors of modern non bipedal apes.

Hence, todays knuckle walking apes may well be decendents of bipedal apes.

OR....will your evo researchers recant all this nonsense admitting they really have no clue how to discern bipedalism, or come up with the dead end line to clean it all up.

What the evidence supports is the creation of mankind that suddenly appear in the fossil record (possibly Isreal 400,000ya) and apes, with fully human footprints dated to 3.8mya, fire and tools, to suggest that mankind lived along side these creatures in the past. This is scientific evidence that supports creation. Lighting of fire and ability to control fire is a complex task that requires higher human functionality again demonstrating the coexistence of man and ape.

Israel Ancient Human Remains Discovered, Report Scientists

The evidence does no more for evolutionists than give them a headache and a mystery while trying to desperately search for human intermediates.


The thread topic suggests creation is not scientific and evolution is. I refute the claim and suggest that indeed it is evolution that is not scientific. Rather evolution consists of a plethora of wildly unplausable scenarios to deal with falsifications and attempts to turn clear evidence for the creation into an evolutionary mystery. Meanwhile the evidence, as it stands, supports the creation of beast then mankind as individual creations.