Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Chalnoth]

There is also this research that states there is a limit to genome mutation otherwise the organism will die.

If enough mutations push an essential protein towards an unstable, non-functional structure, the organism will die. Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction

And your point is? This just places a limit on the speed of evolution. It doesn't mean that large changes can't happen. All it means is that large changes take time.

Macroevolution requires function change, not just colour change and changes in beak sizes.

Which has been observed:
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to a New Home

 

[Astridhere]

Wow, if I snip all the reportable flaming fat from your posts Astrid, there's very little meat left - and yet more indication that you don't know what the heck you're talking about despite the smug attitude.

"In fact neotony shows that Turkana boy was more of an ape than I suspected."

I'm sorry. What? You didn't even understand the concept a week ago and now you claim if verifies your incorrect assertions based on a befuddlingly incomplete analysis of his entire skeleton? I mean, it's been pointed out to you since you started your Quixotic campaign that Turkana boy's body is clearly "human". His cranial capacity, eye ridges and massive jaw are the only "ape" characteristics he has which is to be expected since bipedalism evolved first, a large brain afterwards and H. sapiens facial characteristics would be the last to go. Given you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like this can be speculation at best. Too bad they didn't think of it prior to turfing Erectus to the backwash.
Yep I understand well. You reminded me that Turkana Boy was just a child and they are still debating if he was 8-15yo. Hence as an adult your neotany suggests that he would have even more pronounced ape features as an adult. Remember Erectus is also being debated in favour of ergaster as mankinds great grand grand daddy. Do I need to repost the link for that also.
"You still cannot explain why an ape like Lucy or Salem with curved fingers and chimp body with gorilla features, that is not an ancestor of mankind left human footprints 3.7myo, when Ardi at 4.4 still had chimp feet."

Have you ever produced a citation for Salem's find having fingers? You should know The reason I ask is you were so confused about that for over two weeks. And Lucy doesn't have "gorilla" features. I don't know where you got that (please, just provide a link, not 20 lines of red text, if you can actually do so). She has a mix of chimpanzee and human characteristics. Here's a list that was just recently posted in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7587864/

Yep here is a link that speaks to her gorilla features. You have totally ignored the major point, that Lucy and Ardi are NO LONGER mankinds descendants.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
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

From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths



So you're just plain old wrong (Well CURRENTresearch suggests you are wrong) about her having gorilla characteristics, and so what about Ardi's 4.4 million year old feet vis. 3.7 million year old footprints?
You need to read more research and get with the program instead of being out in orbit by yourself. What part of Lucy being turfed as a direct human ancestor do you not understand or are having trouble assimilating.
You do realize a lot of evolution can go on in 700,000 years and that just because Ar. ramidus was around in 4.4myo that doesn't mean that Au. afarensis evolved in the particular time frame. Wait, what am I saying, you don't even get that sharks existing today means they couldn't have existed 400 million years ago. Until you grasp the basics of how evolution works, I suspect the actual details will fly over your head.
How dare you insult me with your level of ignorance about your fossil evidence. I do not expect everyone to be up to date on every aspect but your ignorance remains astonishing in that you are unaware of so many basics and require teaching in some very well known information
"Indeed the latest research suggests birds and dinos share a common ancestor."

Wow! Your ignorance seems as limitless as your hubris. What "latest research" is that? Citing 10 to 15 year old claims by Feduccia? I see you have cited John Ruben in your wall of text. You do realize that Ruben is a maverick - of course you don't, you just did a recent web search for this stuff while I've been reading Creationist ignorance for years - and that his claims aren't taken very seriously by anyone in paleontology, especially those working in bird evolution. Let me put this into theological terms you might actually understand. If, in a discussion about the nature of Christ, someone cited Arian instead of the Apostles, Origen, Aquinas, etc. would you take their claims seriously in a discussion?
So a personal attrack on a researcher is your defence. Well the boofheads at Max Planck Insistute contaminated their Neanderthal specimens and published the findings only to recant. I suppose you know nothing about that either.

Here are more sources that challenge the dino-bird paradigm


"The exact age of the bird is not known, but paleontologists say it was probably close in time to Archaeopteryx, the transitional reptile-bird that lived about 153 million years ago in what is now Germany and is recognized as the oldest known bird. If that is the case, the new fossil species lived 70 million years earlier than the previously oldest known toothless bird, Gobipteryx, from Mongolia. [More recent data shows the deposits which produced the fossils are actually early Cretaceous, 122 - 145 million years old]"
Earliest beaked bird discovered

It is just as I said a toothless, beaked bird was dated to 153mya and then was redated to fit the evolutionary paradigm.
"BTW, UScognito, just in case you are too much of a fool to realise it for yourself, the articles above are not from creationists sites and Ruben is not a creationist."

Wow, your smugness and igorance is apparently infinate as you mistakenly thought I was unfamiliar with Ruben. And I'm the one making a fool of myself in this thread?
You insulted me first. I will most certainly be smug with inappropriate behavior with animals attitudes. If you cannot take it do not dish it out. Some people are real geese. Ruben is not the only one that is querying the dino-bird connection, there are plenty more. Again your ignorance is showing.

You are making a fool of yourself and demonstrating beyond doubt that you have no clue about what's out there. Get a new text book....

"The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike. "
Fossil Record of the Aves


"Now, renowned Chinese palaeontologist Professor Xu Xing believes his new discovery has finally knocked Archaeopteryx off its perch.
His team has detailed the discovery of a similar species, Xiaotingia, which dates back 155 million years to the Jurassic Period."
BBC News - Feathers fly in first bird debate

Again, these are not creationist sites and the writers are not creationists.

Your entire post demonstrated nothing more than you have no clue about your own current evolutionary research. None what so ever. You even challenge what I consider common knowledge amongst the most uneducated here.

Afarensis does have curved fingers. It is a fact, that you obviously had no clue about. Ape finger curvature gets more pronouced after birth, hence Salem displayed that by 3 years of age she had been climbing, not walking. Regardless of your lack of this knowledge, it is established by your own researchers that afarensis has curved ape fingers. You should know this. You obviously do not. Now you do. Hurray!

The major point here being your researchers in their desperation have humanized Lucy as much as they can to get her into the human line initially. Now she is outcast, as is Ardi. Now you have full bipeds that are not even human ancestors. On top of this Ardi was found with foot bones and they are simply ape feet at 4.4mya. The human footprints are 3.7myo. Hence in under 1my ape feet morphed into human feet. Again I assert that wildly non plausible scenarios do not give any theory merit.

These footprints are not evidence that an ape, afarensis, was bipedal. They are evidence that mankind was already here prior to your supposed human ancestors, much the same as birds and dinosaurs, it seems.

.

 

[Astridhere]

And your point is? This just places a limit on the speed of evolution. It doesn't mean that large changes can't happen. All it means is that large changes take time.
That's correct. The research cited 6 mutations per generation as a limit. How many mutational changes do you suppose were needed to change the function of Foxp2 over 5 million years. How may millions of polymorphisms occured in the same time to give rise toa 30% human chimp difference.

Which has been observed:
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to a New Home

The link did not work

I found the article anyway.

Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.
“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home


This change was in response to environmental factors, diet in this case, which spells trouble again for Darwin. This appears to be epigentic change along the line of Lamark.

Epigenetics is not the Darwinian way to bring about evolution. It is not solely vertical transmission although epigentic inheritance maintains traits for some gererations until they disappear if not reqired. These changes are adaptive and reversible as the need arises just like colour and beak size. Epigenetic change is not Darwinian evolution.

The cecal valve finding is, however, dramatic. This is the finding that drew the comment that the animals "are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out". There can be no rationale for a Darwinian mechanism here - involving incremental assembly of the cecal valve. There is no time for this, even if a gradualist route could be found. No, the relevant genetic information must be present in the ancestors and epigenetic factors can be inferred to have activated the relevant mechanisms to make the structure. This research is revealing that organisms have a capacity for variability that goes significantly beyond their current phenotype. This implication has not escaped the attention of creationist biologists, who find this research a vindication of their view that animal radiations are rapid and the expression of innate variability embedded in the genome. It would be an interesting and educational activity for students to evaluate this theoretical model alongside others - although we can already be confident that Darwinism would not fare well in the exercise.
Science Literature - Field evidence for rapid morphological change in lizards


Creationists have no problem with the changes that turn a wolf into other dog kinds, nor the fact that a mouse deer gains or looses a tail as in Indohyus, nor that a lizard epigenetically adapts. It does not show how an aquatic creatures body function gradually changed by vertical Mendellian inheritance, which is the basis of common descent and evolution

What this research is doing is refuting Darwin.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why are you continuing to refuse to learn how to use the quote feature, Astridhere? It really isn't that hard. Heck, there's even a button to wrap text in [quote][/quote] tags!

That's correct. The research cited 6 mutations per generation as a limit. How many mutational changes do you suppose were needed to change the function of Foxp2 over 5 million years. How may millions of polymorphisms occured in the same time to give rise toa 30% human chimp difference.

Hmm, looked at this a bit more closely, and something is terribly wrong here, because humans have approximately 180 mutations per generation, and we don't seem to be all dying out. My first guess is that this is an error in the press release. Let me see if I can find the original research...

Ah, yes, here it is:
Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution

It establishes a universal speed limit on rate of molecular evolution by predicting that populations go extinct (via lethal mutagenesis) when mutation rate exceeds approximately six mutations per essential part of genome per replication for mesophilic organisms and one to two mutations per genome per replication for thermophilic ones.

(note: we would be best classified as mesophilic...microbes that live in high-temperature areas are thermophilic)

So there's the error. It isn't six mutations for the entire genome. It's six mutations for the essential part of the genome. And in humans, the essential part of the genome is a tiny fraction of the entire genome: only 1.5% of the human genome codes for proteins. And since this speed limit for population stability was calculated based upon protein stability, it is only this 1.5% of the genome that matters (though another 10% of the genome may be useful for other things).

Our mutation rate on 1.5% of our genome is approximately 1-2 mutations per generation in the protein coding area, so we're clearly well within the required limits given by this study.

As for our similarity with Chimpanzees, you do realize that the sequence similarity is around 98%, right?

And I don't know why the link didn't work for you. It still works just fine for me. Regardless.

This change was in response to environmental factors, diet in this case, which spells trouble again for Darwin. This appears to be epigentic change along the line of Lamark.

Epigenetics is not the Darwinian way to bring about evolution. It is not solely vertical transmission although epigentic inheritance maintains traits for some gererations until they disappear if not reqired. These changes are adaptive and reversible as the need arises just like colour and beak size. Epigenetic change is not Darwinian evolution.

You don't know anything about Darwinian evolution, do you? This is a clear case of natural selection bringing about significant change in a relatively short amount of time. Did you miss the part in the article you quoted about these particular structures only being found in 1% of known scaled reptiles?

 

[Astridhere]

And your point is? This just places a limit on the speed of evolution. It doesn't mean that large changes can't happen. All it means is that large changes take time.
I just popped in with additional info, dear. We all know all that you guys have demonstrated is microevolution in relation to adaptation. We have all heard the "takes time" evasion. We have all heard the species this and species that and the scenarios required to speculate that adaptative microchange is going to multiply into macrochanges although it has never been observed. Going round in circles is a fruitless waste of time.

Which has been observed:
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to a New Home

I think evolutionists require as much faith as biblical creationists. If your faith is strong you will believe an ape can leave human footprints.

In relation to your lizard research..I have already mentioned that epigentic changes are not germ line mutations required to bring about evolution, as such. This valve is no more comparable than a tail coming and going as it is somatic and epigenetic. If you looked up some research you'd save my having to be an evolutionary teacher. That is how ones learns. Then you would see that this research does not demonstrate how gene functions change across species nor even how allele frequencies change.

Epigenetic changes are not the changes that bring about changes in kinds eg comon ancestor to chimp & human, dinosaurs to birds, mouse deer to whales. Your lizard research is good. However it does not demonstrate genetic function change at a germ line level. These changes, although amazing, were somatic in nature. Why this is fantastic news for creationists is it demonstrates how kinds can vary greatly yet no change is seen in DNA. Our DNA is the same yet knows to make a leg or a nerve. Epigenetic changes turn genes on and off, but does not change them permanently, at all. These adaptations are not passed on via germ line mutations and inheritance as evolution depends on.

So these epigenetic changes do not account for the change one sees in the function variation between a chimp and human as well as other species.

The lizard research demonstratres somatic adaptations and these are epigenetic. They can all revert back after several generations under different environmental factors. This is not a change in gene functioning, as it is somatic. It is merely a change in what is turned on or off to bring about some fairly amazing adaptations with in kind.

Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics
Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals - Nature Genetics

What you call similar genes amongst different species is really a misrepresentation of the truth as they are often very different.

Gene Sharing and Evolution: The Diversity of Protein Functions

"We showed that the human and chimp versions of FOXP2 not only look different but function differently too," said Geschwind, who is currently a visiting professor at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London. "Our findings may shed light on why human brains are born with the circuitry for speech and language and chimp brains are not."
Why Can't Chimps Speak? Key Differences In How Human And Chimp Versions Of FOXP2 Gene Work

BTW..Turkana Boy with his small neural canal and lack of ability to produce sophisticated language suggests to me that he did not have the human variation of the Foxp2 gene, futher evidence that he was not human.

Anyway..This info on gene function and then epigenetics was just a support for another post.

I have shown 3ft, Lucy has curved ape fingers, recently shown that she is unlikely to be in the human line despite all the nonsense and humanizations about similarities to mankind, was forced into being a biped that left human footprints much less that 1 my after Ardi, with ape feet was the status quo 4.4mya. Additionally your lack of ancient chimp fossils is curious and suspicious.

The science, the fossil evidence, attests and supports the assertion that there were humans well before afarensis. It is philosophical and rather fanciful to suggest that such an ape like creature is going to have human feet and a human gait, let alone an ape that is challenged as a human ancestor. This is one demonstration of how science supports creation, but philosophy in the form of non plausible scenarios supports evolution. There are many more.

 

[Astridhere]

Why are you continuing to refuse to learn how to use the quote feature, Astridhere? It really isn't that hard. Heck, there's even a button to wrap text in tags!


Hmm, looked at this a bit more closely, and something is terribly wrong here, because humans have approximately 180 mutations per generation, and we don't seem to be all dying out. My first guess is that this is an error in the press release. Let me see if I can find the original research...

Ah, yes, here it is:
Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution

(note: we would be best classified as mesophilic...microbes that live in high-temperature areas are thermophilic)

So there's the error. It isn't six mutations for the entire genome. It's six mutations for the essential part of the genome. And in humans, the essential part of the genome is a tiny fraction of the entire genome: only 1.5% of the human genome codes for proteins. And since this speed limit for population stability was calculated based upon protein stability, it is only this 1.5% of the genome that matters (though another 10% of the genome may be useful for other things).
How about you put your credibility on the line here and now and assert that those human footprints belong to afarensis and be done with it, instead of pursuing every aside.

None of this explains human feet on apes

Our mutation rate on 1.5% of our genome is approximately 1-2 mutations per generation in the protein coding area, so we're clearly well within the required limits given by this study.

As for our similarity with Chimpanzees, you do realize that the sequence similarity is around 98%, right? It depends on what you're counting and how misrepresentative one wants to be. This research says 5%
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels - CaltechAUTHORS

That is only MTDNA. MtDNA is the only part of the genome that exhibits such similarities. It is the cells powerhouse and contains the necessities of life in all creatures. The human-chimp variation is actually at least 30% and that does not count the difference in genome size and surface structure.
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Oh this is going to go around in cirlces with debated and contested research we can all refute and find a refute of the refute for. That is the beauty of evolution. The point being the lizard research demonstrates nothing in relation to germ line mutations and inheritance. It is epigenetic and yiu had best understand the difference.

You don't know anything about Darwinian evolution, do you? This is a clear case of natural selection bringing about significant change in a relatively short amount of time. Did you miss the part in the article you quoted about these particular structures only being found in 1% of known scaled reptiles?You do not know anything about evolution and your requests to supply common information, inability to discern the research posted attests

So still no ability to refute my assertion that evolution is a philosophy when it comes to explaining the fossil evidence for human ancestry.

You seem unable to put forward a plausible explanation as to how this chimp fingered, 3ft ape, with ape head could reasonably be expected to have human feet and a human gait.

You may as well give up now as there is no rationalization to it other than afarensis must have. However there is research where some researchers now suggest another species may have left them, which is the recant I expect.

Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

Perhaps you would like to choose another taxon that I can equally show how fanciful the supposed evidence and accompanying non plausible scenarios for ancestry is.

 

[Incariol]

So still no ability to refute my assertion that evolution is a philosophy when it comes to explaining the fossil evidence for human ancestry.

Because that isn't how debates work, unfortunately for you.

Sent from my iPod touch using Forum Runner

 

[Chalnoth]

It depends on what you're counting and how misrepresentative one wants to be. This research says 5%

Indels are insertion and deletion mutations. They generally involve insertion or deletion of an entire chunk of DNA at a time. Because one indel mutation leads to a difference of many base pairs, it is extremely dishonest to attempt to use sequence similarity including indels as having a bearing on the topic at hand, which is about whether or not humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar enough to have descended from a common ancestor about 6-7 million years ago.

 

[Falconjudge]

I find it humorous that the Creationists here list findings FOR evolution, and are too blind to see it.

 

[Davian]

 

[Loudmouth]

This is simply not true. People who believe in creation and are scientists want to know how something was done just as much as evolutionists.

Then show me a scientist who is actively doing research into the scientific effects of the supernatural.

You claim that the universe just happened and assume that to be true.

I am claiming that the universe exists. I am also claiming that no one has successfully used supernatural mechanisms to explain howt the universe works. However, looking for natural mechanisms for natural phenomena has been extremely successful.

No it is not just a semantic argument:

Yeah, it is. From the abstract:

"Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro- and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species."

What does that sorting? Natural selection. What produced those innovations? Random mutations. It is microevolution that produces divergence between species. It is the accumulation of this divergence that produces macroevolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does. When you group species by shared and derived characteristics they produce a nested hierarchy. Those are the facts. When you do the same for cars they do not form a nested hierarchy. That is a fact as well.

As previously given, Creationism can adequately explain any holarchy.

That is the problem. Creationism can produce any combination of features. Therefore, it can not explain a nested hierarchy.

In regards to the nest, the entirety of life in spiritual terms, can be thought of to be within one body- God, and different planes of life representing the multifaceted nature of life, interdependent, and function as a collective whole.

This is gobbleygook. This is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Vehicles can be put into a nested hierarchy.

No, they can't. You have boats that are also planes, cars that are also boats, and planes that are also cars. Nothing nests inside of the other. There are transitionals between all of the nodes. This is what we expect from a designed system, not from an evolved system.

If cars did fall into a nested hierarchy then you would only find air bags in a single lineage of cars, the lineage where the first air bag appeared. This is not what you see. Instead, air bags found there way into almost all lineages horizontally from the original car with an airbag. Again, this is what we expect from a designed system. Units of design can be swapped between other designs without any reference to a nested hierarchy. Other examples of violations of a nested hierarchy include Subaru's with Porsche Boxer engines, pickups with tires identical to a sedan, a Ford and Chevy pickup with identical rims, and a Mercedes and Kia with identical stereos. Cars do not even fall into a nested hierarchy, much less all vehicles.

To draw up a holarchy for vehicles, one can establish a system working together for a common good instead of moving around arbitrarily.

We are talking about the physical characteristics in metazoans forming a nested hierarchy. We are not talking about ecosystems.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mankind has the human version of the Foxp2 gene. Researchers say that mankind and chimps having this gene is another sign of ancestry. However, this gene that is called foxp2 in both human and chimp actually function differently after 5 million years or so of separation.

They function differently due to mutations. These mutations changed the function, and this new function was selected for.

So how is this a problem for evolution?

Can you point to a single DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by mutation and selection?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think evolutionists require as much faith as biblical creationists. If your faith is strong you will believe an ape can leave human footprints.

We don't need faith. We have evidence.

Also, humans do produce ape footprints, being that we are apes.

BTW..Turkana Boy with his small neural canal and lack of ability to produce sophisticated language suggests to me that he did not have the human variation of the Foxp2 gene, futher evidence that he was not human.

So you are saying that a transitional between us and our common ancestor with other apes should be identical to modern humans? Really?

I have shown 3ft, Lucy has curved ape fingers, recently shown that she is unlikely to be in the human line despite all the nonsense and humanizations about similarities to mankind, was forced into being a biped that left human footprints much less that 1 my after Ardi, with ape feet was the status quo 4.4mya. Additionally your lack of ancient chimp fossils is curious and suspicious.

Why can't a hominid transitional have curved fingers? Please explain.

The science, the fossil evidence, attests and supports the assertion that there were humans well before afarensis.

Then why can't we find a single modern human fossil that dates to that time period?

It is philosophical and rather fanciful to suggest that such an ape like creature is going to have human feet and a human gait, let alone an ape that is challenged as a human ancestor.

It is not philosophica at all. The pelvis and femurs of Australopithecines is very much like ours, consistent with bipedalism. So why shouldn't they leave footprints like ours?

The only philosophy that we see here is your dogmatic religious philosophy. It requires you to reject any evidence that fossils are transitional. There is no fossil we could ever show you that you would accept as transitional. Creationism is blind faith, a blindness that requires you to look away from the evidence.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, it does. When you group species by shared and derived characteristics they produce a nested hierarchy. Those are the facts. When you do the same for cars they do not form a nested hierarchy. That is a fact as well.

A nested hierarchy is produced when there is an addition upon a previous feature whereby sub-groups contain all the features of the previous plus novel installments.
For example-

Frame

Undercarriage​

Movable undercarriage​

Manually operated movable undercarriage​

Pull rope​

Red pull rope​

light red pull rope​

Dark red pull rope​

Green pull rope​

Light green pull rope​

Dark green pull rope​

Crank​

Ball-handled crank​

level-handled crank​

Automatic undercarriage​

Button activator​

Red button activator​

Green button activator​

Lever activator​

Shift-vertical lever​

Shift-horizontal lever​

And so forth...

That is the problem. Creationism can produce any combination of features. Therefore, it can not explain a nested hierarchy.

As can Darwinian evolution. There are no limits in random mutation.

This is gobbleygook. This is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

That's not a problem. We don't take your lack of seriousness seriously.

No, they can't. You have boats that are also planes, cars that are also boats, and planes that are also cars. Nothing nests inside of the other. There are transitionals between all of the nodes. This is what we expect from a designed system, not from an evolved system.

Laughable (see what I mean?). And no, it doesn't break the hierarchy any more than a predisposed mosaic does.

If cars did fall into a nested hierarchy then you would only find air bags in a single lineage of cars, the lineage where the first air bag appeared. This is not what you see. Instead, air bags found there way into almost all lineages horizontally from the original car with an airbag. Again, this is what we expect from a designed system. Units of design can be swapped between other designs without any reference to a nested hierarchy.

No you don't. No more than you need to find eggs only in reptiles or birds or fishes. In Darwinism the nested hierarchy is developed in spite of that. The same is done for vehicles.

Other examples of violations of a nested hierarchy include Subaru's with Porsche Boxer engines, pickups with tires identical to a sedan, a Ford and Chevy pickup with identical rims, and a Mercedes and Kia with identical stereos. Cars do not even fall into a nested hierarchy, much less all vehicles.

Subaru, Porsche etc are names and classifications given to designed systems by their designer. The same occurs with biological systems. However, original classifications by the designer are not recognized in Darwinism thus enabling you to draw up a hierarchy based on the derivation of traits. The same is done for vehicles.

We are talking about the physical characteristics in metazoans forming a nested hierarchy. We are not talking about ecosystems.

These are also within an eco-system. You can look it up.

 

[Astridhere]

They function differently due to mutations. These mutations changed the function, and this new function was selected for. This is assumed and never actually demonstrated at anything other than an epigentic level. Hopefully you know the difference.

So how is this a problem for evolution? It is yet another problem for Darwin. Evolutionists do not have problems as they invent outlandish scenarios to resolve any issues.

Can you point to a single DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by mutation and selection? Yes

Yes I can speak to 2.. epigentic inheritance is one, and HGT is another.

The point re the thread being that you have humans placed via Leotolli footprints at around 3.6 million years old and you have apes like Lucy to make them, which is a ridiculously non plausible scenario. As I have demonstrated Lucy is also being challenged as a human ancestor. The most parsinomous explanation is that they were put there by humans. It is only your preconceived assumptions that continues to keep the obvious from being seen by evolutionary researchers. That is the first point I have made, and as far as I am concerned it is established.

My second point has been about erectus, not being human and I have discussed the points of discontinuity. Foxp2 being one difference, but the main difference is highly developed reasoning ability and sophisticated speech. These are necessary to understand the law God gave to Adam and Eve. You do not have to like nor accept them any more than I like your classification system. Nor do creationists have to have an answer to every question any more than evolutionists do not have answers to every question. Erectus is also being challenged as a direct human ancestor and I have produced the research.

Those 2 points are established, and they have been established and are supported by evolutionary research findings, despite their being biased. My assertations and the scenarios that I attribute to the fossil record is as solid, or even more so, than the ever changing cascades of flavour of the month and wildly non plausible scenarios produced as evidece for evolution.

You cannot show nested hierarchies for creatures where you have no idea who is who in the zoo. Birds have been found with dinos which blows your hierarchies apart as flavour of the month goes. You have a bunch of various species thrown together at family rank that are bits and pieces of bone turned into mythical creatures. This is wishful thinking, not science. I have no problem with a hierarchy that puts the dog kind back to family rank as a wolf. What you have futher back than this is a mess as is all the other taxa. Wish lists are not evidence of anything.

Bird footprints have been dated to 212mya. Again, it is difficult for evolutionary researchers to accept the obvious as again it makes even more of a mess of the current evolutionary paradigm.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

These look just like bird footprints one would find today. How does this sit with the nested hierarchies of birds? You had better change them to demonstate dinosaurs may have evolved from birds and some of your researchers now are asserting same. Nested hierarchies demonstrate nothing more than flavour of the month.

Further to those few points I will throw out another, which totally falsifies evolution at its base.

Here it is.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

I can clearly see a paw print here dated to around 395mya. Paws belong to mammals. This paw print looks like a bear paw print like this natural one in the link. In fact, they are almost identical.

BEAR FOOT PRINT

Of course evolutionary researchers are unable to go with the obvious as it falsifies evolution to place a mammal at that date.

However the sad fact is that a couple of these prints look like a mammal similar to a bear was walking the earth 395mya, with tiktaalik, and evolution is falsified.

The best you can offer as a refute is to give further unsubstantiated opinion. However any creationist with the gift of sight can see for themselves the obvious falsifications of evolution that are ignored by evolutionists

This is why I say the evidence actually is more parsinomous with the creationist paradigm and takes wildly non plausible scenarios to get evidence for creation to fit into an evolutionary tale.

 

[sandwiches]

A nested hierarchy is produced when there is an addition upon a previous feature whereby sub-groups contain all the features of the previous plus novel installments.
For example-

Frame

Undercarriage​

Movable undercarriage​

Manually operated movable undercarriage​

Pull rope​

Red pull rope​

light red pull rope​

Dark red pull rope​

Green pull rope​

Light green pull rope​

Dark green pull rope​

Crank​

Ball-handled crank​

level-handled crank​

Automatic undercarriage​

Button activator​

Red button activator​

Green button activator​

Lever activator​

Shift-vertical lever​

Shift-horizontal lever​

And so forth...

You think that's the nested hierarchy he's talking about??

No wonder you don't get anything about evolution and talk about tornadoes, airplanes, and cars...

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes ..and epigentic one, which I have already discussed.

I asked for a single DNA difference that could not be produced by mutation and selection. Epigenetics does not produce a difference in DNA, therefore it does not qualify.

Do you really think that chimps and humans are different because of epigenetics?

The point re the thread being that you have humans placed via Leotolli footprints at around 3.6 million years old . . .

No, you don't. You have yet to show that those footprints were made by an anatomically modern human. You have yet to show us a single anatomically modern human fossil that dates to that same time period.

and you have apes like Lucy to make them, which is a ridiculously non plausible scenario.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

As I have demonstrated Lucy is also being challenged as a human ancestor.

As they should be. However, that doesn't stop Lucy from being transitional. You do understand the difference between transitional and ancestral, don't you?

The most parsinomous explanation is that they were put there by humans.

That would require the unevidenced assumption that humans were alive during that time period. It is much more parsimonious to have the hominids that were alive during that period producing the hominid footprints.

It is only your preconceived assumptions that continues to keep the obvious from being seen by evolutionary researchers. That is the first point I have made, and as far as I am concerned it is established.

It is not an assumption that no one has ever found anything approximating an anatomically modern human fossil in the time period in question. Those are the facts.

My second point has been about erectus, not being human and I have discussed the points of discontinuity.

Why does discontinuity disqualify H. erectus as a transitional fossil? Are you saying that a transitional fossil has to be identical to modern humans?

My assertations and the scenarios that I attribute to the fossil record is as solid, or even more so, than the ever changing cascades of flavour of the month and wildly non plausible scenarios produced as evidece for evolution.

Your assertions are unfalsifiable and dogmatic. You can not tell us what features a transitional fossil hominid must have. You can not tell us what difference there would be between a transitional fossil hominid and modern humans. You can not show us a single modern human fossil during the time period in question.

You cannot show nested hierarchies for creatures where you have no idea who is who in the zoo.

Yeah, I can. Here they are:

Animals

These are the facts. It would behoove you not to ignore them.

Birds have been found with dinos which blows your hierarchies apart as flavour of the month goes.

How does this blow up the hierarchies? You are alive at the same time as your cousins. Does this disprove the idea that you share a common ancestor? Do you even understand how evolution works, or how nested hierarchies work? It appears that you don't.

Also, you do understand that birds ARE dinosaurs, right?

Theropoda

They are theropod dinosaurs, to be exact.

You have a bunch of various species thrown together at family rank that are bits and pieces of bone turned into mythical creatures.

Dishonesty at it's best. Another creationist who uses made up conspiracies to ignore the evidence.

I have no problem with a hierarchy that puts the dog kind back to family rank as a wolf. What you have futher back than this is a mess as is all the other taxa. Wish lists are not evidence of anything.

So all vertebrates do not share any characteristics in common? Really? You sure about that?

Bird footprints have been dated to 212mya. Again, it is difficult for evolutionary researchers to accept the obvious as again it makes even more of a mess of the current evolutionary paradigm.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

How does pushing back the evolution of birds falsify the theory that birds evolved from non-avian dinosaurs? Please explain.

How does this sit with the nested hierarchies of birds?

It sits just fine. Why wouldn't it?

What wouldn't sit fine would be a species with feathers and mammary glands. Why don't we see any species like that? Is God incapable of creating a species with feathers and mammary glands? Bats have mammary glands, so why can't swallows?

You had better change them to demonstate dinosaurs may have evolved from birds and some of your researchers now are asserting same.

Nested hierarchies demonstrate nothing more than flavour of the month.

They have been the flavor of the month since the 1700's. They aren't going anywhere, and creationism can't explain them just like creationism can not explain most facts.

I can clearly see a paw print here dated to around 395mya. Paws belong to mammals. This paw print looks like a bear paw print like this natural one in the link. In fact, they are almost identical.

All tetrapods have paws. And no, that does not look like a bear track at all. Bears have separated pads. No such pads are seen in the track.

Of course evolutionary researchers are unable to go with the obvious as it falsifies evolution to place a mammal at that date.

It also disagrees with the rest of the fossil record. There are zero mammal fossils of any kind during this time period. How do you explain this?

However the sad fact is that a couple of these prints look like a mammal similar to a bear was walking the earth 395mya, with tiktaalik, and evolution is falsified.

Find some mammal fossils and you will falsify evolution. Where are they?

The best you can offer as a refute is to give further unsubstantiated opinion.

Projection at its finest.

This is why I say the evidence actually is more parsinomous with the creationist paradigm and takes wildly non plausible scenarios to get evidence for creation to fit into an evolutionary tale.

You are flatly and obviously wrong. You have bears making tracks, but no bear fossils. That is unparsimonious.

 

[Loudmouth]

A nested hierarchy is produced when there is an addition upon a previous feature whereby sub-groups contain all the features of the previous plus novel installments.

A nested hierarchy is only produced if these additions stay within their lineages. This is not the case with vehicles. For example, turbine engines were added to the airplane frame, and later they were also added to the helicopter and boat frames. This violates a nested hierarchy. Vehicles do not produce a nested hierarchy.

As can Darwinian evolution. There are no limits in random mutation.

There is one important limitation. Mutations that occur in one species do not make their way into the homologous gene in another species. This produces divergence and lineage specific changes along with a nested hierarchy. There is no such limitation to changes made in vehicles. Design units can be pulled from different lineages to produce a new vehicle, such as boats with turbine engines, cars with wings, and planes with boat bottoms.

Laughable (see what I mean?). And no, it doesn't break the hierarchy any more than a predisposed mosaic does.

Yes it does break the nested hierarchy. That is the whole point. That you are incapable of accepting it doesn't change the facts. If you understood how nested hierarchies worked you would know this.

No you don't. No more than you need to find eggs only in reptiles or birds or fishes. In Darwinism the nested hierarchy is developed in spite of that. The same is done for vehicles.

Reptiles, birds, and fish share a common ancestor, so why shouldn't they share these characteristics? If you understood how nested hierarchies worked you wouldn't be making the obvious errors.

Subaru, Porsche etc are names and classifications given to designed systems by their designer. The same occurs with biological systems. However, original classifications by the designer are not recognized in Darwinism thus enabling you to draw up a hierarchy based on the derivation of traits. The same is done for vehicles.

Then please tell me how cars should be organized, and by what features. Please, show me the error of my ways. Do sedans nest together separate from pickups? Please, use shared characteristics and show me how different car makes fall into a nested hierarchy.

These are also within an eco-system. You can look it up.

We are talking about the shared and derived characteristics of species and how they fall into a nested hierarchy. Please focus.

 

[Greg1234]

A nested hierarchy is only produced if these additions stay within their lineages. This is not the case with vehicles. For example, turbine engines were added to the airplane frame, and later they were also added to the helicopter and boat frames. This violates a nested hierarchy. Vehicles do not produce a nested hierarchy.

No it won't. It simply means that airplanes helicopters and boats share a common ancestor.

There is one important limitation. Mutations that occur in one species do not make their way into the homologous gene in another species. This produces divergence and lineage specific changes along with a nested hierarchy. There is no such limitation to changes made in vehicles. Design units can be pulled from different lineages to produce a new vehicle, such as boats with turbine engines, cars with wings, and planes with boat bottoms.

Again, there is no limit to what random mutation can produce in an organism as per Darwinian doctrine.

Yes it does break the nested hierarchy. That is the whole point. That you are incapable of accepting it doesn't change the facts. If you understood how nested hierarchies worked you would know this.

Transitionals don't break the nested hierarchy in Darwinism. There is only the attempt to use them as evidence.

Reptiles, birds, and fish share a common ancestor, so why shouldn't they share these characteristics? If you understood how nested hierarchies worked you wouldn't be making the obvious errors.

Exhibit A

Then please tell me how cars should be organized, and by what features. Please, show me the error of my ways. Do sedans nest together separate from pickups? Please, use shared characteristics and show me how different car makes fall into a nested hierarchy.

An example was already given. No valid reason to go in circles was presented.

We are talking about the shared and derived characteristics of species and how they fall into a nested hierarchy. Please focus.

Species are within eco-systems