creationists and their double-standard

RichardT said:

What sounds more ad hoc to you, that God created us with a beneficial sequence that resembled ERV sequences, or that some virus that somehow contained a sequence of DNA for placenta development in the very distant past inserted itself into possibly a synapsid, and actually allowed it to develop a placenta? Remember, the only mechanism for "new information" is mutations, the placenta developement sequence from the ERV had to come from somewhere as well. Lateral gene transfers will not allow for prokaryote to homo-sapian evolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

Click to expand...

The proposal that God created all mammalian species with orthologous ERVs in positions that follow a nested hirearchy is totally ad hoc even if some have beneficial sequences. An ad hoc assumtion is one that only serves one purpose and explains one thing and nothing else and claiming that God put them in those positions for some purpose is exactly that.

It is also an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. That fact that some ERVs have remained active and may have been coopted to perform a function does not mean that all are and does not explain the fact that the positions of orthologuos ERVs form a nested hirearchy.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

The proposal that God created all mammalian species with orthologous ERVs in positions that follow a nested hirearchy is totally ad hoc even if some have beneficial sequences. An ad hoc assumtion is one that only serves one purpose and explains one thing and nothing else and claiming that God put them in those positions for some purpose is exactly that.

It is also an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. That fact that some ERVs have remained active and may have been coopted to perform a function does not mean that all are and does not explain the fact that the positions of orthologuos ERVs form a nested hirearchy.

Click to expand...

One thing I notice is that evolutionists fail to mention things, I didn't even know that there were ERV sequences for the developement of placenta, or for sheep reproduction.

RichardT said:

One thing I notice in evolutionists is that they fail to mention things, I didn't even know that there were ERV sequences for the developement of placenta, or for sheep reproduction.

Click to expand...

Neither did I but a medline search I just did on endogenous retroviruses gave 1178 hits so I doubt if anyone knows everything about them.

Still the fact that some may have some function that was coopted during evolution does not obviate the fact that retroviral sequences fall in a nested hirearchy is compelling evidence for evolution.

"The very existence of chimeric creatures depends upon its definition. Whereas chimeras involving entire half-body modules, such the human-module/fish-module of the mermaid, have not been discovered, less pronounced examples of mosaic creatures do exist, and do so in large numbers. Every time we hear the word ‘convergence’ in ‘evolspeak’, in reference to some anatomical attribute, we are actually hearing about a chimeric creature that has violated, to some degree, an evolutionary nested hierarchy.

‘But’, evolutionists commonly say, ‘while individual traits, or small groups of traits can re-appear on an occasional and sporadic basis in different evolutionary lineages, it is inconceivable that a related series of numerous traits (i.e. a module) could re-appear in a concerted manner, at least to an extent sufficient to cause the development of incorrect phylogenies.’


Oh no? Consider the microorganisms, in which there is such a chimeric overlap of essential genomic components among and between the Bacteria, Eukarya, and Archaea, that an extensive ancient set of genetic exchanges is postulated.7 Among marine invertebrates, the extinct cephalopods show such a bewildering assortment of chimeric conch morphologies that it is often difficult to distinguish presumed shared ancestry from convergence.8 What’s more, these real-life chimeras also make it difficult to classify cephalopods according to higher taxonomic categories."


-- Woodmorappe

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp

convergence:

"Biology. The adaptive evolution of superficially similar structures, such as the wings of birds and insects, in unrelated species subjected to similar environments. Also called convergent evolution."

Whoops. Seems the nested hierarchy is unfalsifiable.

http://www.answers.com/convergence&r=67

RichardT said:

convergence:

"Biology. The adaptive evolution of superficially similar structures, such as the wings of birds and insects, in unrelated species subjected to similar environments. Also called convergent evolution."

Whoops. Seems the nested hierarchy is unfalsifiable.

Click to expand...

You are being a donkey Richard. Think it through.

insect wings and bird wings are examples of convergent evolution. However, if you ever see a bird with insect wings, or an insect with bird wings, you wil have violated nested hierarchy (and thus evolution).

It is emminently falsifiable. Show me a sea mammal with fish like fins. a bat with hollow bones.

show me a sea mammal with fish like fins. a bat with hollow bones.

Click to expand...

"Recently discovered pakicetids consist of cetacean ‘modules’ within otherwise non-cetacean bodies. These extinct creatures are examples of chimeric creatures. The cetaceans, mesonychids, and artiodactyls share a number of anatomical traits in a pattern that is inconsistent with any type of evolutionary nested hierarchy, and this argues strongly for the special creation of all these creatures."

-- Woodmorappe

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp

You are being a donkey Richard. Think it through.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you now, that I'm not thinking much right now, I'm really tired so I decided to go quote mining.

RichardT said:

"Recently discovered pakicetids consist of cetacean ‘modules’ within otherwise non-cetacean bodies. These extinct creatures are examples of chimeric creatures. The cetaceans, mesonychids, and artiodactyls share a number of anatomical traits in a pattern that is inconsistent with any type of evolutionary nested hierarchy, and this argues strongly for the special creation of all these creatures."

-- Woodmorappe

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp



I'll tell you now, that I'm not thinking much right now, I'm really tired so I decided to go quote mining.

Click to expand...

I would say that chimera animals would be ones with identical properties of two different animals.

So a Lion Body with a bird head and wings would be an example of a chimera. the body would be identical to a lion in every physiological way, and the wings and the head would be identical to a bird in every way. the birds brain and perhaps its blood would be different along with the shoulders (wings) but otherwise it would look as if these throw animals were sliced together through taxidermy only without the evidence of taxidermy.

Just because you cant seem to falsify evolution, doesn't mean it cant be. If it turns out evolution is correct, you will never find that evidence so to you i could appear unfalsifiable (and frustrating)

answering genesis is the breeding grounds for pratt. Your better off with real science journals. "The verdict comes at the end of the trial" any other method is dishonest when observing nature.

RichardT said:

"Recently discovered pakicetids consist of cetacean ‘modules’ within otherwise non-cetacean bodies. These extinct creatures are examples of chimeric creatures. The cetaceans, mesonychids, and artiodactyls share a number of anatomical traits in a pattern that is inconsistent with any type of evolutionary nested hierarchy, and this argues strongly for the special creation of all these creatures."

-- Woodmorappe

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp



I'll tell you now, that I'm not thinking much right now, I'm really tired so I decided to go quote mining.

Click to expand...

What we have here is apparently the new creationist tactic for dealing with transitional fossils. Call them Chimeras and claim they don't fit nested hirearchy.

By the way the a couple of papers on whale ear evolution have come out since Jan Peczkis wrote the piece on AiG that you reference.


Eocene evolution of whale hearing.Nummela S, Thewissen JG, Bajpai S, Hussain ST, Kumar K.Nature. 2004 Aug 12;430(7001):776-8

The origin of whales (order Cetacea) is one of the best-documented examples of macroevolutionary change in vertebrates. As the earliest whales became obligately marine, all of their organ systems adapted to the new environment. The fossil record indicates that this evolutionary transition took less than 15 million years, and that different organ systems followed different evolutionary trajectories. Here we document the evolutionary changes that took place in the sound transmission mechanism of the outer and middle ear in early whales. Sound transmission mechanisms change early on in whale evolution and pass through a stage (in pakicetids) in which hearing in both air and water is unsophisticated. This intermediate stage is soon abandoned and is replaced (in remingtonocetids and protocetids) by a sound transmission mechanism similar to that in modern toothed whales. The mechanism of these fossil whales lacks sophistication, and still retains some of the key elements that land mammals use to hear airborne sound.

The above paper was written up in Science News


Sound transmission in archaic and modern whales: anatomical adaptations for underwater hearing.
Nummela S, Thewissen JG, Bajpai S, Hussain T, Kumar K. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2007 Jun;290(6):716-33

The whale ear, initially designed for hearing in air, became adapted for hearing underwater in less than ten million years of evolution. This study describes the evolution of underwater hearing in cetaceans, focusing on changes in sound transmission mechanisms. Measurements were made on 60 fossils of whole or partial skulls, isolated tympanics, middle ear ossicles, and mandibles from all six archaeocete families. Fossil data were compared with data on two families of modern mysticete whales and nine families of modern odontocete cetaceans, as well as five families of noncetacean mammals. Results show that the outer ear pinna and external auditory meatus were functionally replaced by the mandible and the mandibular fat pad, which posteriorly contacts the tympanic plate, the lateral wall of the bulla. Changes in the ear include thickening of the tympanic bulla medially, isolation of the tympanoperiotic complex by means of air sinuses, functional replacement of the tympanic membrane by a bony plate, and changes in ossicle shapes and orientation. Pakicetids, the earliest archaeocetes, had a land mammal ear for hearing in air, and used bone conduction underwater, aided by the heavy tympanic bulla. Remingtonocetids and protocetids were the first to display a genuine underwater ear where sound reached the inner ear through the mandibular fat pad, the tympanic plate, and the middle ear ossicles. Basilosaurids and dorudontids showed further aquatic adaptations of the ossicular chain and the acoustic isolation of the ear complex from the skull. The land mammal ear and the generalized modern whale ear are evolutionarily stable configurations, two ends of a process where the cetacean mandible might have been a keystone character.

RichardT said:

convergence:

"Biology. The adaptive evolution of superficially similar structures, such as the wings of birds and insects, in unrelated species subjected to similar environments. Also called convergent evolution."

Whoops. Seems the nested hierarchy is unfalsifiable.

http://www.answers.com/convergence&r=67

Click to expand...

The key words in your definition are "superficially similar." This does not mean that they are the same, which would actually serve as a falsification of the nested hierarchy. Convergent evolution can be invoked when similar structures have evolved for the same task, but there are differences between the structures. Some octopuses have the same lens-and-retina visual system that mammals have, but this is not a violation of the nested hierarchy because there are key differences (the nerves of the octopod retina protrude from the back of the retina rather than the front as in mammals). Convergent evolution is certainly not an ad hoc explanation for chimeras!

Could I get someone who isn't a newbie to answer POST 8 please?

AV1611VET said:

Could I get someone who isn't a newbie to answer POST 8 please?

Click to expand...

Adam’s parents where theologians who lived sometime around 1500 BCE.

AV1611VET said:

Could I get someone who isn't a newbie to answer POST 8 please?

Click to expand...

If Adam and Eve actually existed (which I personally doubt, but nevermind), then their parents were most likely the set of four humans who copulated and gave birth to two humans: Adam, and Eve.

Of course, if the Genesis narrative is (at least partically) correct, then Adam and Eve had no biological* parents: they were formed, as is, out of dust and God-breath.

But suffice to say, if Adam and Eve had parents, they were humans who were apes who were monkeys who were primates who were mammals who were...

*I feel I need to include this qualifier because Judaeo-Christo-Muslims have a tendency to bandy about phrases such as 'spiritual father', or 'spiritual death', or whatever. As if 'spiritual' is at all defined

Wiccan_Child said:

If Adam and Eve actually existed (which I personally doubt, but nevermind), then their parents were most likely the set of four humans who copulated and gave birth to two humans: Adam, and Eve.

Of course, if the Genesis narrative is (at least partically) correct, then Adam and Eve had no biological* parents: they were formed, as is, out of dust and God-breath.

But suffice to say, if Adam and Eve had parents, they were humans who were apes who were monkeys who were primates who were mammals who were...

*I feel I need to include this qualifier because Judaeo-Christo-Muslims have a tendency to bandy about phrases such as 'spiritual father', or 'spiritual death', or whatever. As if 'spiritual' is at all defined

Click to expand...

WC, please note that I put "Adam" in quotes.

Let me rephrase the question --- (*sigh*):

The very first human beings on earth --- who (or more appropriately - what) were their parents, according to evolution?

AV1611VET said:

WC, please note that I put "Adam" in quotes.

Let me rephrase the question --- (*sigh*):

The very first human beings on earth --- who (or more appropriately - what) were their parents, according to evolution?

Click to expand...

It would be a transitional creature from Cro-Magnon to homo Sapiens.

Species are just pictures in time. Life changes continually at a very slow pace so these species are just moments in time that are different enough from other moments in time that we choose to define as a different species. birds and people are like different time lines with diverging evolution. The distant ancestors of birds and humans were once the same species.

As far as I know, all life on earth are a result of genetic drift and diverging evolutionary path, from a single organism, or a set relatively simple organisms.

does that help?

MoonLancer said:

does that help?

Click to expand...

Sorta --- according to evolution --- do we come from apes, monkeys, orangutans, or chimpanzees?

Or none of the above?

AV1611VET said:

Sorta --- according to evolution --- do we come from apes, monkeys, orangutans, or chimpanzees?

Or none of the above?

Click to expand...

According to evolution story telling, we come from a common ancestor of modern chimpanzees, orangutans etc...

Human:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapien

Chimpanzee :

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

Orangutan:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Ponginae
Genus: Pongo




We are all the same family, but differ after that taxon.

AV1611VET said:

Sorta --- according to evolution --- do we come from apes, monkeys, orangutans, or chimpanzees?

Or none of the above?

Click to expand...

We are apes, as are orangutans and chimpanzees. We share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than with orangs, and a more recent common ancestor with orangs than with monkeys.

Homo sapiens as a species came from an ancestral form of ape, but it was most likely unlike any ape we know today. However as MoonLancer says, it is difficult to define an absolute boundary between sapiens and whatever preceded it because across evolutionary timescales "species" is an essentially arbitrary definition used for convenience more than anything precise.

in this image, (not sure if its up to date), the common ancestor of birds and humans i the Icthyostega. That diverged into the diapsids and the synapsida. Given enough time they diverged into birds and mammals. correct me if i'm wrong though. this thing can be hard to read.

Thanks --- this is just what I need to see after eating chili.