Define 'species'

[Vance]

Is this the kind of evidence you are refering to?

"The position of A. afarensis in the phylogeny of early humans is under debate. Many feel that it is ancestral to the east African "robust" early humans, and possibly to all robust forms. Additionally, A. afarensis is proposed as the ancestor to later Homo. Yet, research now suggests that A. africanus might be ancestral to later Homo."

The phylogeny of this fossil is not clearly demonstrated in fact its skull(430cc) is not that different from the modern chimpanzee. "From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality."

The crucial demonstration here has to be the bipedality, here is how they determined that a transition was underway. It is actually a composite of three specimans, "composite reconstruction based on several specimens, the famous Laetoli footprints, and the AL 129".

Australopithecus afarensis



This is based on questionable phylogeny and peicemeal forensics.



You seem to have ignored my question. Are you presenting a model (or has any YEC) which explains the evidence we have, without ignoring the bits that they don’t like to look at?

As for your quote, this is not a discussion of evidence, but of analysis of that evidence. Hence the very first sentence about it being "under debate". The evidence is there in the fossil record. In the particular case cited, they are working out where and how it fits in (since many bipedal hominids are not believed to be ancestors of H. sapiens, but on a different branch on the hominid "bush"). That is how science works, and there will be lots and lots of fighting about it until a consensus is reached (IF a consensus is reached). This entire process does away with the concept that scientists have some agenda and all conspiratorially agree with each other.

BTW, are you saying that there were NOT bipedal hominids that were not human? Do you not accept that there were creatures that had features so different from apes that they can not be considered apes, but so different from humans that they could not be considered humans, but had a mixture of features of both? If not, how is it then that some hominids are such a mix that even Creation Scientists disagree which they are, ape or human?

Of course it is an issue you are claiming that genetics is one of the primary areas of proof for universal common descent. In order for mutation to cause the dramatic differences of their supposed ancestors on the level you are suggesting then dramatic changes in the DNA is absolutly crucial. If there are other methods for adaptive modification then tell me how adaptive modification occurs without altering the DNA in a major way.

Lots of little ways, for one thing. But what I am talking about is the evidence from the DNA which they are now using to see exactly how closely various species are related, and even allows them to predict how long ago the two species separated. I am not talking about how genetic mutation occurs, but how the evidence of our *current* DNA confirms what evolutionists have been saying all along. I do not have a ready link to this new evidence, but maybe someone here does.

First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull

I didn’t know you were asking for one. I am not going to give a lecture on evolutionary biology, but this group has provided you with this education more than once, I believe. Natural selection, genetic drift and mutation (which, yes, can alter the genetic structure in beneficial ways, as has been shown to you before, but you seem to ignore) can all change the genetic make-up of a population (remember that evolution does NOT occur on the level of an individual creature, but only at the population level).

and then you claim that vestigal organs alone do not constitute sustantial proof.

Well, of course, no single piece of evidence among the entirety is as convincing as the whole added together, that is common sense.

You go on to say that overpowering theological reasons are to blame for denial which is self defeating since the vestigal organs argument is another word for sub-optimal design that is popular amoung evolutionists from Darwin to Gould.

Again, you are equating potentially atheistic conclusions by scientists from the evolutionary process with the validity of the process itself. To the extent that any scientist (or non-scientist, for that matter) uses some conclusion from the process of evolution to extol an atheistic cause, they are wrong. If a scientist said that God did not design the universe because gravity happens without supernatural intervention, would you then disbelieve gravity?

Would removing the theology from Darwin's argument for the common descent of the Orchideae eviscerate it?

Of course not.

"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones."

Do any of the vestigal organ or optimal design questions employ theological concepts, aesthetic or teleological notions?

Of course not, why would they? That quote is not saying that God did not create the universe and all things in it. All it is saying is that the existence of these examples of comparative anatomy are strong proof that God did not created these creatures all at once. It is an argument against a recent special creation, not against God’s creative action altogether. So, it is not an argument based on a theological premise about whether God created, just on when and how that creation had to take place, whether God did it or not.

"But on the issue of vestigal organs, I have yet to see a YEC theory which would explain why manatees have vestigal toenails on their vestigal back feet which are all hidden beneath the skin. To say that they descended from a creature which had back legs with toenails would obviously blow the whole "kinds" approach out of the water."

Then it would blow the concept of species in the modern systhesis out of the water as well since they are identical.

Huh? No, they are not identical, they are modifications of the same feature, which fits exactly with common descent through evolution. Again, the five fingered hand of the bat, dog, human and whale is a perfect example. This is powerful evidence that they all descended from an earlier mammalian creature with five fingers and those fingers simply adapted to fit a variety of needs as evolutionary pressures developed.

That is a philosophical idea know as corrospondance and you allready said that vestigal organs were not enough to prove evolution. You have made it clear that theologicial notions hinder our understanding of the natural world and yet the vestigal organ argument is predicated on an explicitly theological permise. Common descent is not an issue for either the evolutionist because both schools of thought accept it. The universal common ancestor model is not a warranted conclusion and is based exclusivly on naturalistic assumptions.

Yes, common descent IS an issue for the creationist. Once they define their "kinds", they hold that none of those kinds descended from a previous creature. Where do you draw the line of common descent?

And, no, the vestigal organ argument is NOT based on a theological premise. It is evidence that a recent special creation is not correct, but not on theological grounds, just on evidentiary grounds.

A common mechanism does not mean the universal common ancestor model can be trusted. It only means that the 'kinds' were created with simular mechanisms, neither natural selection nor or limited modification within the progeny of common ancestors have an explanation for this. This either represent a mystery with regards to God's will or a mystery within natural history. Either way it is inexplicable and the inexplicable makes for poor science and theology for that matter.



Oh, I can fully accept that, at some point, the evidence for a common ancestor gives way to pure theory. But here is the problem with your position. First, that "at some point" goes back billions and billions of years, and past every definition of "kind" I have ever seen given. Second, once you accept the common mechanism and the evidence showing that this process goes back billions of years, there is very little reason, if any, to doubt that it goes back all the way to the initial spark of life. Now, there, the mystery lies. There is little mystery even as far back as the Cambrian.

In fact, if you accept the mechanism is there and that changes have occurred, then you must believe it is a good mechanism and that there is nothing "improper" about change over time. So, why would you accept some changes and not others (especially when the evidence is there)?

Natural selection is itself a naturalistic methodology, observing unicellular organisms under a microscope is an artifical methodology as would be any minipulation of nature like experimenting with hybrids.They may well yeild insights into naturalistic methodology but they themselves are artifical.

I think you are confusing terms. Naturalistic methodology is not the natural processes at work in life. Naturalistic methodology is an approach by humans to the study of the natural world. The scientific method is an example of naturalistic methodology. It is naturalistic in that it attempts to explain what happens, to the extent possible, in naturalistic terms (rather than "god-did-it"). Naturalistic methodology does not deny God’s potential role, it just can’t take it into consideration for a variety of reasons. This is often confused with philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that it all actually happened naturally, without any supernatural force involved. Thus Christian scientists ALL use the naturalistic methodologies of science, but do not follow any philosophical naturalism. Those scientists which are philosophical naturalists will often let their belief spill over into their discussion of the science, and that is unfortunate, but it does not invalidate the scientific conclusions themselves.

"Are you saying you believe in mutability beyond some "kind" barriers? After all, that is where the dispute lies. There is no longer any dispute over whether creatures change over time, it is only an issue of how much."

No, I am saying that the term for kind in Genesis and the term species in the modern sythesis are identical except for the universal common ancestor.

Really? Then I am confused as to exactly what you believe. And where is the definition of this "modern synthesis" you are discussing. I would like to find out what the definition of species is under that. Or better yet, why don’t you just tell me what your definition of "kind" is. Any modern synthesis will include a wide variety of common ancestors going right up to a "universal common ancestor". Are you saying that you believe in all common ancestors, but just stop short of accepting that single "one" universal common ancestor?

Find then identify the common ancestor of the Manatee and the elephant and show me the transitionals that lead to the two progeny. This would be a great boost for me personally if you have any genuine proof.

I will look into that, since I am not familiar with this particular line. But are you saying that you don’t accept that elephants and manatees have a common ancestor despite all their similarities (skin type, mouth and nose type, foot structure, genetic similarity, etc)? Again, where exactly do you draw this line of common descent? Which lines of descent to you accept and which do you reject and why? Are you saying that you won’t accept any line of descent in spite of all the circumstantial evidence just because we have not found all the intermediate fossils? If so, then you are too far for us to even be discussing this.

Continued since too long . . .

 

[Vance]

Continued from above . . .


It may well be that natural history is an essential part of evolutionary biology but the fossils do not support the concept of gradualism, much less the universal common ancestor model.

And why is this exactly? And who said that evolution relies solely on gradualism? Even those evolutionists that creationists like to misquote and take out of contest, who talk about punk eek, still accept that gradualism is a primary method evolutionary development. The statement that the fossil record does not support it is a gross overstatement. The bottom line is that the fossil record definitely supports that idea of common descent, even change takes place in a punk eek method more often than gradualism.

If you reject this point [abiogenesis] then you reject descent from a universal common ancestor as well.

Well, no, since there can be a universal common ancestor without abiogenesis. I have no idea whether God created the universe according to a specific design and then simply let that design play out as He intended (including life forming out of this process at the time and place He knew it would), or whether He stepped in to create the spark of life in some primordial soup, then let it happen, or whether he chose a moment VERY early on in this development (at some point before we have any evidence) and created some mix of life. The problem for the latter view is that we have evidence going back far enough to show life which does not fit any "kind" that exists now, and no evidence at all of most of the "kinds" that do exist now. And, of course, none of this could have happened within the last 10,000 years.

Abiogenesis was a term coined by early evolutionists that insisted that they were limited to exclusivly naturalistic methodologies for the development of living systems.

Yes and no. The belief in abiogenesis as the belief that life *necessarily* created without supernatural intervention, on its own. This is based on philosophical naturalism, since it is a belief about the absence of the supernatural. Those scientists who follow the naturalistic methodology might seek a natural explanation since that is their job, but that does not mean that they believe God was not involved. Think of an early scientist considering thunder or a rainbow. He has been told that these are caused by a supernatural force. Now, he might believe in the supernatural, and even that the supernatural can cause that effect, but he still wants to see whether there is a natural explanation. He is not an atheist with a naturalistic philosophy (all events must have natural explanations), he is a scientist using naturalistic methodology (let’s see whether there is a natural explanation).

Believing in abiogenesis is not only the logical consequence of naturalistic methodology it is far easier to believe then sponges turning into crestations.

I am not sure how you get this.

I agree wholeheartedly as far as the demonstrated evolutionary process in modern biology goes. It does not give us a mechanism that can explain the enormous amount of transmutation that must have occured.

Sure it does. We are not sure exactly how it all works, but the model presented seems to explain it pretty well. Remember, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of common descent over billions of years, involving major morphological changes, has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory as to how this has occurred (the theory of evolution: natural selection, genetic mutation and genetic drift) is a scientifically sound explanation of how the *fact* of evolutionary development occurred. There are still many details to work out, but even still, the fact of evolution is still there.

In fact since it is not a falsifiable the universal common ancestor is not even a very good hypothesis. It is at best metaphysics and most likly it isn't even that, its a modern myth.

Well, that is just silly. It is a natural and logical extension of a verifiable process, whether it is true or not. It has nothing to do with metaphysics since it is just the natural extension of sound science. It is not some atheistic proposition meant to destroy God, as so many creationists want to present.

Deny both abiogenesis and the statements of the leading evolutionists of our times and you are for all intents and purposes a creationist since you are left with no other alternative.

That is a ridiculous statement, I expected better of you. You are so desperate to equate evolution with atheism that it has taken you beyond the bounds of reason. My alternative is clear. I accept that evolution occurred as evolutionary biologists indicate it did (which does not include abiogenesis), but do not believe that it happened without any supernatural cause, which atheists believe. So much for your "no alternative" theory.

There is at least one [theological reason to disbelieve evolution], the arguments of sub-optimal design with regards to vestigal organs. Now that you have made a valiant attempt to refute Mayr will you now go after Darwin and Gould? I would applaud such an effort and make every effort to encourge you in your attack.

Well, first of all, I think Mayr is right on track on 99% of what he says. I just don’t believe with his statements founded upon his atheism. Second, the "sub-optimal" design argument is distinct from the idea of vestigal organs, and neither is a reason at all to disbelieve in evolution, they are reasons to disbelieve in YEC’ism. What Gould and company are saying is that if God created, He did not create recently with a special creation of all these species (or even "kinds") since if He had created recently, why would he create all these variety of creatures with identical bone structures doing dramatically different things? Why would he not create specially for each purpose with the most optimum design? The facts of comparative anatomy are dramatic evidence that God created by evolutionary processes over billions of years.

The vestigal organ issue is slightly different. Here, we have evidence not just of common anatomy being used for different purposes (which is spot on with evolution), but also features in common with other species that are not used AT ALL in the current species (ie manatees vestigal back feet and toenail, etc). If God created specially a few thousand years ago, He would have had to design these special creatures with these extraneous features built right in! Now, I just don’t think God would do that, so this is also dramatic evidence that God did not created specially within the last 10,000 years. Not surprisingly, however, these vestigal organs fit perfectly into the common descent through evolution model.

 

[yossarian]

All the needs to be identified is the crucial points of demonstration that are both testable and falsifiable. The multiple and universal common ancestory models are mutually exclusive with each other but both are compatable with the allready demonstrated empirical facts of science.

no, they're not

a 16s rRNA phylogeny traces back to a universal common ancestor

there are no discontinuities

unless the multiple common ancestors hypothesis can provide a plausible reason for chopping up the tree of life, then universal common ancestry is in the driving seat

And yet it was postulated well before genetics had actually been developed.

brilliant isn't it, it makes accurate predictions

Of course it is an issue you are claiming that genetics is one of the primary areas of proof for universal common descent. In order for mutation to cause the dramatic differences of their supposed ancestors on the level you are suggesting then dramatic changes in the DNA is absolutly crucial. If there are other methods for adaptive modification then tell me how adaptive modification occurs without altering the DNA in a major way.

it occurs by altering it in minor ways, many times over

Do any of the vestigal organ or optimal design questions employ theological concepts, aesthetic or teleological notions?

they often do, because the argument for design has always been theological, and not scientific

but there are scientific arguments for why evolution produces vestigial structures

That is a philosophical idea know as corrospondance and you allready said that vestigal organs were not enough to prove evolution. You have made it clear that theologicial notions hinder our understanding of the natural world and yet the vestigal organ argument is predicated on an explicitly theological permise. Common descent is not an issue for either the evolutionist because both schools of thought accept it. The universal common ancestor model is not a warranted conclusion and is based exclusivly on naturalistic assumptions.

no, it is warranted, because there is no extant organism that does not fit on a 16s rRNA phylogenetic tree that traces back to a single common ancestor

No, I am saying that the term for kind in Genesis and the term species in the modern sythesis are identical except for the universal common ancestor.

the term kind implies special creation, the term species implies speciation and evolution

they imply things about what we should expect phylogenetics to produce

It may well be that natural history is an essential part of evolutionary biology but the fossils do not support the concept of gradualism, much less the universal common ancestor model.

they are entirely consistent with both hypotheses

I agree wholeheartedly as far as the demonstrated evolutionary process in modern biology goes. It does not give us a mechanism that can explain the enormous amount of transmutation that must have occured. In fact since it is not a falsifiable the universal common ancestor is not even a very good hypothesis. It is at best metaphysics and most likly it isn't even that, its a modern myth.

it is falsifiable - find an extant organism that does not fit into the phylogeny that all extant organisms thus far examined do

Deny both abiogenesis and the statements of the leading evolutionists of our times and you are for all intents and purposes a creationist since you are left with no other alternative.

this is like saying that denying a particular theory for the formation of the planet jupiter is denying keplers laws of planetary motion

 

[mark kennedy]

You seem to have ignored my question. Are you presenting a model (or has any YEC) which explains the evidence we have, without ignoring the bits that they don’t like to look at?

Do you think creationists crawled out from under a rock or just our primordial ancestors? Lets try Henry Morris since you obviously not going to accept my analysis of the evidence. It also become increasingly apparent to me that the evolution devotees are completely indifferent to the actual forensic evidence.

“Our knowledge of:

1. DNA and protein in living cells, biochemistry, and mathematical probability
2. Genetics, ecology, homology, embryology, and the types of life we find as fossils.
3. The fossil evidence and the geologic sequence.

Suggests that:

1. Life is the result of design and creation (not time and chance acting on the inherent property of matter.
2. Many separate and distinct types were created, each a mosaic of complete traits, with each a mosaic of complete traits, with each showing broad but limited variation and some genetic burden resulting from time and chance mutations.
3. Groups of fossils are ecological zones of created types living in different environments at the same time , whose preservation reflects catastrophism.”
(What is Creation Science, by Gary E. Parker and Henry Morris)

The evidence is there in the fossil record. In the particular case cited, they are working out where and how it fits in (since many bipedal hominids are not believed to be ancestors of H. sapiens, but on a different branch on the hominid "bush").

Yes they are, hominoids are ancestors to apes and humans while hominids are ancestors to humans only. The fossil had a chimp skull which is no big find but supposedly walked upright. The fact that they had to piece together this supposedly transitional from three specimens doesn’t seem to bother you. Something else about the collection of fossils Leaky put together, it is virtually identical to a pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus. What this supposed missing link is, is a chimp, you would have to actually look at the forensic evidence to realize it though.


I’ll save some time here, Australipithecus afarensis is an ape. Where they find these specimens you they also find rhinos, boas, hippos, monkeys, etc.

the evidence of our *current* DNA confirms what evolutionists have been saying all along. I do not have a ready link to this new evidence, but maybe someone here does.

You don’t know what the current evidence is or where to find it but you know it matches what evolutionists have been saying all along. Wow, how do I argue with that airtight argument.


First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull

I stand by this statement despite what you and ‘the group’ think causes the macroevolutionary change in populations. Species change due to genetic drift so what?

Well, of course, no single piece of evidence among the entirety is as convincing as the whole added together, that is common sense.

The whole what? There is no genetic mechanism capable of producing theses transformations without killing off these populations. Vestigial organs are largely a matter of speculation about what God would or would not do if you were God. That and the bones of extinct chimps don’t really convince me of anything other then we are just as prone to myths in modern times as anyone in antiquity. .

If a scientist said that God did not design the universe because gravity happens without supernatural intervention, would you then disbelieve gravity?

No, but if he insisted that God did not design gravity because its sub optimal I would simply conclude either his elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top or he has issues.

Would removing the theology from Darwin's argument for the common descent of the Orchideae eviscerate it?

Of course not.

Ok, make the same argument without reference to God at the heart of the emphasis

“Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways.”

Do any of the vestigial organ or optimal design questions employ theological concepts, aesthetic or teleological notions?

Of course not, why would they? That quote is not saying that God did not create the universe and all things in it.

Try reading it this time, that is exactly what it is saying.

Huh? No, they are not identical, they are modifications of the same feature, which fits exactly with common descent through evolution. Again, the five fingered hand of the bat, dog, human and whale is a perfect example. This is powerful evidence that they all descended from an earlier mammalian creature with five fingers and those fingers simply adapted to fit a variety of needs as evolutionary pressures developed.

Yes the definition of species in the synthesis is identical to the concept in Genesis use of the word ‘kinds’. No, it just means that God liked that particular design, you are presuming what God would do if he were a natural scientist.

Yes, common descent IS an issue for the creationist. Once they define their "kinds", they hold that none of those kinds descended from a previous creature. Where do you draw the line of common descent?

The line is drawn at the metaphysical premise of universal common descent from protoorganisms and the all consuming naturalistic methodology.

And, no, the vestigal organ argument is NOT based on a theological premise. It is evidence that a recent special creation is not correct, but not on theological grounds, just on evidentiary grounds.

For the last time, this is about what God would do if you were God, this is the only evidence that you actually are even making reference to and you said that by itself it does not prove anything.

So, why would you accept some changes and not others (especially when the evidence is there)?

Why would I reject the need for billions of years to make all the convoluted morphologies of universal common descent? Why would I accept that evolution (the change in gene frequencies over time) and species ( organisms of groups that interbreed and produce fertile offspring) and not the universal common ancestor model? Because we just don’t need it, it is directed specifically at the theistic reasoning, and the evidence is bogus…that’s why.

“I think you are confusing terms. Naturalistic methodology is not the natural processes at work in life.”

Nonsense, natural methodology like natural selection are exclusively naturalistic mechanisms and explanations for life. I is the ‘God didn’t do it’ answer to everything’ it has nothing to do with methods of doing things in labs or field studies according to Ernst Mayr. It is a philosophy of science that considers only naturalistic mechanistic hypothesis regarding natural history.

Really? Then I am confused as to exactly what you believe.

How simple do I have to make this, multiple antecedent archetypes as opposed to a single protoorganism ancestor model. Sure, you eliminate God from every conceivable scenario the natural history of Darwin, Gould and the various other atheistic explanations are the only way to go.

I will look into that, since I am not familiar with this particular line

You are not familiar with that line but you are certain that the evidence proves a common ancestor? Oh brother…

And why is this exactly? And who said that evolution relies solely on gradualism?

I am left wondering what you actually know about evolution, gradualism was a geological theory known as uniformatarianism as opposed to catastrophism before there was a universal common ancestor model in biology. In fact it was a scientific theory before there was even a separate scientific discipline known as biology.

This is going in circles again so I’ll just leave you to rehash the same old argument over and over as you please. You know, I really don’t mind you not knowing beans about creationism, I’m getting a little tired of trying to educate you on what evolution is and how naturalistic methodology works only to have you use them to make me look foolish.

 

[mark kennedy]

no, they're not

a 16s rRNA phylogeny traces back to a universal common ancestor

there are no discontinuities

unless the multiple common ancestors hypothesis can provide a plausible reason for chopping up the tree of life, then universal common ancestry is in the driving seat

Ok, if it is something living things have in common then its proof postitive of descent from a common ancestory. If it is a noted differnence then it is a morphological change and proof positive of evolution. It is not based on demonstratable proofs that are consistant so it fails as a theory, it is not falsifiable so it fails as a hypothesis, it is supposition and speculation based on fancifull cartoon characters from human imagination, its a myth.

it occurs by altering it in minor ways, many times over

Right, it makes the same changes over and over, minor ones. No mater how many ways you twist a peice of rubber around you finger it will not turn into plasitic. Microevolutionary changes do not accumulate and major genetic changes do not improve populations, they kill them.

they often do, because the argument for design has always been theological, and not scientific

So are the ones for vestigial organs and against special creation, whats your point?

but there are scientific arguments for why evolution produces vestigial structures

No they are not they are theological.

no, it is warranted, because there is no extant organism that does not fit on a 16s rRNA phylogenetic tree that traces back to a single common ancestor

No its not warranted it makes more sense that God would use the same rRNA then independantly produced lines of descent would.

the term kind implies special creation, the term species implies speciation and evolution

No they are not different, they both mean organisms or populations that breed among theirselves and produce fertile offspring.

this is like saying that denying a particular theory for the formation of the planet jupiter is denying keplers laws of planetary motion

Baloney, what I am saying is that if you cannot accept God as an explanation the you are left with exclusivly naturalistic ones. If you deny the evolutionary model on the other hand you are left with only one, creationism.

Go ahead, tell me that creationism and evolution between themselves do not exaust all the possible explanations for our origins, I dare you.

 

[yossarian]

1. Life is the result of design and creation (not time and chance acting on the inherent property of matter.

no

2. Many separate and distinct types were created, each a mosaic of complete traits, with each a mosaic of complete traits, with each showing broad but limited variation and some genetic burden resulting from time and chance mutations.

no, there are no shrubs in the phylogeny, just one big tree

3. Groups of fossils are ecological zones of created types living in different environments at the same time , whose preservation reflects catastrophism.”
(What is Creation Science, by Gary E. Parker and Henry Morris)

definitely not, no catastrophic model consistently predicts the pattern of fossil finds

First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull

I stand by this statement despite what you and ‘the group’ think causes the macroevolutionary change in populations. Species change due to genetic drift so what?

mutations are that mechanism

The whole what? There is no genetic mechanism capable of producing theses transformations without killing off these populations. Vestigial organs are largely a matter of speculation about what God would or would not do if you were God. That and the bones of extinct chimps don’t really convince me of anything other then we are just as prone to myths in modern times as anyone in antiquity. .

there are various mutational mechanisms to explain any difference you care to name between any extant specie's genomes

Yes the definition of species in the synthesis is identical to the concept in Genesis use of the word ‘kinds’. No, it just means that God liked that particular design, you are presuming what God would do if he were a natural scientist.

so are you, if your attributing any "design" to him
its very hypocritical to say that one can't reply to a theological argument with a theological argument

The line is drawn at the metaphysical premise of universal common descent from protoorganisms and the all consuming naturalistic methodology.

thats a line that fails to establish any reproducible and consistent method of chopping up the tree of life into shrubs

Why would I reject the need for billions of years to make all the convoluted morphologies of universal common descent? Why would I accept that evolution (the change in gene frequencies over time) and species ( organisms of groups that interbreed and produce fertile offspring) and not the universal common ancestor model? Because we just don’t need it, it is directed specifically at the theistic reasoning, and the evidence is bogus…that’s why.

we do need it, to explain the phylogenetic tree

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Microevolutionary changes do not accumulate

I just had to butt in on this point. Please tell me how microevolutionary changes do not accumulate. Are you essentially saying that novel mutations cannot become fixed in a population's gene pool?

 

[Jet Black]

“Our knowledge of:

1. DNA and protein in living cells, biochemistry, and mathematical probability
2. Genetics, ecology, homology, embryology, and the types of life we find as fossils.
3. The fossil evidence and the geologic sequence.

Suggests that:

1. Life is the result of design and creation (not time and chance acting on the inherent property of matter.

why does it do this? In my thread, Hallmarks of Intelligent Design, I illustrated how there is not a single example of intelligent design to be found in nature. Of course "time and chance" as usual completely ignores selection and selective pressures, so it appears that Morris and parker are being intellectaually dishonest. why do they ignore selection pressures, which are anything but chance. Why do you agree with their intellectually dishonest position?

2. Many separate and distinct types were created, each a mosaic of complete traits, with each a mosaic of complete traits, with each showing broad but limited variation and some genetic burden resulting from time and chance mutations.

but nature does not show this. Parker and Morris appear to be ignoring the forensic evidence which shows common ancestry between these allegedly independently created types of organism. They allege that all came from distinctly created types, but are totally unable to identify even one of those types, why not? . There are none of the hallmarks of intelligent design present.

3. Groups of fossils are ecological zones of created types living in different environments at the same time , whose preservation reflects catastrophism.”
(What is Creation Science, by Gary E. Parker and Henry Morris)

As usual many pieces of the evidence are utterly ignored, such as the position of the fossils within the geological strata (i.e. the more derived fossils are found above those less derived fossils) and the fact that geologists know that catastrophic events occur. What is more, we can identify many different types of catastrophic events, from mud flows to volcanoes to floods to meteor impacts. What is more, we can see these catastrophic events separated by many layers and features preserved in non catastrophic events, such as bioturbidity and salt deposits. Parker and Morris, despite this continue to insist that all these catastrophic events are actually a singular catastrophic event (the flood) without demonstrating it to be so. So now we see the intellectual dishonesty of parker and morris again, ignoring more evidence.

Yes they are, hominoids are ancestors to apes and humans while hominids are ancestors to humans only. The fossil had a chimp skull which is no big find but supposedly walked upright. The fact that they had to piece together this supposedly transitional from three specimens doesn’t seem to bother you. Something else about the collection of fossils Leaky put together, it is virtually identical to a pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus. What this supposed missing link is, is a chimp, you would have to actually look at the forensic evidence to realize it though.

aah, so I suppose you are now an expert on homonid evolution. So now the question has to be asked, if lucy and the other fossils you admit to existing were nothing more than chimps, then why are their hips and skulls adapted to bipedal locomotion, why are their legs longer than chimps? In short, why are they so different to chimps if they are chimps? it appears you are selectively ignoring forensic evidence.

I’ll save some time here, Australipithecus afarensis is an ape. Where they find these specimens you they also find rhinos, boas, hippos, monkeys, etc.

well done sherlock, but remember that we are apes too. and given that the homonid transitionals are found in africa, it is hardly suprising that other african fossils would be found nearby.

First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull

what? on what basis do you say this? I suspect it is just wind personally. Altering DNA can be deleterious/harmful or neutral or beneficial, depending on the environment of the organism that the mutation finds itself in. This environmental dependency is most clearly demonstrated by sickle cell anaemia, which in a non-malaryial environment is harmful only, but in malaryal areas, being a SSA heterozygote is actually rather good for you.

The whole what? There is no genetic mechanism capable of producing theses transformations without killing off these populations.

what a vacuous statement. do you want to back that up? or is it just hot air?

Vestigial organs are largely a matter of speculation about what God would or would not do if you were God. That and the bones of extinct chimps don’t really convince me of anything other then we are just as prone to myths in modern times as anyone in antiquity.

you have failed to demonstrate that A.afarenesis was a chimp. you allege it was a chimp but cannot demonstrate it. If you can demonstrate it, lets see you publish.

Why would I reject the need for billions of years to make all the convoluted morphologies of universal common descent? Why would I accept that evolution (the change in gene frequencies over time) and species ( organisms of groups that interbreed and produce fertile offspring) and not the universal common ancestor model? Because we just don’t need it, it is directed specifically at the theistic reasoning, and the evidence is bogus…that’s why.

you claim that the evidence is bogus without ever demonstrating it to be so. You are starting to show your colours now mark, the sheen of pseudointellectuality is starting to wear thin and you are showing the characteristic creationist traits of denial and wilful ignorance of the evidence.
It's a real shame because you aren't stupid, but what you display in the above is that you have no real interest in actually looking at any of the evidence properly. Remember that the statements you are making here are scientific statements in contradiction with other scientific statements. it is not possible that both of them are true according to the evidence about which the statements are made, so examination of the evidence should show at least one to be wrong (perhaps even both depending on the statements). Rather than make vacuous proclamations, demonstrate that you are correct, if indeed you are, or admit the falsification of your statements.

 

[mark kennedy]

I just had to butt in on this point. Please tell me how microevolutionary changes do not accumulate. Are you essentially saying that novel mutations cannot become fixed in a population's gene pool?

Actually what I am saying is that mutations are most often deletreous or destructive. Hybidization of species and even speciation are perfectly consistant with the Biblical expression of kinds and changes in traits and adaptations are not the all consuming morphology of the universal common ancestor model. There are really only two schools of thought in evolutionary thought, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism has allways been contrary to the actual evidence and the hopefull monster as it has come to be known most often would result in death for any progeny that was unfortunate enough to inheriate a genetic mutation.

 

[yossarian]

Ok, if it is something living things have in common then its proof postitive of descent from a common ancestory. If it is a noted differnence then it is a morphological change and proof positive of evolution. It is not based on demonstratable proofs that are consistant so it fails as a theory, it is not falsifiable so it fails as a hypothesis, it is supposition and speculation based on fancifull cartoon characters from human imagination, its a myth.

its the pattern of homology and innovation that produces a branching hierarchy, it is not as simple as simply differences and similarities - it is the pattern of those that supports evolution, just as it supports paternity testing that uses microsatellite DNA

Right, it makes the same changes over and over, minor ones. No mater how many ways you twist a peice of rubber around you finger it will not turn into plasitic. Microevolutionary changes do not accumulate and major genetic changes do not improve populations, they kill them.

microevolutionary changes do accumulate, they cannot help but accumulate if they increase fitness

even major genetic changes (the yeast genome duplication) can be selected for

So are the ones for vestigial organs and against special creation, whats your point?

you're being hypocritical if you allow them for the argument for design, and not for an argument against design, thats special pleading

No they are not they are theological.

no, they're scientific
a retrotranscibed mRNA which produces a processed pseudogene is a neutral genetic modification, so we would expect that these sequences would evolve neutrally (they do) and that their elimination depends on deletion mutation rates

processed pseudogene formation has been observed, neutral theory predicts that many will be retained in the genome, and we observe that yes indeed, they are present in the genome.

common descent predicts that we'll share many of them with other hominids

the entire argument is scientific and makes no reference at all to what god would or wouldn't do

No its not warranted it makes more sense that God would use the same rRNA then independantly produced lines of descent would.

no, it doesn't make more sense

the difference is that evolution explicitly predicts this, and ID only "allows" for it

No they are not different, they both mean organisms or populations that breed among theirselves and produce fertile offspring.

if thats what kind means then noahs ark is sinking under the weight of too many reproductively isolated organisms

Baloney, what I am saying is that if you cannot accept God as an explanation the you are left with exclusivly naturalistic ones. If you deny the evolutionary model on the other hand you are left with only one, creationism.

Go ahead, tell me that creationism and evolution between themselves do not exaust all the possible explanations for our origins, I dare you.

evolution, NDT, would have no problem at all if god created the first self-replicating organism

 

[Jet Black]

Go ahead, tell me that creationism and evolution between themselves do not exaust all the possible explanations for our origins, I dare you.

well Biblical creationism does not exhaust all the possibilities. for example I could hypothesise an entity called Fod who made the Stars, sun and moon on the first day and kept everything else in the same order and does not care about humans since she decided later that cats were cuter, or an entity called Gid who created dust mites first and then built everything out of them over a period of 42 days and only cares about humans who are under 5 feet tall with a slight squint, or an entity called.......

but aside from these, there are other possibilities.

spontaneous-popism and ouroborosism come to mind.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Actually what I am saying is that mutations are most often deletreous or destructive.

Except most are neutral, and this doesn't address the existence of beneficial mutations.

So you aren't saying that novel mutations cannot become fixed in a population's gene pool. Because if a novel mutation can become fixed in a gene pool, then microevolutionary changes can accumulate (the process is recursive).

There are really only two schools of thought in evolutionary thought, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism has allways been contrary to the actual evidence and the hopefull monster as it has come to be known most often would result in death for any progeny that was unfortunate enough to inheriate a genetic mutation.

Out of curiosity, can you define for me punctuated equilibrium and tell me what time scales it works on?

 

[Jet Black]

Actually what I am saying is that mutations are most often deletreous or destructive.

no you weren't, you were saying that micromutations cannot accumulate. Since now you confess that at least some mutations are not deleterious or destructive (I would like to see your references that most are destructive please - simple counting of the number of harmful mutations that we know is not really adequate, since the medical profession only tends to look at and investigate bad things anyway) then why can't these beneficial mutations accumulate?

There are really only two schools of thought in evolutionary thought, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism has allways been contrary to the actual evidence and the hopefull [sic] monster as it has come to be known most often would result in death for any progeny that was unfortunate enough to inheriate a genetic mutation.

warning, intellectual dishonesty from mark. punctuated equilibrium as it currently stands is not the hopeful monster model. your attempt at obfuscation is intellectually dishonest, you should be ashamed of yourself, unless you just didn't know, which I doubt, I am sure you have been told this.

 

[mark kennedy]

why does it do this? In my thread, Hallmarks of Intelligent Design, I illustrated how there is not a single example of intelligent design to be found in nature. Of course "time and chance" as usual completely ignores selection and selective pressures, so it appears that Morris and parker are being intellectaually dishonest. why do they ignore selection pressures, which are anything but chance. Why do you agree with their intellectually dishonest position?

Because I don't buy into your brand of metaphysics and I don't think that they are the ones being dishonest.

but nature does not show this. Parker and Morris appear to be ignoring the forensic evidence which shows common ancestry between these allegedly independently created types of organism. They allege that all came from distinctly created types, but are totally unable to identify even one of those types, why not? . There are none of the hallmarks of intelligent design present.

The evidence for a single common ancestor would not be dramatically different for a universal common ancestor model and a multiple one since the actual evidence is sparse anyway. The creationist can't identify the archetypes of the original creation and the universal common ancestor model has mission links that span millions of years. As far as the hallmarks of intelligent design we could sit here and say, do not, do to, do not do to. So, to that I say, do to, do to.

As usual many pieces of the evidence are utterly ignored, such as the position of the fossils within the geological strata (i.e. the more derived fossils are found above those less derived fossils) and the fact that geologists know that catastrophic events occur. What is more, we can identify many different types of catastrophic events, from mud flows to volcanoes to floods to meteor impacts. What is more, we can see these catastrophic events separated by many layers and features preserved in non catastrophic events, such as bioturbidity and salt deposits. Parker and Morris, despite this continue to insist that all these catastrophic events are actually a singular catastrophic event (the flood) without demonstrating it to be so. So now we see the intellectual dishonesty of parker and morris again, ignoring more evidence.

No they don't, they may well elaborate on how a large number of now extinct fossils may well have been preserved as a result of the flood but that is not the creationist model as expressed in the quote. They are describing catastophic explanations as opposed to the uniformatarian model, thats all, that doesn't make them liars because they don't agree with you interpretation of the evidence.

aah, so I suppose you are now an expert on homonid evolution. So now the question has to be asked, if lucy and the other fossils you admit to existing were nothing more than chimps, then why are their hips and skulls adapted to bipedal locomotion, why are their legs longer than chimps? In short, why are they so different to chimps if they are chimps? it appears you are selectively ignoring forensic evidence.
well done sherlock, but remember that we are apes too. and given that the homonid transitionals are found in africa, it is hardly suprising that other african fossils would be found nearby.

The actual evidence is the skull of a chimp, that was unusually bipedal, not unlike the pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus. I think its Johnson and Leaky that are being dishonest, not Parker and Morris. So there

what? on what basis do you say this? I suspect it is just wind personally. Altering DNA can be deleterious/harmful or neutral or beneficial, depending on the environment of the organism that the mutation finds itself in. This environmental dependency is most clearly demonstrated by sickle cell anaemia, which in a non-malaryial environment is harmful only, but in malaryal areas, being a SSA heterozygote is actually rather good for you.
what a vacuous statement. do you want to back that up? or is it just hot air?
you have failed to demonstrate that A.afarenesis was a chimp. you allege it was a chimp but cannot demonstrate it. If you can demonstrate it, lets see you publish.

Oh yea right they are going to publish me because I can prove that it had a chimp skull and is most likley an extinct version of a modern chimp. Just like the Hippos, monkeys and other creatures found in the same area and strata are not that different from the ones we have today. They will a publish that kind of thing in a scientific journal when Rome cannonizes Martin Luther and John Calvin.

you claim that the evidence is bogus without ever demonstrating it to be so. You are starting to show your colours now mark, the sheen of pseudointellectuality is starting to wear thin and you are showing the characteristic creationist traits of denial and wilful ignorance of the evidence.

Of course, anyone who bucks the status quo in the temple of natural science must be ignorant, decietfull or something worse.

It's a real shame because you aren't stupid, but what you display in the above is that you have no real interest in actually looking at any of the evidence properly. Remember that the statements you are making here are scientific statements in contradiction with other scientific statements. it is not possible that both of them are true according to the evidence about which the statements are made, so examination of the evidence should show at least one to be wrong (perhaps even both depending on the statements). Rather than make vacuous proclamations, demonstrate that you are correct, if indeed you are, or admit the falsification of your statements.

Look Jet, I spend most of my free time reading what I can about fossils and I am very interested in them. I allso am very interested in the biochemical composition of DNA, RNA, proteins and the various other elements of the cell. It is odd that when I reference carefull researched details that are crucial forensic and genetic details I am simply scolded for being a creationist. I did demonstrate that I am correct and by the way there is no falsification of the universal common ancestor model or the multiple common ancestor model possible. Didn't you know that this was foundational to evolutionary biology.

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

(Ernst Mayr, Darwins influence on Modern Thought)

Do you know more about evolutionary biology then Ernst Mayr, perhaps you should publish your refutation of his work. For crying out load, learn your own philosophical underpinnings.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Do you know more about evolutionary biology then Ernst Mayr, perhaps you should publish your refutation of his work. For crying out load, learn your own philosophical underpinnings.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that what an evolutionist writes is canon to those which subscribe to the theory of evolution? IOW, do you think that evolutionists take the writings of other evolutionists (Darwin, Mayr, Gould, etc) the same way a creationist might take the writings of the Bible?

 

[Jet Black]

Because I don't buy into your brand of metaphysics and I don't think that they are the ones being dishonest.

so ignoring selection pressures and pretending that evolution is "time and chance" is being honest now is it? I don't care whether you agree with evolution or not, but they misrepresent it; intellectual dishonesty.

The evidence for a single common ancestor would not be dramatically different for a universal common ancestor model and a multiple one since the actual evidence is sparse anyway. The creationist can't identify the archetypes of the original creation and the universal common ancestor model has mission links that span millions of years.

well what are the differences and why do they suggest multiple ancestors as opposed to common ancestry? It is fine making these vacuous statements of yours, but are you ever going to back them up? I have seen absolutely no evidence that suggests multiple ancestors, please supply some.

As far as the hallmarks of intelligent design we could sit here and say, do not, do to, do not do to. So, to that I say, do to, do to.

My thread was rather more specific than that, the inheritance patterns of features that occur as a result of intelligent design are totally different to the inheritance patterns of features developed through evolutionary design. so please demonstrate examples of these inheritance patterns in the natural world.

No they don't, they may well elaborate on how a large number of now extinct fossils may well have been preserved as a result of the flood but that is not the creationist model as expressed in the quote. They are describing catastophic explanations as opposed to the uniformatarian model, thats all, that doesn't make them liars because they don't agree with you interpretation of the evidence.

well then they are being dishonest again, because geologists know full well that catastrophic burial occurs, and of course you did not address the other issues I raied.

The actual evidence is the skull of a chimp, that was unusually bipedal, not unlike the pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus. I think its Johnson and Leaky that are being dishonest, not Parker and Morris. So there

oh just the skull now, what about the other 17 fossils, the hips and so on. please give more evidence of your allegations and detail how a chiump might develop these mutations and form a population of "unusually bipedal chimps" - developments which you say cannot happen.

Oh yea right they are going to publish me because I can prove that it had a chimp skull and is most likley an extinct version of a modern chimp.

not just the skull duder, the whole fossil, or are you going to ignore everything from the neck down because it doesn't fit with your preconcieved notions? well I suppose it is a difference from Parker and Morrises ignoring everything involving thought from the neck up.

Of course, anyone who bucks the status quo in the temple of natural science must be ignorant, decietfull or something worse.

this isn't what I am saying mark, I am saying that you are just ignoring evidence now and making vacuous sweeping statements.

Look Jet, I spend most of my free time reading what I can about fossils and I am very interested in them. I allso am very interested in the biochemical composition of DNA, RNA, proteins and the various other elements of the cell. It is odd that when I reference carefull researched details that are crucial forensic and genetic details I am simply scolded for being a creationist.

well then why not demonstrate some of your knowledge? you make endless fundamental mistakes that leads me to think that you do not read or at least comprehend even a fraction of what you allege to do. you still obfuscate punctuated equilibrium with Goldschmidt's hopeful monster, you didn't demonstrate a proper understanding of mendel's work, you didn't understand dawkins' gene space, you have no comprehension of the proportions of deleterious and neutral/beneficial mutations, you cannot see how mutations can accumulate even when they are beneficial, which you admit sometimes happens... need I go on? I think I will. On one hand you say that chimps can evolve into an "unusually bipedal version of a chimp" (a large mutation/accumulation of mutations) and then on the other hand say that such mutations cannot occur, because they would kill the organisms - when clearly they didn't because we have a whole population of them. you say that geologists stick to uniformatarianism, when they understand perfectly well that catastrophic events occur, and these far better explain what we see than a singular catastrophic event. you claim that there are no mutational mechanisms that are not deleterious or harmful

First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull [sic]

and then you say that there are beneficial mutations

Actually what I am saying is that mutations are most often deletreous or destructive.

which one is it. you can or you can't? Unless your leader is Big Brother and you have to pop off to the 2 minute hate at 11am, you can't have both. why not make your own mind up first before coming here and contradicting yourself in public? Your alleged study and knowledge isn't really shining too brightly here mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

so ignoring selection pressures and pretending that evolution is "time and chance" is being honest now is it? I don't care whether you agree with evolution or not, but they misrepresent it; intellectual dishonesty.

I don't care if you like what they have to say, that does not mean they are being dishonest.

well what are the differences and why do they suggest multiple ancestors as opposed to common ancestry? It is fine making these vacuous statements of yours, but are you ever going to back them up? I have seen absolutely no evidence that suggests multiple ancestors, please supply some.
My thread was rather more specific than that, the inheritance patterns of features that occur as a result of intelligent design are totally different to the inheritance patterns of features developed through evolutionary design. so please demonstrate examples of these inheritance patterns in the natural world.

Oh brother, that is what I have been doing since I started coming on here and have come to realize that no amount of evidence, proof, or reasoning ever satisfys a skeptic. I missed you thread, thank God, but I've seen your posts and I doubt seriously you were working from an objective standard. Probably just insulted anyone who dared take a creationist stand.

well then they are being dishonest again, because geologists know full well that catastrophic burial occurs, and of course you did not address the other issues I raied.

Yes, jet, they are disagreing with you again, darn them anyway. And whats more geologists know that catastrophic burial occurs, never said they didn't, which is probably what led to the concept catastrophism. That and the creationists of a couple hundred years ago were all willfully ignorant and dishonest too. Would you believe that at one time most scientists actually belived the Bible had factual history in it. Wonder where the got such a crazy notion.

oh just the skull now, what about the other 17 fossils, the hips and so on. please give more evidence of your allegations and detail how a chiump might develop these mutations and form a population of "unusually bipedal chimps" - developments which you say cannot happen.
not just the skull duder, the whole fossil, or are you going to ignore everything from the neck down because it doesn't fit with your preconcieved notions? well I suppose it is a difference from Parker and Morrises ignoring everything involving thought from the neck up.
this isn't what I am saying mark, I am saying that you are just ignoring evidence now and making vacuous sweeping statements.

No I'm just going to overlook your childish pedantic rant rant and move on.

well then why not demonstrate some of your knowledge? you make endless fundamental mistakes that leads me to think that you do not read or at least comprehend even a fraction of what you allege to do. you still obfuscate punctuated equilibrium with Goldschmidt's hopeful monster, you didn't demonstrate a proper understanding of mendel's work, you didn't understand dawkins' gene space, you have no comprehension of the proportions of deleterious and neutral/beneficial mutations, you cannot see how mutations can accumulate even when they are beneficial, which you admit sometimes happens... need I go on? I think I will. On one hand you say that chimps can evolve into an "unusually bipedal version of a chimp" (a large mutation/accumulation of mutations) and then on the other hand say that such mutations cannot occur, because they would kill the organisms - when clearly they didn't because we have a whole population of them. you say that geologists stick to uniformatarianism, when they understand perfectly well that catastrophic events occur, and these far better explain what we see than a singular catastrophic event. you claim that there are no mutational mechanisms that are not deleterious or harmful

I am sure you have managed to run of a lot of Christians from the forum thoughing those kinds of insults around but I'm not intimadated by condesending abrasive bluster. Frankly, I think this petty little rant is spoiling what could have been an interesting discussion on the species, speciation, and the way proper definitions of the various kinds are chosen. I understand each and every one of those topics and every point I have made has been supported with either substantive reasoning or credible source material. You on the other hand have done nothing but throw you contrary remarks around like a tennis ball in a tumble dryer.

I don't know what your issues are but they have nothing to do with science.

and then you say that there are beneficial mutations

I never said that there weren't only that for the most part the are deletreous or harmfull. By the way, it is either gradualism or mutation ok, your not contradicting me with all the endless ranting, your contradicting evolutionary biology. I have only ventured actual creationist views once or twice and I try not to throw those pearls into a debate like this.

which one is it. you can or you can't? Unless your leader is Big Brother and you have to pop off to the 2 minute hate at 11am, you can't have both. why not make your own mind up first before coming here and contradicting yourself in public? Your alleged study and knowledge isn't really shining too brightly here mark.

I have never seen anyone say so little,with so many words, and so much passion. Get some help jet, the topic is not how anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or a liar. Personally, I have been immune to this kind of venom for years but its sad to see a grown man carry on like this, just pityfull.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't care if you like what they have to say, that does not mean they are being dishonest.

I want to jump in here for a momet. Mark, Jet is saying that they only tell half of the story. That is, they talk about time and chance, but willfully leave out selection.
Now, no evolutionist is going to tell you that time and chance alone produce design. Selection is necessary in the whole picture. Morris leaves that out in his book, and is thus attacking a strawman. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Vance]

Do you think creationists crawled out from under a rock or just our primordial ancestors? Lets try Henry Morris since you obviously not going to accept my analysis of the evidence. It also become increasingly apparent to me that the evolution devotees are completely indifferent to the actual forensic evidence.

“Our knowledge of:

1. DNA and protein in living cells, biochemistry, and mathematical probability
2. Genetics, ecology, homology, embryology, and the types of life we find as fossils.
3. The fossil evidence and the geologic sequence.

Suggests that:

1. Life is the result of design and creation (not time and chance acting on the inherent property of matter.
2. Many separate and distinct types were created, each a mosaic of complete traits, with each a mosaic of complete traits, with each showing broad but limited variation and some genetic burden resulting from time and chance mutations.
3. Groups of fossils are ecological zones of created types living in different environments at the same time , whose preservation reflects catastrophism.”
(What is Creation Science, by Gary E. Parker and Henry Morris)

OK, I will bite, exactly HOW do the first three areas of knowledge suggest the latter three conclusions? There are tons of books out there providing the evolutionary models, and you and other young earth creationists have been provided with many explanations on this very forum of those models. All the evidence I have seen shows that the first three areas of knowledge completely falsify the second and third propositions rather than actually support it (again, we have provided all these falsifications over and over on this forum over the years). We have yet to see a single YEC model that explains all the evidence in a way that holds up to scientific scrutiny. As for intelligent design, that has nothing to do with evolution since the leading intelligent design proponent alive today actually accepts full and complete evolution, just sees it as part of the design.

Yes they are, hominoids are ancestors to apes and humans while hominids are ancestors to humans only.

Good, I am glad you recognize this. It is a good start.


The fossil had a chimp skull

Um, no, it did not have a chimp skull. Chimpanzees were not even around at that time. It had a very ape-like skull, it is true.

which is no big find but supposedly walked upright.

Thus, making it NOT an ape, but a hominid, by definition. Apes are not bipedal.

The fact that they had to piece together this supposedly transitional from three specimens doesn’t seem to bother you.

No, since they were three different specimens of the same species.

Something else about the collection of fossils Leaky put together, it is virtually identical to a pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus.

Well, except for the bipedal part, and a collection of other differences, sure. The idea that there are lots of similarities between these species is one of the whole points.

What this supposed missing link is, is a chimp, you would have to actually look at the forensic evidence to realize it though.
I’ll save some time here, Australipithecus afarensis is an ape. Where they find these specimens you they also find rhinos, boas, hippos, monkeys, etc.

Well, no, it is not an ape, because it is bipedal. Apes are not bipedal. Second, do you really think these guys can’t tell the difference between a chimp and another species? If you honestly and truly believe that this fossil is a chimp, I am afraid I have lost all respect for your ability to rationally review the evidence and this conversation might as well come to an end.

The whole what? There is no genetic mechanism capable of producing theses transformations without killing off these populations. Vestigial organs are largely a matter of speculation about what God would or would not do if you were God. That and the bones of extinct chimps don’t really convince me of anything other then we are just as prone to myths in modern times as anyone in antiquity. .

OK, I can see you are just at the “la, la, la, I can’t hear you” phase of learning on this subject and I will have to leave you to it.

Again, present a comprehensive model that works with the existing evidence and we would have something to talk about. You have yet to do this, or even explain exactly how far back your initial "kinds" go. You seem to be working on a loose theory that you hold to because it fits your theology and are then massaging the facts around to fit that loose theory. When you have something solid, feel free to present it. So far, all the YEC scientists have utterly failed to present anything that has not been falsified by the evidence, but maybe you will have more success.

 

[gluadys]

Actually what I am saying is that mutations are most often deletreous or destructive.

So what?

That does not prevent the fixing and accumulation of beneficial mutations.

You haven't produced the figures yet for the experiment I asked you to do. I expect that is either because you don't consider it worth your while or you don't know how to do it. Or maybe you are afraid to face the results.

But it is crucial to understanding this very point.