Evolution or Creationism?

BHSTME "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Red herrings may distract from it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

LoricaLady said:

BHSTME "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Red herrings may distract from it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Click to expand...

Tell that to Francis Collins.

Tell that to the majority of the worlds Christians who disagree with you.

Tell that to the 99% of Phd biologists, who disagree with you.

Tell that to the doctor that gave you vaccinations and practices medicine that has been enhanced by evolutionary theory.

http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Appeal to authority logical fallacies. Appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Presuming omniscience logical fallacy. And, as usual, another red herring away from those pesky Qs.

It's always a wonderful thing when we free our minds from logical fallacies, learn to do critical thinking and think for ourselves, research both sides, look at the data (not what this or that person or group says about it) and come out of the matrix. I bet we can agree on this: The most brainwashed people are darn sure they aren't brainwashed!

All I have to say. Byeeeeeee!

LoricaLady said:

Appeal to authority logical fallacies. Appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Presuming omniscience logical fallacy. And, as usual, another red herring away from those pesky Qs.

It's always a wonderful thing when we free our minds from logical fallacies, learn to do critical thinking and think for ourselves, research both sides, look at the data (not what this or that person or group says about it) and come out of the matrix. I bet we can agree on this: The most brainwashed people are darn sure they aren't brainwashed!

All I have to say. Byeeeeeee!

Click to expand...

Appeal to evidence and recognizing who is educated and trained, to evaluate and explain, the evidence.

Maybe you can prove them all wrong though and come home with the Nobel prize.

Ba bye.

Loricalady said:

Notice something. The viruses are still viruses! All life forms change. You are different from your parents but all of you are 100% homo sapiens.

Click to expand...

So let's see what your creationist name game plays out. According to you, if I can use the same name for two groups of organisms, then no evolution has occurred.

Humans are primates. Baboons are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. PRIMATES ARE STILL PRIMATES. Are you saying this isn't evolution?

Humans are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. MAMMALS ARE STILL MAMMALS. Are you saying this isn't evolution?

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. VERTEBRATES ARE STILL VERTEBRATES. Are you saying this isn't evolution?

The logic, really illogic, behind ERVs is Evolution is change. (Faulty premise as I just gave in the example with your parents.)
The ERVs have changed, in this case through duplication.
Follow the invisible, dataless, dotted lines that show they have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses.

But....there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been or ever will be anything but another of one of the countless variations of viruses. Or if there is any such evidence, please give data to show what it is. What kind of nonvirus are they turning into? Again, give data to prove your point.

Click to expand...

Did you read the thread I linked for you? You will find that ERV's are evidence for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor and evolving from that common ancestor.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Chimps and humans share over 200,000 ERV's at the same location in each of our genomes. That is smoking gun evidence of common ancestry.

Now it's your turn to answer some Qs.

Click to expand...

You didn't even address the ERV evidence. You apparently didn't understand what it is.

I referred to them above but you ignored them. I looked at your link. Look at mine. Help us poor "ignorant" fundies out and answer those Qs. Use actual scientific data, not logical fallacies and presumptions which are not supported by any real data. But you won't answer those Qs. Evo. fans always dodge them, usually by changing the subject, especially to the Bible which those Qs don't even reference.

Click to expand...

In the next post.

Q's from LoricaLady

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that.

The evidence is in the fundamental unity of life that simply doesn't have to be there other than for common ancestry. For example, we use the same tRNA anti-codons and the same metabolic pathways. If life did not share a common ancestor, then the tRNA's and metabolic pathways could have been very different. ATG codes for methionine in humans, but is there any reason why it couldn't code for alanine in bacteria? There is certainly nothing stopping that from happening, other than common ancestry.

LoricaLady stated, "I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc."

Just for reference, that is not evidence. That is an assertion.

Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.
That is what you should see if evolution is true. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. If we are to believe the argument being put forward by LoricaLady, then all eukaryotes, from pine trees to people, evolving from a single celled eukaryotic common ancestor isn't change simply because we can describe all of those species with one name: eukaryote.

This is what I call the creationist name game. They think that if they can use the same name to describe two different species that they can somehow claim that no change has happened. As we can all see, this just doesn't work.

Then we get even more empty assertions, like this one:

"In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc."

This claim is never supported by any evidence. Nowhere does LoricaLady support this assertion.

Qs #3 We are told mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?

This is a really easy one to answer. Why do you think humans are different from chimps? It is due to a difference in DNA sequence, is it not? We have plenty of evidence showing that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, such as the ERV evidence. When we compare our genomes to that of apes, we can directly see the mutations that have made all of these species different from each other.

Genetic equidistance is evidence that mutations accumulate.
"The genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

You can check the data yourself here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055

Also, nowhere is any data shown for the claim that a majority of mutations are harmful.

Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?
It is the mixture of physical characteristics that evidences evolution. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features, and that we should not see fossils with a mixture of ape and dog features. It is these predictions that are tested with the fossil data. You seemed to have confused the terms transitional and ancestral. They are not the same thing.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Overall, you appear to have a lot of misinformation, and do not understand what the theory of evolution states, or how it is tested.

Loudmouth said:

So let's see what your creationist name game plays out. According to you, if I can use the same name for two groups of organisms, then no evolution has occurred.

Humans are primates. Baboons are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. PRIMATES ARE STILL PRIMATES. Are you saying this isn't evolution?

Humans are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. MAMMALS ARE STILL MAMMALS. Are you saying this isn't evolution?

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. VERTEBRATES ARE STILL VERTEBRATES. Are you saying this isn't evolution?



Did you read the thread I linked for you? You will find that ERV's are evidence for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor and evolving from that common ancestor.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Chimps and humans share over 200,000 ERV's at the same location in each of our genomes. That is smoking gun evidence of common ancestry.



You didn't even address the ERV evidence. You apparently didn't understand what it is.



In the next post.

Click to expand...

You are evading the Q. I asked you what evidence there is that ERVs have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses. You changed the subject as evo. fans always do when asked for actual scientific data to prove their point. You have gone off on tangents that I believe anyone can see are no way relevant. You were supposedly showing evidence that the viruses are somehow evidence of evolution. Unless you can show me they have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses, you have no case.

But I will respond to some of your "points." There is no evidence that vertebrates have ever been anything but vertebrates. Mammals stay mammals, too. That is what the fossil record shows - which even some evolutionists have admitted to - stasis in the rocks. (Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists.) But I'm not going to get side tracked into the endless series of disinfo bytes that evolution puts out and which I'm sure you are rarin' to type here.

I will address one and one only, namely the ERVs you mentioned in regard to chimps and people. Then it will be your turn. A turn you will never take. You will never provide a shred of evidence that those ERVs ever have been or ever will be anything but viruses. If you do, great. (But we both know you won't.) Then I will respond. Otherwise this is my last exchange with you. Not only do I not want to go down all those irrelevant rabbit holes, I don't have the time. Sorry!

Chimps and human ERVs logical fallacies:

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Fallacy. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Bats, birds, bees and butterflies fly. Bats and whales, both mammals of course, have sonar. Snakes and worms slither on the ground. People and cockatoos love to dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Of course there are some similarities with apes, but to attribute them to evolution leads us to...

Fallacy of the Single Cause. As is always true with evolution, if there is any example of a similarity, no matter how remote, well, they are sure "Evolution did it!" Any dissenting opinion is ignored, or ridiculed or squashed. (If anyone wants to see examples of this see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie on Youtube.)

Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. The genes of a human and an ape are very different. For example apes have genes of a different frequency and size. There are countless other differences between apes and humans, but in evolution you just focus on the similarities and mostly ignore the differences.

Presuming Omniscience Fallacy: It is just assumed, through magical thinking, that the cause for any similarity is known and that it is evolution, though there really is no evidence whatsoever for the origins of those similarities. An hypothesis is counted as fact. Actually the "fact" is usually made up of a bunch of hypotheses, all neatly bound up with logical fallacies, dataless speculation presented as scientific truth, and magical thinking.

You go ahead and swallow all you have heard and believe that you are nothing more than a modified ape type creature who ultimately sprang from an evidenceless and antiscientific primal pond. If that makes you happy, who am I to burst your bubble? Go for it!

Bye, cause, though you will doubtless say this and that, no way are you going to give a shred of evidenced that any virus ever was or ever will be anything but a virus.

LoricaLady said:

You are evading the Q. I asked you what evidence there is that ERVs have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses.

Click to expand...

There is a rhetorical way out of this.

Once an ERV becomes something else, then it is no longer an ERV.

Thus the answer to your question is: There is no evidence, because ERVs will always be ERVs.

It's like the old joke:

Q: When is a door not a door?
A: When it is a jar.

Macroevolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, supported by a healthy dose of PR.

And it only works on paper, if we'll let it.

LoricaLady said:

You are evading the Q.

Click to expand...

Viruses should stay viruses if evolution is true. That is what you fail to understand.

What we should see is viruses evolving, and that is exactly what we see.

I asked you what evidence there is that ERVs have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses.

Click to expand...

I asked you to address the evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps, as shown by ERV's. After you address that, then we will move on to your questions.

But I will respond to some of your "points." There is no evidence that vertebrates have ever been anything but vertebrates. Mammals stay mammals, too. That is what the fossil record shows - which even some evolutionists have admitted to - stasis in the rocks.

Click to expand...

Everything from platypusses, to hyenas, to humans evolving from a common ancestor is "stasis in the rocks"? You are using a very different definition for stasis than I am.

If you really think that all mammals, from opposums to people, evolving from a common ancestor is NOT evolution, then you need to explain yourself.

Chimps and human ERVs logical fallacies:

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Fallacy. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Bats, birds, bees and butterflies fly. Bats and whales, both mammals of course, have sonar. Snakes and worms slither on the ground. People and cockatoos love to dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Of course there are some similarities with apes, but to attribute them to evolution leads us to...

Click to expand...

Orthologous ERV's are homologous, not analogous. All of the examples you use are analogous comparisons, not homologous comparisons.

A better example would be comparing the fingerprints of a defendant to the fingerprints at a crime scene, or the defendant's DNA to the DNA found at a crime scene. Would you say that correlation between these data sets is evidence?

Fallacy of the Single Cause. As is always true with evolution, if there is any example of a similarity, no matter how remote, well, they are sure "Evolution did it!" Any dissenting opinion is ignored, or ridiculed or squashed. (If anyone wants to see examples of this see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie on Youtube.)

Click to expand...

It isn't simply similarities. It is the pattern of both similarities AND differences. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, so why shouldn't the observation of a nested hierarchy be evidence in support of that theory?

If you want to offer another theory, then you need to show how it predicts a nested hierarchy, and evidence the mechanisms that drive it.

Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. The genes of a human and an ape are very different. For example apes have genes of a different frequency and size. There are countless other differences between apes and humans, but in evolution you just focus on the similarities and mostly ignore the differences.

Click to expand...

The genome of the chimp shares more DNA with the human genome than it does with the gorilla or orangutan genome.

Presuming Omniscience Fallacy: It is just assumed, through magical thinking, that the cause for any similarity is known and that it is evolution, though there really is no evidence whatsoever for the origins of those similarities. An hypothesis is counted as fact. Actually the "fact" is usually made up of a bunch of hypotheses, all neatly bound up with logical fallacies, dataless speculation presented as scientific truth, and magical thinking.

Click to expand...

What we are saying is that the theory of evolution makes very risky and specific predictions about the relationships between species, and those predictions keep coming true.

You go ahead and swallow all you have heard and believe that you are nothing more than a modified ape type creature who ultimately sprang from an evidenceless and antiscientific primal pond. If that makes you happy, who am I to burst your bubble? Go for it!

Bye, cause, though you will doubtless say this and that, no way are you going to give a shred of evidenced that any virus ever was or ever will be anything but a virus.

Click to expand...

When you understand what the theory of evolution really is, please come back and ask more questions.

AV1611VET said:

There is a rhetorical way out of this.

Once an ERV becomes something else, then it is no longer an ERV.

Thus the answer to your question is: There is no evidence, because ERVs will always be ERVs.

It's like the old joke:

Q: When is a door not a door?
A: When it is a jar.

Macroevolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, supported by a healthy dose of PR.

And it only works on paper, if we'll let it.

Click to expand...

Why would ERV's need to become anything else in order to evidence common ancestry between humans and chimps?

Tree of Life said:

Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?

Click to expand...

If the theory of evolution were, tomorrow, proven false it would not imply the existence of a creator.

Because the theory of evolution doesn't reject the existence of a creator, and is completely neutral on the subject. Creator or no creator is a subject completely independent of the theory of evolution.

It's like asking if the oxygen theory of combustion were falsified if it would imply a creator. It is, fundamentally, a nonsense question.

-CryptoLutheran

maynard said it best when he said there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity, nor is there any empirical evidence they do.

this is some pretty heavy stuff coming from such a learned man, and published in a well respected science journal.

maynard says these changes were major changes and was not the result of "small accumulating changes".

LoricaLady said:

You are evading the Q. I asked you what evidence there is that ERVs have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses.

Click to expand...

ERVs aren't viruses. They're bits of DNA in the genomes of animals, including humans. Don't you think it would be better to have even a slight idea what you're talking about before lecturing the world's scientists about how stupid they are?

Loudmouth said:

What we should see is viruses evolving, and that is exactly what we see.

Click to expand...

Do you see them macroevolving?

sfs said:

ERVs aren't viruses. They're bits of DNA in the genomes of animals, including humans. Don't you think it would be better to have even a slight idea what you're talking about before lecturing the world's scientists about how stupid they are?

Click to expand...

Hence why I laughed earlier.

AV1611VET said:

Do you see them macroevolving?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that we were allowed to make up nonsense terms.

I want a try.

If evolution were true, how come we don't see viruses nandervaluting? See, nandervaluting doesn't happen, evolution is wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

LOUD MOUTH:
I have put my responses in purple.

--I give you credit for trying to answer the Qs. You no way answered them, but you did try.

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that.

The evidence is in the fundamental unity of life that simply doesn't have to be there other than for common ancestry. ---This is a faith based statement. It is not based on facts. It presupposes that evolution is true and then reasons backwards from that, faulty, premise. --- For example, we use the same tRNA anti-codons and the same metabolic pathways. If life did not share a common ancestor, then the tRNA's and metabolic pathways could have been very different. ATG codes for methionine in humans, but is there any reason why it couldn't code for alanine in bacteria? ---Rhetorical Qs. are not scientific data. ----There is certainly nothing stopping that from happening, other than common ancestry.---Fallacy of the Single Cause and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies, not data based statements.

LoricaLady stated, "I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc."

Just for reference, that is not evidence. That is an assertion. --- Sorry, but as above, you are the one who is confusing asssertions with evidence. I have checked out the data on bacteria and they stay bacteria. As mentioned earlier, this includes so called Cambrian fossilized bacteria that are simply bacteria. My statements are based on facts.

Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.
That is what you should see if evolution is true.---Your opinion based on backward reasoning and the assumption that evolution has to be true.--- You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. -- You have just made a series of statements which do not even address the Qs I have asked and which are based on nothing more than your opinion, with no backup data at all. ---If we are to believe the argument being put forward by LoricaLady, then all eukaryotes, from pine trees to people, evolving from a single celled eukaryotic common ancestor isn't change simply because we can describe all of those species with one name: eukaryote.--- I don't even get your point here. What you should have done was to explain why it is that natural selection, which supposedly leads to evoltution, actually leads to different varieties of the same kinds of life forms. You don't explain how fish staying fish and birds staying birds through natural selection is showing evolution - and I state that it shows the opposite.

This is what I call the creationist name game. They think that if they can use the same name to describe two different species that they can somehow claim that no change has happened. As we can all see, this just doesn't work. --- Your so called "name game" still doesn't give any evidence that natural selection is leading to evolution. Natural selection is happening all the time all over the planet. There is evidence overflowing on the planet that natural selection is causing bees to turn into different kind of bees, sharks to turn into different kinds of sharks, woodpeckers to turn into different kinds of woodpeckers. There is zip, zilch, nada evidence that natural selection is causing fish to be nonfish, finches to be nonfinches, etc. etc. etc. I like evidence, not theories that fly in the face of the actual evidence. --

Then we get even more empty assertions, like this one:

"In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc."

This claim is never supported by any evidence. Nowhere does LoricaLady support this assertion. --- Oh dear. I don't have the time to explain DNA for you and how it works. I suggest you Google, a lot, on the topic of DNA. Perhaps once you truly understand it, you will not be so fast at making assertions and calling them evidence. Later on you will accuse me, in this post, of not understanding evolution. Friend, if you don't understand DNA, and you obviously do not, you are lost.---

Qs #3 We are told mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?

This is a really easy one to answer. Why do you think humans are different from chimps? It is due to a difference in DNA sequence, is it not? ---Actually, that is not the only reason at all. For ex. the chimps' DNA has different, coded, instructions from ours. Again, you assert things very boldly when you really don't understand a basic things like DNA. Also, here is another example of you presenting an assertion, based on no data, and a rhetorical Q., and thinking that is somehow answering the Qs. You are...not...answering the Qs!-- You can directly see the mutations that have made all of these species different from each other. ---Where is the answer to my Q about evidence for mutations building on one another like leggos? You are just ignoring that because you probably know there is no such evidence.

Genetic equidistance is evidence that mutations accumulate.
"The genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock --Here we see some more typical "evo think". We are told "It appears that...." and then theories are presented as if they are validating data. They offer no evidence that "these two species originally diverged" and have none, yet that assertion is presented as scientific fact.

You can check the data yourself here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055

Please learn to do critical thinking. Yes indeed mutations accumulate. However, I asked you for evidence that they build on one another like leggos to do things like turn a fin into a foot. Garbage accumulates and by and large that's what mutations are, garbage. Does the garbage in your home build on itself like leggos to create complex structures?

Also, nowhere is any data shown for the claim that a majority of mutations are harmful. --- The information that mutations are ordinarily harmful can be found all over the net, including on evo. believing sites. Do more research. You are presenting yourself as someone who is very knowledgeable about science. Well, let's just say you need to do a heck of a lot more research.

Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?
It is the mixture of physical characteristics that evidences evolution. -- So, when they tell me ambulocetus, which looks pretty much like a horse and has 4 legs and hooves, turned into a great whale because it has some minor similarity in its ear to whales, I'm supposed to buy that? Because of its "mixture of physical characteristics"? Bull. Learn to spot and not be fooled by the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. It is the fave in evo. lit, especially with "transitional forms."--- The theory of evolution predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features, and that we should not see fossils with a mixture of ape and dog features. The Bible states that life forms were made fully formed and that creation stopped on the sixth day. We can predict that we would find fossils showing just that. There would be stasis in the fossil record (also vast worldwide fossil graveyards with marine life fossils all through the so called Geologic Column, even on mountain ranges, due to the Great Flood) and no new kingdoms, phylum, etc. but things staying basically the same. That's what we predict and what we see.It is these predictions that are tested with the fossil data. You seemed to have confused the terms transitional and ancestral. They are not the same thing. --- If you will check out, below, your own definition for transitional fossils you will see the word "ancestral" being used. You can't separate "transitional" from ancestral.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. --- Fallacy of the Single Cause, Presuming Omniscience Fallacy, Incomplete Comparison Fallacy..[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.--- Siiiigh. Don't you see the obvious here? They are admitting they don't really have the evidence, but they are going to tell you all about what happened anyway. --- Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Overall, you appear to have a lot of misinformation, and do not understand what the theory of evolution states, or how it is tested. --- Friend, I would say that statement is true of you and also that you don't understand logical fallacies and are getting presumptions and theories mixed up with actual evidence.

No, you did not answer a single Q with any actual scientific data at all. Sorry, but that's simply the truth.

We have plenty of evidence showing that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, such as the ERV evidence. Again, you are calling inferences and presumptions "evidence."

I'm sorry. That's all I have the time and, frankly, the patience for. I'll respond to one or two more people and then I'm finished with this string.

o that of apes, we

sfs - I looked up the definition regarding ERVs before typing:

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.

Retroviruses are any of a group of RNA viruses that insert a DNA copy of their genome into the host cell in order to replicate, e.g., HIV.

An RNA virus is a virus that has RNA as its genetic material. This nucleic acid is usually single-stranded RNA, but may be double-stranded RNA.

I'm always happy to learn anything new and to expand my knowledge if the source is good. Feel free to give further light on this if you feel you can. One way or another, I don't think ERVs are causing any climbs whatsoever up Darwin' so called Tree of Life. Any such ideas are purely fanciful theories presented as if they are facts.

ViaCrucis said:

I wasn't aware that we were allowed to make up nonsense terms.

Click to expand...

Like this site did?

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Click to expand...

SOURCE

ViaCrucis said:

I want a try.

Click to expand...

Help yourself.

As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

ViaCrucis said:

If evolution were true, how come we don't see viruses nandervaluting? See, nandervaluting doesn't happen, evolution is wrong.

Click to expand...

Nice.

Now do what I did.

Show me your term in Wikipedia.

Remember Jannes & Jambres?

sfs As a matter of fact I had already looked up info on ERVs in the past but searched them out again to be sure I was being factual. I find you whole approach to be extremely insulting and that is totally unnecessary. To quote you "You're sure as heck not going to persuade anyone with this kind of approach." At least not me.

I didn't learn anything from your post and it is suspect since it is filled with hostility. I will search out Google to see I am mistaken or not. That's all I have to say to you. Bye!