Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Justatruthseeker]

Only if you keep ignoring and lying about the actual evidence, like you've been doing for months now.

What evidence? Fossils always remaining the same for every type across millions of years? Missing common ancestors that are only existing in your own mind? Bacteria that remain bacteria? Fruit flies that remain fruit flies? Finches that remain finches and mate in front of your eyes????

That evidence?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1 billion christians don't have any problem with evolutionary theory.
Many theist biologist don't either.

You need to stop lying and start answering the question concerning the feet to flipper fossils.

Broad is the way that leads to destruction....

Because billions jump off a cliff doesn’t mean I’m jumping with them....

 

[Jimmy D]

Of course it makes no sense, you think humans are apes and apes aren’t apes but human......

Do I?

Don't talk rubbish.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do I?

Don't talk rubbish.

And yet you were opposed to classifying apes with apes......

That rubbish is from your end, you are seeing your own reflection...

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet you were opposed to classifying apes with apes......

What are you going on about now?

You said that I "think humans are apes and apes aren’t apes but human......"

Did I say that or not?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What are you going on about now?

You said that I "think humans are apes and apes aren’t apes but human......"

Did I say that or not?

No I said: “Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.”

To which you objected. So you must agree apes are humans and humans are apes....

Make up your mind what you believe....

 

[tas8831]

The thread topic.

Evolution has not been seen once to occur by scientific investigation of the fossil record.

Not by those lacking competence in paleontology, nor by those that engage in credential embellishment or rely on grandstanding, to be sure.

 

[tas8831]

So far no inbetween fossils to post #7 and #9.

Please explain what you mean by "in between".

What comes between a parent with a normal phenotype:
http://www.einsteins-emporium.com/human-anatomy/images/sh225-flexible-fred-human-skeleton.jpg

and their achondroplastic child:

https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1361-title-title-grid-view-1418245473.jpg

I have asked you many times - each time you ignored the questions - why do you think there SHOULD be an 'in between' fossil?

 

[tas8831]

No I said: “Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.”

To which you objected. So you must agree apes are humans and humans are apes....

Make up your mind what you believe....

Hylobatids are gibbons, the lesser apes. Gorillas are not hylobatids. Nor are chimps or orangs.

Oh - and Hylobatidae is not a genus, but a family.

More pitfalls of arguing from ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

By what evidence did the unearthed fossils become arranged as if from or of the adjacent creatures?

The strata in which they were discovered?

There are no such inbetween Ambulocetidae to Rimingtoncetidae fossils.

You seem unable to answer simple questions that you imply via your repetitive bombast that you understand.

WHY do you think there needs to be something in between, and why, without this in between, are the adjacent fossils problematic?

An analogy -


We have discovered the following letters of the alphabet -

A - B - C - ?- E - ? - ? - H- I

We conclude that H follows E.

You charge to the podium and declare that with knowing what comes between E and H, it is impossible to claim that H follows E!

See how naive and silly that is?[/quote]

 

[tas8831]

Little do the evolutionists of today know that they do not have foundational evidence for evolution.

False.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
​

You have seen this before. Several times. That you still make your hyperbolic, deceptive regurgitations re: 'no foundation' says much.

 

[Heissonear]

By age and comparative anatomy.

Evolution theory predicts that if the one on the right (whale) evolved from the one on the left (the land animal), then you should be able to find fossils aged between them of such "feet" progressively changing into the "flipper" on the right.

Dogma, you are trying to prove fossil arrangement by use of 4 fossils to prove the complete evolution of mammals morphing from land to marine mammals.

Four independent creatures selected and arranged to present evolution occurred from land to marine life.

Use of 4 fossils is a clear stretch-claim one evolved into the other and show land to marine evolution occurred.

You state "the theory predicts." Showing 4 fossils with such a statement is not evidence.

Isolated creatures of different environments arranged by evolutionists to claim land to marine evolution does not fly.

The creatures in their environments were isolated. One needs fossils of one changing into the other to confirm the claim.

Fossils showing evolution is the bases of what happened, not words, claims, and any other statements or conclusions.

It needs to be faced: the fossils that show one fossil changing into the next fossil are missing.

Again, words and claims of "similar" and the like are not evidence in such distinctly different creatures.

That is the OP point. Evolution lacks the detailed fossil record supportive evidence. One creature evolving into the next claimed creature are missing. Period.

They are wild claims to state/claim/or try to prove the anatomy of each of the 4 fossils are morphologically similar in a sequential order that shows evolution happened.

That would be called a Macro-evolution claim.

Macro-evolution claims do not fly; that is not proof of evolution ocurred.

Only claims from 4 distinctly different fossils that one evolved from the other, even if time sequence is determined, does not fly. They are words used to state a claim. The real evidence, fossils, are missing.

You are missing fossil evidence and are trying to Macro claim your way to state evolution happened. You are following the path of other over-promoters before you.

Science is based on factual evidence. Where are the fossils between the macro-assemblages representatives? They do not exist.

If the fossils are not found between the 4 listed creatures then any claim such fossils did occur between one of the 4 creatures is mere claims without due evidence.

If evolution occurred, then there would be a complete string sequence between the 4 fossils, showing one evolved into the other: no mere words needed. It would be shown by fossils.

You cannot by reason or conclusion statements produce evidence.

The evidence are fossils. They are missing, which shows one creature did not evolve into the next creature. Only claims of evolution without fossil evidence support.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not by those lacking competence in paleontology, nor by those that engage in credential embellishment or rely on grandstanding, to be sure.

Nor by those insisting we accept imaginary missing common ancestor for every single claimed split on every single tree.

I know it’s hard to admit the fossils for every creature remain the same across millions of years and the only way they are linked is imaginations of the mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hylobatids are gibbons, the lesser apes. Gorillas are not hylobatids. Nor are chimps or orangs.

Oh - and Hylobatidae is not a genus, but a family.

More pitfalls of arguing from ignorance.

And apes are apes and humans are humans and don’t even share the same family. But then that’s why you have to insert that missing common ancestor to link two separate creatures together.

Lesser apes, lol. See, can’t even bring yourself to admit a lesser or greater ape is still an ape....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dogma, you are trying to prove fossil arrangement by use of 4 fossils to prove the complete evolution of mammals morphing from land to marine mammals.

View attachment 243808

Four independent creatures selected and arranged to present evolution occurred from land to marine life.

Use of 4 fossils is a clear stretch-claim one evolved into the other and show land to marine evolution occurred.

You state "the theory predicts." Showing 4 fossils with such a statement is not evidence.

Isolated creatures of different environments arranged by evolutionists to claim land to marine evolution does not fly.

The creatures in their environments were isolated. One needs fossils of one changing into the other to confirm the claim.

Fossils showing evolution is the bases of what happened, not words, claims, and any other statements or conclusions.

It needs to be faced: the fossils that show one fossil changing into the next fossil are missing.

Again, words and claims of "similar" and the like are not evidence in such distinctly different creatures.

That is the OP point. Evolution lacks the detailed fossil record supportive evidence. One creature evolving into the next claimed creature are missing. Period.

They are wild claims to state/claim/or try to prove the anatomy of each of the 4 fossils are morphologically similar in a sequential order that shows evolution happened.

That would be called a Macro-evolution claim.

Macro-evolution claims do not fly; that is not proof of evolution ocurred.

Only claims from 4 distinctly different fossils that one evolved from the other, even if time sequence is determined, does not fly. They are words used to state a claim. The real evidence, fossils, are missing.

You are missing fossil evidence and are trying to Macro claim your way to state evolution happened. You are following the path of other over-promoters before you.

Science is based on factual evidence. Where are the fossils between the macro-assemblages representatives? They do not exist.

If the fossils are not found between the 4 listed creatures then any claim such fossils did occur between one of the 4 creatures is mere claims without due evidence.

If evolution occurred, then there would be a complete string sequence between the 4 fossils, showing one evolved into the other: no mere words needed. It would be shown by fossils.

You cannot by reason or conclusion statements produce evidence.

The evidence are fossils. They are missing, which shows one creature did not evolve into the next creature. Only claims of evolution without fossil evidence support.

They like to forget that this is the entire reason punctuated equilibrium was invented, because there was no clear or convincing fossil evidence to show evolution.

They know the evidence isn’t there, that they have simply taken 4 distinct creatures and made an unsupported claim they are linked. And this is the best they got, and wonder why we won’t fall down and worship at the feet of the god ToE.

Ignore the real data that as the limits of variation is reached, animals slowly reach the point they are no longer able to reproduce with others like them (Liger) and so are on a path to nowhere but extinction if the parental subspecies do not continue to produce them. The variation barrier (Kind) almost reached, unable to reproduce with others just like it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And that definition means absolutely nothing.

I could say that a splonger is a plimbentuck that's been turned inside out so you can splarfle the nooblats, but that doesn't tell you anything does it?

But that’s not what he told you he believes. He didn’t say Kind was an inside out genus, but equaled it. I disagree with him but how you equate same to mean different is beyond me..... how can you claim to understand what a genus is but can’t understand what Kind means (according to him) is what is not understandable.

If I say x = y, then why are you having so much trouble understanding what the value of x is if you already understand what the value of y is? Or is it you just don’t want to understand the value of x as equaling y?

 

[Kylie]

Synonyms mean nothing to you?

A blarffle is a sploop, which is also a nungie.

Synonyms mean nothing unless you actually define them.

Um ... not a good comparison.

I pointed out that "genus" is a synonym for "kind."

And I pointed out that splonger is a synonym for plimbentuck.

Your example is of two things, neither of which is acceptable scientific jargon.

(Unless you're saying that "genus" is not an acceptable scientific word.)

Yes, genus is an acceptable scientific word. But you miss the point. Genus is a word invented by humans, so there's no reason to assume that it means the same as a word that God invented. Also, there have been cases of genuses which have changed, either two genuses merging into one or one genus which was divided into two. This doesn't mesh with your original created kinds concept.

 

[Kylie]

Yup ... that happens to be one of its byproducts.

And I think it's more than coincidental.

Yeah, everyone who studies any science degree starts off with the same course. "Proving the Bible wrong 101."

 

[Kylie]

so what? the fact that they can interbreed prove that they are basically the same creature. this is why the definition"species" is problematic.

And didn't I say that? I never said that there was a 100% accurate clear cut well defined definition of species that always works no matter what.

But the fact that ligers are, on average, not as fertile as lions or tigers is evidence that lions and tigers are evolving away from their common ancestor.

 

[Kylie]

For the same reason when you dilute anything it is less than the original, not greater. Along with damaging mutations.

You are not increasing variation, you are varying what already exists.......

It only doesn’t make sense to an evolutionists that thinks variation is magically adding something to the genome, not merely taking an existing genome and running through possible combinations that already exist within it. Some lines lead to more possibilities than others....

What really made no sense is your belief that new species arise when every single time that saturation barrier is approached, the ability to mate becomes slimmer and slimmer to the point of non-existence and leads only to extinction.... but you keep ignoring that for some reason, why is that?????

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about.