Evolution's Brick Wall

[mark kennedy]

Would you please tell me what an "allele" is, in words I can understand?

Originally it was a trait, with Mendel there were seven he was trying to control. As science progressed they came to realize there were two copies of the gene, one was dominant the other recessive expressed in a 3 to 1 ratio. Mendel got lucky because the genes responsible for the traits were either on different chromosomes or far enough apart they could still interact. Technically an allel is a variation in the code but it generally implies a trait expressed by a gene. Thats about as simple as I can make it.

 

[pitabread]

...

 

[xianghua]

You can't arrange early 1980s VW vehicles into a hierarchy. Too many swapped modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_A_platform#A1

so what? its also true for creatures. we cant arrange many creatures in hiearchy too. when it happen they just call it "convergent evolution" or convergent loss".

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

It's part of the evolution delusion. They throw so much non evidence at people, they think, "it can't all be wrong", so they buy into it. They get lost in all the so- called complicated "evidence", and instead of actually looking close to see none of it actually pans out, they throw their hands up and just believe it

Creationism is not likely route even if the theory of evolution is wrong.

Creation it the most logical and most likely. If we asked how evolution started, you'd be missing a major part of the picture, creation covers all of it.

There is no requirement that prior forms of life explicitly go extinct just because something new evolves.

Of course there is, going extinct explains away the missing parts of evolution that are crucial to the puzzle. I mean there has to be some excuse for all those missing links...evolution would be nowhere without them.

 

[Job 33:6]

Didn't get to read the article but it looks like the one that was published in Naure when the Chimpanzee Genome paper was unveiled. The poster sfs, btw, was on staff for that paper. Anyway, it comes down to three, maybe four teeth and that's it for seven million years of evolution. Except the Taung Child and Lucy are nearly identical to Chimpanzees, funny how that worked out.

Are you suggesting that no chimpanzee fossils exist?

You asked for some and some were provided. Surely you understand that the fossil succession is a work in progress.

At one point in time we actually didn't have any dinosaur fossils either. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. And over time more and more were discovered.

Same with chimpanzees. We have some fossils here, and with time, just as all other transitional sequences, more will likely be uncovered despite acidic soils that prevent fossilization of their lineage.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Perhaps, and we can talk about that but did you miss the part where the brain is 1/4 the size of modern humans? To say nothing of the fact that chimpanzee ancestors are nonexistent.

Sure. I think it has been explained to you ad infinitum that brain size started small, and that the common ancestor of chimps and humans most likely lived in damp forests where fossilization is rare.

We dnt nd to fi evry intmdt spc to cnfm evoln.

 

[tas8831]

Why do so many Creationists think that fossils are the only evidence for evolution? The genetic evidence is way more powerful.

He just ignores that outright. Actually, he recently declared that he had 'education' in molecular biology and knew it was all wrong, words to that effect.

I am forever amazed at how many (usually self-taught) creationist experts on all science one runs into on the internet that, for example, think that evolution of an anatomical structure must proceed in fine gradations and that each gradation must be found in the fossil record, or that don't know the difference between an antibiotic and an antibody.

 

[tas8831]

This is from the Creation & Evolution forum statement of purpose:

• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

Since you’re disagreeing with the position I presented, it looks to me as though you're the one who needs to be posting supporting statements, instead of “liar, liar – pants on fire!” I provided support anyway... so where’s your supportive disagreement evidence?

But you started this thread, and later expanded upon, your mere not accepting - disagreeing with - mainstream science. And you presented nothing.

 

[inquiring mind]

He just ignores that outright. Actually, he recently declared that he had 'education' in molecular biology and knew it was all wrong, words to that effect.

I am forever amazed at how many (usually self-taught) creationist experts on all science one runs into on the internet that, for example, think that evolution of an anatomical structure must proceed in fine gradations and that each gradation must be found in the fossil record, or that don't know the difference between an antibiotic and an antibody.

Sure we do... there just ain't-a-body of definite proof to be found.

 

[inquiring mind]

And you presented nothing.

Oh, I don't know, I've enjoyed the thread... I'd like to think you have too.

 

[pitabread]

there just ain't-a-body of definite proof to be found.

Anyone looking to science for 100% "definite proof" of anything is doing it wrong.

Forget all this evolution stuff. A lot people don't even understand how science works.

 

[inquiring mind]

Anyone looking to science for 100% "definite proof" of anything is doing it wrong.

Forget all this evolution stuff. A lot people don't even understand how science works.

You’re not going to believe in Creation until the Great Day of Judgment, and I’m convinced that ‘ape to man’ evolution will never be proved beyond a doubt, so I guess this debate will be around long after we’re gone. We may as well enjoy it.

 

[tas8831]

Thats not entirely true, consider this. A limited number of reptiles, birds and mammals emerge from tbe Ark. Species today are anywhere from 2 million to 60 million distict species. So what happenened if tbey didnt evolve?

And where is each and every fossil intermediate between, say, the "bat kind" pair on the ark and the 1000+ extant species?

As I and others have noted many times, creationists very often do not think through their knee-jerk anti-evolution arguments.

Thanks for the input, Mark.

 

[tas8831]

I find it interesting that in the absence of convincing direct line transitional evidence...

And this is why I asked how much you know about fossilization and such.
And you never answered.

The only question I asked in the OP was, “How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?”

That is a rather uninformed and self-serving question, for you seem to think that a notion based on middle eastern tales for which there is no evidence at all is a legitimate option in the first place. No other aspect of reality operates the way creationists seem to hope - or believe - it does when the issue is evolution.

Some analogies -

Ford cars are the worst, therefore, Yugos are the best.

Ford cars are the worst, therefore aliens are real.

It is not entirely bright outside, therefore it must be midnight.

The moon is not made of green cheese, therefore it is made of blue cheese.

A bit more on your point:

I expect that in order for the moon to be made of green cheese, that we should see a clear progression of cheese types dating back to the middle ages. And since I personally do not see this, the proponents of a green cheese moon must admit that the moon is thus made of blue cheese.

 

[tas8831]

You’re not going to believe in Creation until the Great Day of Judgment, and I’m convinced that ‘ape to man’ evolution will never be proved beyond a doubt, so I guess this debate will be around long after we’re gone. We may as well enjoy it.

Apples and oranges. Do what you must to accept your choices. The rest of us will go with what makes sense.

 

[tas8831]

Here we go with more citations. I've provided a reference already, but apparently you don't want to watch it (they put their titles and universities they work for on the screen and everything), but you've got to pay attention and (clue) watch the end.

Didn't everybody know? A youtube video is the source of all truth. Well, unless it is a video that contradicts your beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes.

How ironic.

Can you provide definitive corroboration for the claims in Mark that the sky went dark for three hours when Jesus died on the cross?

That was supposed to have happened but a few thousand years ago, when there were all kinds of sophisticated human cultures all around the world, most with systems of writing and social hierarchies that were interested in recording events and such.

Surely it would be far, far easier for the Christian to present reams of verifiable, valid, corroborated evidence for such events being observed and recorded around the world, or at least in the middle east and adjoining areas where such events would have to have been observed as opposed to finding some specific set of fossils from millions of years ago?

This is why I ask creationists who think they have some kind of brilliant argument about fossils how much they actually understand about the topic.

Do you know under what conditions fossils can form? Do you know how prevalent such conditions are? It seems not.

I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

Non sequiturs abound.

I would feel a little ashamed were I to make such a foundationless claim.

 

[tas8831]

If yu cn re ths u shold uderstd y u dnt nee to fi evry fosl to cnfrm evolutn.

Too subtle, I think

 

[tas8831]

The hominid line appears abruptly 2 mya without precursors and no molecular mecanism for the triple expansion of the human brain from that of apes.

Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

I have come across these sorts of debates for literally decades. And without fail, regardless of the amount of apparent scientific reasons the creationists present, it ultimately comes down to their simple refusal to accept it - they just don't believe it. But that is not an argument.

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen is the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

For example - there is a mutant allele for the myostatin gene that produces, naturally, giant muscles:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jp7ZiewdHdY/TdogQbnTONI/AAAAAAAAABw/lOiFnKoV3qs/s1600/belgianblue.jpg

While I am not claiming this to be the case, why do you pre-reject something like this (I am assuming you would) in the case of human brain expansion?

That tremendous skeletal muscle expansion is the result of a single mutation. There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think).

 

[tas8831]

I have continued to lay down how evolution lacks historic proof- yet like your comment - zero fossil record evidence showing evolution actually happened on Earth.

You have done no such thing, and you have been observed over and over simply rejecting anything presented to you. That is not an argument, that is a tantrum.

It has been put up the evidence- but all I get is silence.

This is demonstrably false:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-of-lifeforms-observed.8050335/#post-72357383

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...feforms-observed.8050335/page-3#post-72359140

Just two examples from the thread you started declaring there to be no transitional fossils. Best I could tell (without going through all 64 pages of that thread) you did not reply to either of those posts.

You have a tendency to start bombastic threads, wander off for weeks, then return and ignore all the posts made in your absence, declaring that no evidence was presented.

Why do you do that? Is that your psychological defense mechanism? Hint - it ain't working.

You and every paleontology text have zero physical evidence proving one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record.

"Every" paleontology text? I forgot that you imply that you are some kind of expert. But can never show that you are. And your posts demonstrate the opposite.

How can this be except evolution never happened once.

Brilliant conclusion.

This is very hard for those with academic knowledge-base in Earth Science to face. Very hard.

Even harder for those without it but presenting themselves as experts nonetheless.

It is time for those promoting evolution to face up before people of the world that evolution of life on Earth is faith and conjecture based, with zero strata-based proof.

Why 'face up' to creationist lies?

Where is your "strata-based proof" for the middle eastern numerologist's tales that you accept without question?