Evolution's Brick Wall

[tas8831]

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.

But, darn it, no fossils of the Behemoth or Leviathan.
Or John the Baptist.
Or Moses.
Or...

 

[tas8831]

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

Yes, I enjoy showing the vacuous argumentation of the anti-science creationists, that is true.

 

[tas8831]

Fully formed with pristine genomes.

No evidence for this, I guess?

 

[tas8831]

Hi Mark - hoping you can address this:

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).

 

[Heissonear]

The creation events would have been 6000 years ago and a pristine genome is the a sense of mutations. You have a gene that should produce vitiman c but it's broke. After generations of inbreeding the gene pool shrinks, thats one of the side effects. Hitler got it backwards, the master race isn't produced by inbreeding Arians. If you want a master race it would be by breeding on the largest possible scale. A bit counter intuitive but the only viable means of expanding the gene pool.

Your reply shows how some major things become backwards in Earthly knowledge. Great reply!

 

[AV1611VET]

But, darn it, no fossils of the Behemoth or Leviathan.

What would they look like?

 

[pitabread]

The creation events would have been 6000 years ago and a pristine genome is the a sense of mutations.

Do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old then? That there was no life beforehand?

Also, I'm still not clear what you think the original genomes looked like. Free of mutations is one thing, but that doesn't really say much unless you have a base line from which you are starting. In the case of common ancestry, it would be a common genome shared between two extant species. But in the case of a created genome, you would have no idea what that looked like. How could you identify what is a mutation and what isn't?

You have a gene that should produce vitiman c but it's broke.

How would you know it wasn't just created that way?

 

[pitabread]

I only know (in the process of learning I should say) what the Bible tells us.

Where in the Bible does it mention genomes?

And the Bible didn't give us a date, so I don't have a clue.

There is no other way to determine a date?

 

[inquiring mind]

Where in the Bible does it mention genomes?

Where did I mention "genomes"?

There is no other way to determine a date?

There is not another authority.

 

[pitabread]

Where did I mention "genomes"?

You had responded to a question I asked about the first genomes.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yes, I enjoy showing the vacuous argumentation of the anti-science creationists, that is true.

Well, since you apparently don’t approve of videos, maybe it’d be a richer experience for you to debate your viewpoint with someone at a local bookstore.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old then? That there was no life beforehand?

Also, I'm still not clear what you think the original genomes looked like. Free of mutations is one thing, but that doesn't really say much unless you have a base line from which you are starting. In the case of common ancestry, it would be a common genome shared between two extant species. But in the case of a created genome, you would have no idea what that looked like. How could you identify what is a mutation and what isn't?



How would you know it wasn't just created that way?

The earth may well be much older, all we know about original creation is it was in the beginning. The gulo gene that's supposed to produce victims c works in some species and the protein coding sequence has an altered amino acid sequence. Its some kind of frameshift if memory serves.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your reply shows how some major things become backwards in Earthly knowledge. Great reply!

Things aren't always evolving, some devolve.

 

[mark kennedy]

What would they look like?

The leviathan would look like a fire breathing dragon.

 

[AV1611VET]

The leviathan would look like a fire breathing dragon.

Good point.

I totally agree.

 

[pitabread]

The earth may well be much older, all we know about original creation is it was in the beginning.

What about life though? Is life older than 6000 years?

The gulo gene that's supposed to produce victims c works in some species and the protein coding sequence has an altered amino acid sequence. Its some kind of frameshift if memory serves.

I'm familiar with the gene in question. I'm just wondering how you know it's a mutation in the human species and wasn't originally created that way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And the Bible didn't give us a date, so I don't have a clue.

There are lots of things the bible does not say, but I still have a clue.

Sorry you don't have a clue.

 

[Colter]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

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.

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?

Transitional fossils will never be found for the simple reason that they never existed. Evolution has been characterized by mutations.

 

[pitabread]

Transitional fossils will never be found for the simple reason that they never existed.

Except that they do exist per the definition of a transitional fossil.

 

[Colter]

Except that they do exist per the definition of a transitional fossil.

Not in the increments that are speculated about. There is just an assumption that they should exist.