Evolution's Brick Wall

[LittleLambofJesus]

Except your trees are being rewritten as genomic advancements are made, half of them already shown to be false.
So much for predictive power....
So basically what I see is PR speak and refusal to face reality...

Trees walking about:

Mark 8:
23 And getting hold of the hand of the blind-one, He brings him forth out of the village. And spitting into the eyes<3659> of him,placing the hands on him, He inquired of him "What are thou observing"?
24 And looking he said "I am beholding the men, that as trees I see walking-about"
25 Thereafter again, He places the hands upon the eyes<3788> of him, and made him look-up, and he is restored and he beheld<1689> clearly all.

Revelation 8:7
The first Messenger trumpets, and hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the land.[fn]
And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.

 

[inquiring mind]

And the "Christian" speaks.

Given your posting history, you wouldn't understand anything I've written with science in it, so I see no sense in wasting my time with phony egotists like yourself. Buh bye.

No scientific knowledge displayed in this post either. Here's a novel idea for you, try answering questions on your feet instead of taking a day or two break to look things up, and then shouting them over the shoulder of one of your Atheist posting buddies who is actually in the discussion.

 

[tas8831]

When Elitism turns bad.

He is an elitist, too? Figures.

Re: elitists - why do you pretend to have a great science background, yet typically resort to bible verses when people bring up science?

Like when you claimed molecular biology knowledge, but could only muster some bible lore in response to my phylogenetics references?

 

[tas8831]

Why do the ones lacking illumination about Holy Spirit taught think they see things in perspective, and God needs their approval in how He does things?

Why does one that falsely claimed scientific knowledge never address science?

Now please present the mechanism via which this happened - you know, like all this mutation and selection and stuff that we know about for evolution.

Evolution is the 'observation', mutation+selection+drift and such is the mechanism, for which there is a good bit of evidence.

Merely postulating "God" is not an actual mechanism.

 

[tas8831]

No scientific knowledge displayed in this post either. Here's a novel idea for you, try answering questions on your feet instead of taking a day or two break to look things up, and then shouting them over the shoulder of one of your Atheist posting buddies who is actually in the discussion.

What a silly, childish response. You mentioned nothing scientific, why do you expect a scientific response?

Putting you on ignore with the other trolls.

 

[tas8831]

That's what I thought, you don't read the source material mad argue in circles around it. I knew you wouldn't read it Darwinians are ridiculously predictible.

Not as predictable as others. As I wrote the last time you brought this up - you've been making the exact same claims for years, and each time, you get refuted. Yet you keep coming back with the same claims, even the same citations most of the time.
Clockwork.

Anyway, I see that HAR1a is expressed in testes and colon, too.

 

[tas8831]

Lol! A NASA sls rocket is not a jet airplane with a bigger engine. It has a fundamentally different structure and propulsion technology, and has designs that are unique to space travel. Humans, by contrast, use fundamentally the same structure and organs as other apes.

Wow - I have the trolls on ignore but making an analogy between a rocket motor and a jet engine - can they really be that Dunning-Krugerish?

 

[inquiring mind]

Wow - I have the trolls on ignore but making an analogy between a rocket motor and a jet engine - can they really be that Dunning-Krugerish?

Sure you do... read Post#1182, including pitabread's comment, and see if you think I said what doubtingmerele thought I said. If you do, I won't be surprised though.

 

[tas8831]

Evidence where a lifeform changed from having a working leg and foot (say like an alligator creature) and then we see fossils where the leg and foot transforms (by so-called evolution bit by bit morphological changes) to eventually no toes, decrepit joint on limb, ongoing change still occurring where we see a hardly-working limb sequences of stages until the limb is gone and you it changed from a leg to no leg or into a fin morphologically changed aquatic creature.

Here is how I know that you are not honest when you talk about your amazing 'science' background -

1. You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype
2. You do not even understand extant morphology:

Tell us all what that is. Tell us what it looks like in a living organism.

You don't even know what to look for in the fossil record, yet here you are pontificating.

Read this.

You are hiding a whole lot by inserting conjecture about molecular level events.

Proof of evolution should be plainly be shown in the fossil record.

We should be able to observe the fossil record and see the bit by bit morphological changes clearly seeing one creature transformed into another creature, and the morphological detailed changes in the fossil crestures inbetween. /quote]
See above.

Why do you post conjecture based molecular level conclusions.

That you cannot understand the impact of molecular biology is obvious to all but yourself, it seems.

You continue to make a fool of yourself with your pompous proclamations on these subjects, yet you either cannot see it, or you refuse to.

So, keep up the good work! I need archive material for my students to tear apart.

 

[tas8831]

The D-Team has arrived...

 

[tas8831]

Isn't it cute how creationists seem to think that evolution is SOLELY morphological...

 

[inquiring mind]

What a silly, childish response. You mentioned nothing scientific, why do you expect a scientific response?

Putting you on ignore with the other trolls.

Glad you dropped the one word; someone must have tipped you off. That's okay I wasn't gonna report you, yet anyway. There's another word you're using freely that's against the flaming rule (just for your info).

 

[xianghua]

From what?

And which globin?

from something that isnt globin. maybe another protein family.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or perhaps you think there is some kind of giant conspiracy where I am hiding fossils in my basement from the public haha.

Would it honestly surprise you, if that were the case?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In all cases you have distinct fully formed creatures.

Did you expect crockoducks instead?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then tell me how the prediction of the locality of tiktaalik was made. If you disbelieve.

And @inquiring mind this question is for you too.

I'm just quoting this to bring to the attention of both @Justatruthseeker and @inquiring mind , that they were asked this question multiple times now and still no answers are forthcoming. Instead, just repeats of claims that have also been corrected multiple times already.

Care to answer the question?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm just quoting this to bring to the attention of both @Justatruthseeker and @inquiring mind , that they were asked this question multiple times now and still no answers are forthcoming. Instead, just repeats of claims that have also been corrected multiple times already.
Care to answer the question?

Would it surprise you if I admitted that I don’t know? I don’t believe the earth is flat either, but I can’t explain it intelligently in astrophysical terms. Can you answer the question concisely without me having to read a tome of research papers or backtrack through the posts?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would it surprise you if I admitted that I don’t know?

No, that was already kind of clear after the question was left unanswered on multiple occasions.

More importantly though, the very fact that scientists were able to predict the locality of this specific fossil with those specific features, kind of flies in the face of your claims that "macro evolution" has no supporting evidence.

What better fossil evidence thereof can there be, then actually literally predicting the locality of a previously unknown fossil, holding a combination of certain features never seen before in any fossil - while knowing that that prediction naturally flows from the premise that macro-evolution occured?

Can you answer the question concisely without me having to read a tome of research papers or backtrack through the posts?

Sure.

They were able to predict both the locality and features of this previously unknown fossil based on simply the theory of evolution and the radiation patterns it results in both in genotype/phenotype and geographical distribution of species.

For the same reason, we can predict that kangaroos will only be found in Australia. Because that's where they evolved and since the time they evolved, there hasn't been any land bridge by which they could leave that continent.

So it seems that if you assume an evolutionary history of life, you can use that framework to make predictions about fossil locations, geographic distribution of species, distribution patterns of genetic markers, distribution patterns of anatomical features, etc etc etc.

How could that be, if evolution theory isn't accurate?

 

[Job 33:6]

Precisely^.

If evolution on a macro scale, did not occur, then such a prediction would be, practically impossible.

Which is why no deniar of evolution can answer the question.

But in reality, in the real world, we make these predictions all the time. Not only is it possible, but it's a given. It is the standard. It is normal and common.

And this only logically makes sense, given that evolution is true. There is no alternative.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, that was already kind of clear after the question was left unanswered on multiple occasions.

More importantly though, the very fact that scientists were able to predict the locality of this specific fossil with those specific features, kind of flies in the face of your claims that "macro evolution" has no supporting evidence.

What better fossil evidence thereof can there be, then actually literally predicting the locality of a previously unknown fossil, holding a combination of certain features never seen before in any fossil - while knowing that that prediction naturally flows from the premise that macro-evolution occured?




Sure.

They were able to predict both the locality and features of this previously unknown fossil based on simply the theory of evolution and the radiation patterns it results in both in genotype/phenotype and geographical distribution of species.

For the same reason, we can predict that kangaroos will only be found in Australia. Because that's where they evolved and since the time they evolved, there hasn't been any land bridge by which they could leave that continent.

So it seems that if you assume an evolutionary history of life, you can use that framework to make predictions about fossil locations, geographic distribution of species, distribution patterns of genetic markers, distribution patterns of anatomical features, etc etc etc.

How could that be, if evolution theory isn't accurate?

I can see where this find would be eagerly received by evolutionists as proof of their model. I remember now that this was where I asked that with millions of kinds in God's creation, should we be surprised to find some anomalies in both predictability and kind that appear to be transitioning in the evolution model? I think I asked if this might be a possibility here? The only answer I got, as I remember, was that it was impossible for such a thing to happen. Didn't this find happen ten years or so ago? Is there further evidence at this time to back it up? Close just counts in horseshoes as they say.