GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Wiccan_Child]

You wish. Evos are so desperate for intermediate fossils that they pretend they exist. Even though they can not produce any.

The real Lucy is on the left, the pretend Lucy is on the right.

And the difference is...? Biologists can tell you an incredible amount of information from a few bones, so with what we have from Lucy, we can tell an awful lot indeed. The interplay between her pelvis and her leg tells us how she walked, her spine tells us how she stood, her limb length tells us her gait and reach, her skull tells us the shape of her face, her ribs tell us her size, the composition of her bones tells us her diet and metabolism, the wear of the joints tells us her activity... the information is endless.

But you don't see that. You see a humanoid fossil and declare it 'just a human' or 'just an ape', as if that comment means anything in scientific discourse.

As I mentioned, every fossil in every museum constitutes a transitional form, since, in evolution, every creature is a transition across three generations from its parents to its offspring. Lucy is a transitional form. Tiktaalik is a transitional form. Archaeopteryx lithographica, Indohyus, Pakicetidae, Pezosiren portelli, all are transitional forms.

 

[TheReasoner]

You wish. Evos are so desperate for intermediate fossils that they pretend they exist. Even though they can not produce any.

The real Lucy is on the left, the pretend Lucy is on the right.

Of course! If someone without relevant knowledge cannot understand the work of someone with world-class competence in a complex field it must be fake. Right?

Jazer, okay. You don't see how this can possibly be believable. But:

1. Evolution does not rest on this one case, and will be perfectly valid without it.
2. You do not hold a relevant degree. So how can you deign to criticize it as if you held multiple nobel prizes?

To draw a parallel to another field closer to my own. I think it's a fair assessment to say that no-one or as good as no-one understands quantum mechanics. They are far too counter-intuitive. Yet we know from observations that it works the way the math predicts. The theory holds. Your computer wouldn't work if it didn't by the way, so don't tell me it's fake.
Now, evolution is far easier to understand. And observations back that, too. Things like this puzzle is a little complex and I couldn't make heads and tails of those bones. Just as I am pretty certain you couldn't make heads or tails of some of the equations I work with on a daily basis. But that does not mean I can dismiss that work any more than your not understanding mine means you can dismiss that. In fact, not understanding something should in some cases - such as this - mean that you should be careful about criticizing it too strongly. After all, you don't really know what you're talking about and could end up making a fool out of yourself. What you just did is probably - to a biologist with relevant expertise - pretty much like calling the schrodinger equation* a greek haiku to my face. With absolute certainty and a lot of derision in your voice. Needless to say that really would have made you a clown in my eyes, and for good reason.

*

 

[Jazer]

The interplay between her pelvis and her leg tells us how she walked,

Looking at the photo I do believe it. It's a scam. But you can believe what you want. You can even believe that the London Bridge is in Colorado if you want.

 

[Jazer]

You do not hold a relevant degree.

If I had a degree I would buy into your nonsense? I don't think so, all the more I would not buy into it. People with degrees argue all the time and do not agree. To honored professors from Harvard could not agree.

"Gould's greatest contribution to science was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

Then you have people that say gradualism does not even exist: "Authors such as Richard Dawkins argue that such constant-rate gradualism is not present in the professional literature." Wiki

So the evos can feel free to argue among themselves and try to figure out just what it is they believe. For us it is very confusing because of the wild swings where two evo will say the opposite. Even Einstein argued against the theory when he said "God does NOT play dice" with the universe.

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Einstein

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Looking at the photo I do believe it. It's a scam.

What, exactly, are you calling a scam? You already admitted you believe Lucy, the fossil, exists - are you denying that that individual walked around? Do you deny that the individual was female? Was young? Was a mammal? What, exactly, are you denying?

But you can believe what you want. You can even believe that the London Bridge is in Colorado if you want.

The evidence disagrees with that assessment, so I won't. The evidence agrees with the mainstream understanding of Lucy, so I'll continue to believe that. You can huff and puff all you want, but you've hardly given us any reason to doubt it.

 

[TheReasoner]

If I had a degree I would buy into your nonsense?

Yes. Because then you would know what you were talking about.

I don't think so, all the more I would not buy into it. People with degrees argue all the time and do not agree. To honored professors from Harvard could not agree.

Sure. But they don't disagree on certain core things, Jazer. And if you really think you'd buy less into it the more you knew, how come the real world presents the exact opposite? The more people know, the more they tend to respect others in other fields, and they tend to dismiss what you so arrogantly claim as nonsense.

So the evos can feel free to argue among themselves and try to figure out just what it is they believe. For us it is very confusing because of the wild swings where two evo will say the opposite. Even Einstein argued against the theory when he said "God does NOT play dice" with the universe.

Ah. hehe. No, Einstein did not argue against evolution with that statement. He argued against quantum mechanics, and later retracted the statement. Part of the normal heated academic debate that often takes place before a hypothesis is clearly reviewed and thoroughly tested. Especially prior to/during a paradigm shift.

You know I spoke of the Schrodinger equation being seen as a greek haiku? What you just did is almost as bad
Never ever make a bold statement like that without checking it first Jazer. Are you sure you're not lying about your age?

Sure, some sharp elbows do exist. Academics disagree and have rather strong arguments. But you're not qualified to dismiss the core of science because you don't understand it Jazer. Sure academics fight. Disagree on new theories and attack one anthers' hypothesises all the time. That's part of academia. Part of that world. It's part of the quality control in a sense. Criticize and topple ideas as they come forward. That is to say: Test them. And if they do not hold water, discard them. But most of the time the foundations that are extremely well documented and tested are not so attacked. Certainly not the way you do, even though you obviously don't have any relevant education.

 

[Jazer]

What, exactly, are you calling a scam? You already admitted you believe Lucy, the fossil, exists - are you denying that that individual walked around? Do you deny that the individual was female? Was young? Was a mammal? What, exactly, are you denying?

Gap people usually do not get into this monkey-man discussion. But in this case Lucy was clearly a monkey and not a missing link. Lucy is the species Australopithecus afarensis in the genus Australopithecus. She clearly can't be human if she's not the same species or genus as humans. Her features differ from Homo in the postcranial, cranial, mandibular, and pelvic regions.

 

[Jazer]

Are you sure you're not lying about your age?

My son is older then you are.

 

[TheReasoner]

Gap people usually do not get into this monkey-man discussion. But in this case Lucy was clearly a monkey and not a missing link.

And you're saying this based on what expertise? Yours?
[citation needed], Jazer.

I am not even convinced you are aware of the difference between ape and monkey given your posts.

That said, Lucy is one subject I can't contribute on. Because my knowledge in relevant fields and on the specific case is too low. Therefore I accept the claims of experts in the field as the most likely and dismiss words from average joes who make absolute claims. I am, however, aware she was no monkey.

 

[TheReasoner]

My son is older then you are.

So why do you behave like a 14 year old? Most 59 year olds I know have a much higher degree of humility, respect for others, and integrity/decency than you display as a general behavioral rule.

 

[Split Rock]

If I had a degree I would buy into your nonsense? I don't think so, all the more I would not buy into it. People with degrees argue all the time and do not agree. To honored professors from Harvard could not agree.

If you had a relevant degree, then you would be able to critique what the experts say. All you can do instead is say, "I'm not an expert, BUT...." That's when everyone else should just shut you off.

So the evos can feel free to argue among themselves and try to figure out just what it is they believe. For us it is very confusing because of the wild swings where two evo will say the opposite.

What "wild swings?" Sure, evolutionary biologists argue the details... that is what science is all about. No one argues that we didn't evolve from earlier apes, or that life on earth doesn't shares a common ancestor(s). That is all you guys need to hear before you say "Fraud!" "Lie!" "Myth!" or your favorite, "Scam!"

Even Einstein argued against the theory when he said "God does NOT play dice" with the universe.

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Einstein

This quote has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Gap people usually do not get into this monkey-man discussion. But in this case Lucy was clearly a monkey and not a missing link. Lucy is the species Australopithecus afarensis in the genus Australopithecus. She clearly can't be human if she's not the same species or genus as humans. Her features differ from Homo in the postcranial, cranial, mandibular, and pelvic regions.

Naturally, which is why no one ever says she's human. The point, however, is that she still exists as a transitional form. Not a transition to humans, certainly, but a transition nonetheless. She also serves as a good indicator of what hominids looked like at that time. Likewise, Archaeopteryx isn't the ancestor of modern birds, but it certainly gives a good idea of what that ancestor looked like at that time. A thousand years from now, people will look back and know that, while the chimp isn't the ancestor of the 'gorilla' genus, it is certainly a good example of what the ancestral gorilla from 2011 looked like.

Lucy's species is Australopithecus afarensis, and this species is thought to be the closest species at that time to a direct human ancestor - if not an ancestral species itself.

And, again, you've failed to answer my question: what, exactly, are you calling a scam? Her gender? Her age? Her bipedal gait? Her taxonomic classification?

 

[Jazer]

Academics disagree and have rather strong arguments. But you're not qualified to dismiss the core of science because you don't understand it Jazer.

Ok, science does not agree & you think I am not qualifed to determine who is right and who is wrong. So that means evolutionary theory is worthless. Because no one is qualified to know who to believe and who not to believe. I do not care anyways, because I am more interested to study the Bible and to attend Bible school. But using your standard most of science is not qualifed to comment on the Bible. Esp the ones that do not even have a 3 rd grade level of understanding and have had no training in the Bible at all. The door swings both ways, you can not have one without the other.

 

[Jazer]

then you would be able to critique what the experts say.

They contradict themselves and they do not agree. For example if I read a highly rated book on evolution there are lots of evolutionists here on this forum that will argue against the book. They think they know more about evolution then the experts. There is just way to much controversy with evolutionary theory, esp between evolutionists. People come here for no other reason then to fight and argue about it. Perhaps they get tired to fight and argue with themselves so they go looking for a creationist to fight and argue and disagree with. It is all pretty much a waste of time.

 

[Jazer]

And, again, you've failed to answer my question: what, exactly, are you calling a scam? Her gender? Her age? Her bipedal gait? Her taxonomic classification?

The controversy even among the experts is the bipedal gait.

 

[createdtoworship]

Except for all those darn fossils of intermediary forms, like bird-like reptiles (or is it reptile-like birds?), like primordial cetaceans, like Tiktaalik, like Lucy...

Oh, and then there's genetics, with things like ERVs and introns, and a nested hierarchy for every single protein in every single living species that map out the same nested hierarchy. If evolution didn't happen, care to explain how every protein bears the same, predicted pattern of relative deviation, no matter where we look?

We can look at proteins in humans and compare them to chimps. There's a small amount of deviation. In cats, there's more. In birds, there's more still. Novel proteins that evolution says occurred in (say) the common ancestor of mammals exist - there's no protein that only exists in the hummingbird and all mice, for instance. No, proteins exist in the taxonomic classifications that evolution tells us must exist, and they never 'cross boundaries'. Just as hair is a trait on all mammals and only on mammals, so too do proteins follow exactly the same system of exclusivity.

Care to explain why this is? Is it just a happy coincidence that every protein and feature in every body matches common descent?

which bird/reptiles do you speak of? And Lucy is just a knuckle-walking, apelike creature. The reason why the proteins are the same are more evidence for a creation from a common factory of origin (God).

Lucy She's no lady:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7639929005726140350

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The controversy even among the experts is the bipedal gait.

Only according to Creationists. It has long been established that A. afarensis was bipedal, and indeed A. afarensis changed the previous belief that an increased brain size preceded bipedal locomotion - when, in fact, the reverse was true. Wikipedia has a list of skeletal features that point to bipedal motion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

which bird/reptiles do you speak of?

Thinks like Archaeopteryx, Scansoriopteryx heilmanni, and Ichthyornis dispar. Creatures that are clear examples of species that lived at a time when a clade of reptiles were growing wings and feathers, but were not quite as avian as modern birds.

And Lucy is just a chimpanzee.

Uhh... no. No it's not. Lucy is a member of Australopithicus afarensis. It's no more chimpanzee than you are.

The reason why the proteins are the same are more evidence for a creation from a common factory of origin (God).

But they're not the same. They differ, and the amount by which they differ is in exact according with evolution. This is the same across all analysed proteins without fail. Not only this, but both proteins and larger features (like human ear muscles or mammalian hair) exist in the same taxonomic categorisation - exactly as we'd expect.

So tell me, why are all mammals hairy? If there's one Designer, why did he create everything to look exactly like they were descended from common ancestors, if they're not? If all mammal species were created independently, why don't we see some with no hair? Why don't we see non-mammals with mammalian hair? Why can we group things into taxa like 'mammal'?

The point isn't that this is incompatible with Creationism (after all, "God did it in mysterious ways" is your get out of jail free card). The point is that all of this, every protein and feature, constitutes very strong evidence indeed that evolution is true.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thinks like Archaeopteryx, Scansoriopteryx heilmanni, and Ichthyornis dispar. Creatures that are clear examples of species that lived at a time when a clade of reptiles were growing wings and feathers, but were not quite as avian as modern birds.

Archaeopteryx has been recently claimed a bird*, Scansoriopteryx heilmanni according to wikipedia is a close relative to birds, and Ichthyornis dispar means fish bird in the original language. So you have chosen all bird like avian creatures, no reptiles there.

Uhh... no. No it's not. Lucy is a member of Australopithicus afarensis. It's no more chimpanzee than you are.

I should say lucy is a knuckle-walking, apelike creature despite the taxonomy she is in. Not human in any form. (see video)

But they're not the same. They differ, and the amount by which they differ is in exact according with evolution. This is the same across all analysed proteins without fail. Not only this, but both proteins and larger features (like human ear muscles or mammalian hair) exist in the same taxonomic categorisation - exactly as we'd expect.

protein deviation is just micro evolution,

So tell me, why are all mammals hairy? If there's one Designer, why did he create everything to look exactly like they were descended from common ancestors, if they're not? If all mammal species were created independently, why don't we see some with no hair? Why don't we see non-mammals with mammalian hair? Why can we group things into taxa like 'mammal'?

hair follicle likeness is all micro evolution
you still have to provide at least one evidence of a transition of macro evolutionary scale.

*P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004.

controversial links on dino birds not having feathers
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-dino-feathers.html

 

[Jazer]

And you're saying this based on what expertise? Yours?
[citation needed], Jazer.

Based on the Bible School I attended.