I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[Mattin91]

ummm the ceolcanth that was found isn't found in the fossil record, in fact ceolcanth isn't a species, it's a family of simular fish. Finding a long thought extinct thing doesn't prove that long ages are wrong thats just stupid.

Those trees is wrong and not what creationists claim.

Those trees is wrong? That's it?

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Have you read anything about the coelacanth? I never called it a species.

Correcting the headline: 'Coelacanth', yes; 'ancient', no - creation.com

 

[loveofourlord]

Those trees is wrong? That's it?

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Have you read anything about the coelacanth? I never called it a species.

Correcting the headline: 'Coelacanth', yes; 'ancient', no - creation.com

yes I have, I've heard the pratts about it, and heard the refutations for over a decade :> These were some of the first ones I heard.

 

[The Barbarian]

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
Learn to pronounce
noun
BIOLOGY

1. major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

A genus is a whole taxonomic group. So is a family. Thought you knew. You are wrong again.

Most creationists accept the variation in species, genus and to a very limited degree family have yet to see a biblical creationist accept changes in orders

They consider all Proboscidea, for example, to be one kind:
When it comes to elephants, do all the members of the order Proboscidea belong to one Genesis kind? We do not know for sure, since nearly all of the recognized species are extinct. One thing we do know is that each species within Proboscidea, and there were once over 500,4 is not a separate kind. The example presented in appendix 1 about elephant teeth from two different families found in the same animal should alert us to the probability that many of these defined species and genera are within the “elephant kind.”
The Elephant Kind

We belong to the order called primates. That includes lemurs, monkeys, and apes (our particular family). Rock and a hard place, um?

Everything started from th at first microbe!

You've been misled. Humans, for example, are descended from other apes. Microbes (not a taxonomic group) gave rise first to colonial animals, and then to multicellular animals,but none of them were human or even chordates. You've been badly misled about that.

Well I gave yo your shot and you failed miserably.

Creationists can talk all the fancy talk, but after that all they can do is deny the evidence and claim victory.

That could be the reason why ID and creationism are continuing to decline in America.

But we are not talking speciation,

That's what "macroevolution"means. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species, and "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. As you learned, many creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, families, and even orders evolve.

They just claim macroevolution to that point, isn't really evolution. Just another one of the many games they play to muddy the conversation.

I do have faith in God and His Word!

Then accept it as it is, without your modern revisions.

Barbarian observes:
It merely shows the evolutionary relationship. Scutes seem to have evolved from feathers. Want to see the evidence for that?

done that and you failed.

You're going to need more than denial...


Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(5):923-33. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt060.
Rapid evolution of Beta-keratin genes contribute to phenotypic differences that distinguish turtles and birds from other reptiles.
Li YI1, Kong L, Ponting CP, Haerty W.
Author information
1
Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, MRC Functional Genomics Unit, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Sequencing of vertebrate genomes permits changes in distinct protein families, including gene gains and losses, to be ascribed to lineage-specific phenotypes. A prominent example of this is the large-scale duplication of beta-keratin genes in the ancestors of birds, which was crucial to the subsequent evolution of their beaks, claws, and feathers. Evidence suggests that the shell of Pseudomys nelsoni contains at least 16 beta-keratins proteins, but it is unknown whether this is a complete set and whether their corresponding genes are orthologous to avian beak, claw, or feather beta-keratin genes. To address these issues and to better understand the evolution of the turtle shell at a molecular level, we surveyed the diversity of beta-keratin genes from the genome assemblies of three turtles, Chrysemys picta, Pelodiscus sinensis, and Chelonia mydas, which together represent over 160 Myr of chelonian evolution. For these three turtles, we found 200 beta-keratins, which indicate that, as for birds, a large expansion of beta-keratin genes in turtles occurred concomitantly with the evolution of a unique phenotype, namely, their plastron and carapace. Phylogenetic reconstruction of beta-keratin gene evolution suggests that separate waves of gene duplication within a single genomic location gave rise to scales, claws, and feathers in birds, and independently the scutes of the shell in turtles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Those trees is wrong? That's it?

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Polystrate trees are forming near my house, in woods flooded decades ago by a dam. They aren't the puzzle creationists imagine them to be.

Have you read anything about the coelacanth? I never called it a species.

Correcting the headline: 'Coelacanth', yes; 'ancient', no - creation.com[/QUOTE]

The author of your site seems to think scientists believe coelacanths evolved into tetrapods. Which is pretty funny. They were too evolved in a different direction. Other fish, like Acanthostega were much closer to the group that produced tetrapods.

 

[nolidad]

A genus is a whole taxonomic group. So is a family. Thought you knew. You are wrong again.

So isn't an order, phylum, class and kingdom. I am right!

Rapid evolution of Beta-keratin genes contribute to phenotypic differences that distinguish turtles and birds from other reptiles.

This article doesn't show the evolution of a scale to feather. Just the beta keratins and opinions of evolutionists .

Then accept it as it is, without your modern revisions.

Barbarian observes:
It merely shows the evolutionary relationship. Scutes seem to have evolved from feathers. Want to see the evidence for that?

It is you who have revised the Word of God. god said in six days and you reject that! As well as other areas of His Word that don't fit in your non miraculous worldview!

Well if it is actual evidence and not your failed intelligent design article you previously posted! Well at least in this post you are getting more honest- you are now using ".seem".

That's what "macroevolution"means. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species, and "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. As you learned, many creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, families, and even orders evolve.

Well I will need to see these "many creationist organizations" who say that femilies and orders evolved in the Darwinian sense or neo darwinian or any other secular term used to say that random mutations added new information to a genome and preserved by natural selection to take one order and produce a new order .

ICR, AIG, CRS do not recognize any "evolution" in your sense- but do recognize that variation and speciation is a real phenomena, they also recognize changes within a family (say cannidae) but not taking one family and seeing it morph to another. This you will have to cite.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
A genus is a whole taxonomic group. So is a family. Thought you knew. You are wrong again.

So isn't an order, phylum, class and kingdom. I am right!

Nope. You're wrong yet again. Those are also taxonomic groups.

This article doesn't show the evolution of a scale to feather.

Rather it shows the evidence for the evolution of scutes from feathers.

You who have revised the Word of God, to make his allegory of creation into a literal history. But as Christians have found, the text itself says that it's not literal. One can't have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. You've changed scripture to fit your own desires.

Well I will need to see these "many creationist organizations" who say that femilies and orders evolved in the Darwinian sense

They claim that they changed (creationists don't want to admit evolution,even though it's directly observed) into new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders.

ICR, AIG, CRS do not recognize any "evolution" in your sense

They won't use the word, but they admit evolution in the scientific sense. They just don't want to call it evolution. Which as you may remember, is "descent with modification" or "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

but do recognize that variation and speciation is a real phenomena, they also recognize changes within a family (say cannidae) but not taking one family and seeing it morph to another. This you will have to cite.

Here's a diagram from an AiG video.

It shows, for example, all frogs as having a common ancestor, as the narrator said. The families of frogs all diverged from a common ancestor, according to the video.

So thus far, we have:
evolution of new species
evolution of new genera
evolution of new families

what's left?
new orders (but the Bible says bird kinds include bats, which are mammals)
In exceptional cases, we see common descent to include more than one class.
new classes
new phyla
new kingdoms

So about halfway there. That's a lot of progress. Just a couple of decades ago, creationists were denying any evolution at all.

 

[loveofourlord]

Barbarian observes:
A genus is a whole taxonomic group. So is a family. Thought you knew. You are wrong again.



Nope. You're wrong yet again. Those are also taxonomic groups.



Rather it shows the evidence for the evolution of scutes from feathers.

You who have revised the Word of God, to make his allegory of creation into a literal history. But as Christians have found, the text itself says that it's not literal. One can't have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. You've changed scripture to fit your own desires.



They claim that they changed (creationists don't want to admit evolution,even though it's directly observed) into new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders.



They won't use the word, but they admit evolution in the scientific sense. They just don't want to call it evolution. Which as you may remember, is "descent with modification" or "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."



Here's a diagram from an AiG video.

It shows, for example, all frogs as having a common ancestor, as the narrator said. The families of frogs all diverged from a common ancestor, according to the video.

So thus far, we have:
evolution of new species
evolution of new genera
evolution of new families

what's left?
new orders (but the Bible says bird kinds include bats, which are mammals)
In exceptional cases, we see common descent to include more than one class.
new classes
new phyla
new kingdoms

So about halfway there. That's a lot of progress. Just a couple of decades ago, creationists were denying any evolution at all.

it's like I keep saying, creastionists like to make kinds so broad that you can have the equivalent of, "Humans from monkeys isn't evolution because they are still primates." or, "Humans from fish isn't evolution they are still chordates." or Humans from mice isn't evolution they are still mammals." level of stuff. it's pretty easy to show how absurd it is when you compare things on the scale that humans would be equivalent.

 

[nolidad]

Barbarian observes:
A genus is a whole taxonomic group. So is a family. Thought you knew. You are wrong again.



Nope. You're wrong yet again. Those are also taxonomic groups.



Rather it shows the evidence for the evolution of scutes from feathers.

You who have revised the Word of God, to make his allegory of creation into a literal history. But as Christians have found, the text itself says that it's not literal. One can't have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. You've changed scripture to fit your own desires.



They claim that they changed (creationists don't want to admit evolution,even though it's directly observed) into new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders.



They won't use the word, but they admit evolution in the scientific sense. They just don't want to call it evolution. Which as you may remember, is "descent with modification" or "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."



Here's a diagram from an AiG video.

It shows, for example, all frogs as having a common ancestor, as the narrator said. The families of frogs all diverged from a common ancestor, according to the video.

So thus far, we have:
evolution of new species
evolution of new genera
evolution of new families

what's left?
new orders (but the Bible says bird kinds include bats, which are mammals)
In exceptional cases, we see common descent to include more than one class.
new classes
new phyla
new kingdoms

So about halfway there. That's a lot of progress. Just a couple of decades ago, creationists were denying any evolution at all.

You call it evolution- creationists know it as variation.

It started as a frog and ended as a frog! The taxonomic classifications are quite arbitrary at times. I forget where I sawe it debated but one evolutionist said we should get rid of the taxonomic groups altogether.

So no evolution that took microbes and brought them all the way to man! Or took a cowlike creature and turned it into a whale!

 

[loveofourlord]

You call it evolution- creationists know it as variation.

It started as a frog and ended as a frog! The taxonomic classifications are quite arbitrary at times. I forget where I sawe it debated but one evolutionist said we should get rid of the taxonomic groups altogether.

So no evolution that took microbes and brought them all the way to man! Or took a cowlike creature and turned it into a whale!

the differences between some frogs and fish is greater then monkeys to humans, they are about as distantly related. They look simularly but the DNA and such are as different. This is the problem of the, "They are still frogs." argument.

 

[Brightmoon]

You are so wrong you don't know just how wrong!

Dogs learn behavior and associate the sounds wit3h teh reward/punishment we train them with. dogs do not have understanding as people do. They know punishment/reward and when we say "sit" and they do and they are rewarded with love or treats then they associate it. Not with anysense of cognitive understanding.

. Dogs understand the concept of language (at least nouns and verbs)which is why they understand what you are saying . Even monkeys understand some nouns . Vervet monkeys have at least 3 words Snake, leopard, and eagle . When researchers recorded and played back them saying snake, for example , all the monkeys looked at the ground searching for that imaginary snake.

Well melanin is locked in the different types of humans. And it is blacks they hypothesize hear better because of melanin. More study needs to be done on that though!

Uncontrolled production of almost everything our bodies produce can cause cancer so that is a moot point!

. The melanin in our ears helps us hear better. Albinos are sometimes deaf and dark skinned people do hear better simply because they have more melanin. Having dark hair and eyes also helps.

I'm seeing the same thing I've read elsewhere. The same words I've read for years. Let's remove the Bible from this for a minute.

There are problems with long ages. A particular fish has survived after going missing for 400 million years. Then it was caught in a net.

A particular tree was missing for 200 million years but was found alive. You can buy one. It has features unlike a modern tree.

Over those millions of years, local catastrophes, changes in weather patterns and even large meteor strikes, but somehow - and that part remains unexplained - they survived.

There are photos of fossil trees that go through many layers of rock. When I post such photos, there is always no explanation for these fossils, but an accusation. I'm a Creationist or Young Earth Creationist. But how can a tree go through different layers, or strata, of rock and not rot away?

And today, if scientists were told evolution was not true, would it affect their work? It wouldn't.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

If you mean coelacanths, fossil coelacanths are not only different species but they’re in different genera than living ones. The word coelacanths is sorta like the word cat. It could mean a housecat or it could be a lion or a clouded leopard, all of which are in different genera. FYI housecat- Felis, lion-Panthera. clouded leopard-Neofelis

Magnolias have been around for a very long time . So have ginkgos and dawn redwoods . These are all modern species that have fossil ancestors and closely related fossil cousins and it’s blatantly obvious what they are even to laymen.

So called polystrate trees are usually buried by repeated ash falls over a few weeks or months .They aren’t evidence for a young earth

 

[nolidad]

the differences between some frogs and fish is greater then monkeys to humans, they are about as distantly related. They look simularly but the DNA and such are as different. This is the problem of the, "They are still frogs." argument.

Frogs are frogs and fish are fish! All sorts of varieties of both but never the twain they evolved!

 

[nolidad]

. Dogs understand the concept of language (at least nouns and verbs)which is why they understand what you are saying . Even monkeys understand some nouns . Vervet monkeys have at least 3 words Snake, leopard, and eagle . When researchers recorded and played back them saying snake, for example , all the monkeys looked at the ground searching for that imaginary snake.

different calls for different predators! But they have not added to that so it is instinct and not human like thought processes. We are unique in creation.

Same with dogs- they associate certain soun ds with certain requirements but do not understand like humansd do. We add to vocabulary, find differences ande expand- dogs do not on their own.

. The melanin in our ears helps us hear better. Albinos are sometimes deaf and dark skinned people do hear better simply because they have more melanin. Having dark hair and eyes also helps.

They do need to study more- but if it proves to be true- that means nothing to evolution or creation.

As the rest is addressed to MArtin- I will let him respond.

 

[Brightmoon]

Frogs are frogs and fish are fish! All sorts of varieties of both but never the twain they evolved!

. So when we find transitionals like Crassigyrinus you Creationists just ignore them .

Those are front legs attached to the shoulder girdle . Vestigial legs !
‘Nuff said

 

[nolidad]

. So when we find transitionals like Crassigyrinus you Creationists just ignore them . View attachment 267339
Those are front legs attached to the shoulder girdle . Vestigial legs !
‘Nuff said

https://www.google.com/search?q=crassigyrinus&rlz=1C1GNAM_enUS678US678&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=67aTI_MH4lFowM%3A%2CqiWyoM57lOhDFM%2C%2Fm%2F0df_y8&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRfsBwWhXBL6sg2ecHV7rFudPQ94A&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzo6Du1ojmAhVTsZ4KHZkIC-0Q_B0wCnoECAsQAw#imgrc=67aTI_MH4lFowM:


Well here are a bunch of other "artists renditions" of the fossil find. And yes it is an unusual critter! But where are the transitiopns from before and the transitions after????

This critter could have been some kind of salamander based on many of the artists rendition. And the rear could have been lobe fins!

https://www.google.com/search?q=skeletons+of+whales&rlz=1C1GNAM_enUS678US678&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=NbLFwSbJ4fs2QM%3A%2CYsH928CY0OGOYM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT3Ejb7Vb9fCMOXYJVmsYWQyqPiZA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy3obN14jmAhXBHjQIHZj9Dh8Q9QEwCnoECAQQJg#imgrc=NbLFwSbJ4fs2QM:

these are whales and teh front fins are just like the rear fins of crassigyrinus! The only reason they draw them as legs, is their belief in evolultion! Those could have been fins just as well. We just won't know now will we with empirical certainty.

Crassigyrinus - Wikipedia

Here: evolutionary paleontologists argue how to classify this critter!

So it could just be a different creature who died off by the time of the flood or shortly thereafter. And there is no solid evidence that it was an air breather. It could have been a fish or it could have been an amphib, but those are assumptions made- not proven by factual evidence. For teh record, I have no problem with it being an amphibian, but based on looking at the skeletal structure- it could have been gilled as well!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

hahaha 'nugg said...... wonderful, the sounds of silence now ? ...

we'll see.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

oh! .... 'nuff

 

[The Barbarian]

You call it evolution- creationists know it as variation.

Creationists depend on obfuscation to save their beliefs. But it won't work. In biology, "evolution" has a very specific meaning "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Or less precisely, Darwin's "descent with modification." Variation is what an existing population shows. Evolution is what happens to it over time.

It started as a frog and ended as a frog!

Well, that's a testable belief...

Gerobatrachus hottoni. The "frogamander", transitional between frogs and other amphibians. Predicted by evolutionary theory, but a complete mystery to creationists.

The taxonomic classifications are quite arbitrary at times.

Which is one reason why biologists overwhelmingly accept evolution. If creationism were true, we'd see nice, discrete species. Instead, we see all sorts of intermediate cases, making it almost impossible to define species. As Darwin pointed out, it's one more key to understanding how evolution works.

So no evolution that took microbes and brought them all the way to man!

What intermediate level between prokaryotes and humans do you suppose to be impossible?

Or took a cowlike creature and turned it into a whale!

Actually, it was an ungulate,but not cowlike. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says, the transitional series of whale fossils is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And although he has faith that someday creationists will be able to explain it, he admits that the evidence for whale evolution is particularly difficult for creationists:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[The Barbarian]

There are problems with long ages. A particular fish has survived after going missing for 400 million years. Then it was caught in a net.

Nope. That's another creationist superstition. You're likely thinking of coelacanths. But the two species alive today, are not in the fossil record. They are much evolved from the ancient ones.

A particular tree was missing for 200 million years but was found alive.

People in Europe didn't know about it, but in China, it had always been known. Ginkgos just became extinct in most of the world, but not in China. But it's a very different species from ancient ginkgos.

Although Ginkgo biloba and other species of the genus were once widespread throughout the world, its range shrank until by two million years ago, it was restricted to a small area of China.

For centuries, it was thought to be extinct in the wild, but is now known to grow in at least two small areas in Zhejiang province in eastern China, in the Tianmushan Reserve. However, high genetic uniformity exists among ginkgo trees from these areas, arguing against a natural origin of these populations and suggesting the ginkgo trees in these areas may have been planted and preserved by Chinese monks over a period of about 1,000 years.[31] This study demonstrates a greater genetic diversity in Southwestern China populations, supporting glacial refugia in mountains surrounding eastern Tibetan Plateau, where several old-growth candidates for wild populations have been reported.[31][32] Whether native ginkgo populations still exist has not been demonstrated unequivocally, but evidence grows favouring these Southwestern populations as wild, from genetic data but also from history of those territories, with bigger Ginkgo biloba trees being older than surrounding human settlements.[31]
Ginkgo biloba - Wikipedia

Over those millions of years, local catastrophes, changes in weather patterns and even large meteor strikes, but somehow - and that part remains unexplained - they survived.

There are at least 10 known species of ginkgo, only one of which is alive today; that one is not known in the fossil record.

There are photos of fossil trees that go through many layers of rock.

They are called "polystrate fossils." There are some forming in a lake near my home. They are the dead trunks of trees drowned when a reservoir was formed by a dam. Each year, a layer of silt covers more of them. Eventually, if they get completely buried, they will form polystrate fossils. No one who knows anything about this, is puzzled by it.

When I post such photos, there is always no explanation for these fossils, but an accusation.

And now you have your answer.

But how can a tree go through different layers, or strata, of rock and not rot away?

It's happening here and now.

And today, if scientists were told evolution was not true, would it affect their work?

As Mayr wrote, nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

There is a real blind spot here, to the repeatably advantageous.

Evolutionists continue to assert that more links, means more survival.

I contend, that the defence of the species bond and the fidelity of the species bond in particular, mean that no species will evolve in favor of its predator.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a real blind spot here, to the repeatably advantageous.

Evolutionists continue to assert that more links, means more survival.

No. Generally, having a lot of transitionals means one of three things:
1. The process was slow so more individuals were fossilized

2. The populations were widespread and/or numerous, so the relatively rare process of fossilization happened more often.

3.The population lived in places where fossilization was more likely.

I contend, that the defence of the species bond and the fidelity of the species bond in particular, mean that no species will evolve in favor of its predator.

That can happen. But it usually means the species will become extinct.