ICR Acts and Facts

[HitchSlap]

For Yttrium:

A little blurb for you to debunk the prevailing hypothesis that YEC scientists are either not real scientists or inferior scientists. From Acts and Facts:

Skeptics often claim creation scientists aren’t really scientists, supposing they don’t conduct actual research or publish in scientific journals. Dr. Vernon Cupps earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Indiana University and has 73 publications in secular scientific journals. In addition to working at Fermilab for 23 years, where he managed the operation of the Radioisotope Analysis Facility, Dr. Cupps also researched at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Canada’s TRIUMF Accelerator.

ICR scientists conduct scientific research to show the abundance of evidence that confirms the accuracy and authority of the Bible.

ICR scientists like Dr. Cupps conduct scientific research to show the abundance of evidence that confirms the accuracy and authority of the Bible. Our ministry has published numerous resources that explain why evolution is scientifically untenable, how most of Earth’s rock layers formed during the Genesis Flood, and why soft tissue in dinosaur fossils couldn’t possibly be millions of years old. Now we offer Rethinking Radiometric Dating to challenge the dating methods undergirding secular science’s deep-time ages, to help Christian believers confidently defend their faith, and to invite skeptics to reevaluate their deep-time beliefs

Anything from ICR tends to read like a Trump tweet.

lol

 

[Yttrium]

For Yttrium:

A little blurb for you to debunk the prevailing hypothesis that YEC scientists are either not real scientists or inferior scientists.

Don't look at me. There have been plenty of excellent scientists in the past who were young Earth creationists. I'm sure Dr. Cupps did a fine job at Fermilab. Consider the hypothesis debunked.

 

[pitabread]

there is no demonstrable or empirical evidence to demonstrate how things like flippers became limbs, scales to feathers, limbs to wings cold blooded to warm blooded, etc.etc.etc.

One of the best ways to understand how shifts in function can occur evolutionary speaking is to look to real-world examples of animals that have things like half-flippers or half-wings.

For example, eared seals have arguably one of the best examples of a half-leg/half-flipper:

Looking at comparative anatomy, it doesn't take much to see how such structures could evolve into full-blown flippers:

 

[nolidad]

One of the best ways to understand how shifts in function can occur evolutionary speaking is to look to real-world examples of animals that have things like half-flippers or half-wings.

For example, eared seals have arguably one of the best examples of a half-leg/half-flipper:

Looking at comparative anatomy, it doesn't take much to see how such structures could evolve into full-blown flippers:

But seals are not in any evolutionary line between land animals and whales! Seals have always been seals! So that is like looking at a dog and saying how monkeys developed!

The only supposed transition for pinnipeds is known as puijila and the fossil is a full land walker! Everything else is assumed based on the belief in evolution and the flawed time scale used to determine when the fossil was a living thing.

 

[nolidad]

Don't look at me. There have been plenty of excellent scientists in the past who were young Earth creationists. I'm sure Dr. Cupps did a fine job at Fermilab. Consider the hypothesis debunked.

Well you are very rare in evolutionary circles that post on discussion sites! Most dismiss YEC scientists as deceived, liars or not real scientists.

 

[nolidad]

Anything from ICR tends to read like a Trump tweet.

lol

Well that is your hypothesis and you are entitled to it. But it proves nothing other than you have an opinion. If you wish to show the standard and then why ICR articles written for the common folk instead of technicalese are ( I am assuming) foolish I am all ears.

Making allegations are a dime a dozen- supporting it with real evidence is what matters.

 

[nolidad]

Species are hardier to the current environmental pressures? No one ever said that. Many populations of species are facing new and crushing environmental pressures.

You said that which is why I wrote what I did!

"Yttrium said: ↑
That's the idea. And that's where the article gets debunked. With evolution, the survivable traits are preserved, resulting in a population that's hardier to the current environmental pressures. Saying that the current hardiness of an organism can't be explained by evolution is nonsensical, since that's what evolution is mostly about."

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Most species that ever lived are extinct. Where did the ones who weren't suited go? They kinda died.

But according to evolution theory- every micro mutation that survived had to confer an advantage- so whaere are all the massive amounts of transitions. Which also begs the questions- if these micro mutations gave them an enviornmental advantage- did the environment keep making changes that caused those advantaged creatures to become disadvantaged????

 

[pitabread]

But seals are not in any evolutionary line between land animals and whales! Seals have always been seals! So that is like looking at a dog and saying how monkeys developed!

You're right that seals are not the link between whales and land animals. That's not the point though.

The point is that seals demonstrate semi-aquatic features (such as half-legs/half-flippers) that showcase how such features can exist on an organism. If one looks at various extant semi-aquatic mammals, the idea of going from a foot to a flipper becomes a lot easier to see. We have examples of such multi-functional limbs in lots of extant semi-aquatic species.

 

[Yttrium]

You said that which is why I wrote what I did!

"Yttrium said: ↑
That's the idea. And that's where the article gets debunked. With evolution, the survivable traits are preserved, resulting in a population that's hardier to the current environmental pressures. Saying that the current hardiness of an organism can't be explained by evolution is nonsensical, since that's what evolution is mostly about."

D'oh! Sorry, I messed up there, didn't I? In that quote, I meant current at the time of the changes, not current as in now. I thought you were referring to current as in now. Sorry for the confusion. I'll fix that.

But according to evolution theory- every micro mutation that survived had to confer an advantage- so whaere are all the massive amounts of transitions. Which also begs the questions- if these micro mutations gave them an enviornmental advantage- did the environment keep making changes that caused those advantaged creatures to become disadvantaged????

Like I said, the environment changes. And like I said, mutations are beneficial or harmful relative to the environment. A population that gains an advantage for a hot climate may die out because of that when an ice age comes, for example.

Where are all the transitionals? Well, I could just point you to a Wikipedia page, which is Wikipedia, but it does have a lot of references:
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

But... it's probably safe to assume you've already seen things like that and rejected them, so you're probably asking a rhetorical question. I'd be interested in hearing why you rejected them, but I think I can guess your answer already (because I've encountered that question numerous times before).

 

[HitchSlap]

Well that is your hypothesis and you are entitled to it. But it proves nothing other than you have an opinion. If you wish to show the standard and then why ICR articles written for the common folk instead of technicalese are ( I am assuming) foolish I am all ears.

Making allegations are a dime a dozen- supporting it with real evidence is what matters.

It’s fun to argue with creationists on forum boards for entertainment value (I mean, c’mon, when do you ever get to talk with people who think the Flintstones is a documentary), but in the real world of academic research, creationism is not useful. In fact, aside from the handful of ‘professional’ creationists who peddle their wares, creo is just a religious ideology based on a misunderstanding of a creation myth.

 

[Ophiolite]

But according to evolution theory- every micro mutation that survived had to confer an advantage-

Incorrect.
1. Organisms with mutations that are neutral at that time are quite likely to survive.
2. Organisms with mutations that are only a minor disadvantage at that time may survive.
3. A small number of organisms with disadvantageous mutations that are associated with advantageous mutations may survive.
4. A small number of organisms with disadvantageous mutations may survive by chance.

so whaere are all the massive amounts of transitions

Why would you expect there to be "massive amounts (sic) of transitions"?

Are you aware that the proportion of organisms that avoid destruction prior to burial in sediment is tiny?
Are you aware that very few of such remains avoid destruction during the burial process?
Are you aware that few of those avoid destruction by diagenetic processes?
Are you aware that all but a tiny fraction of a percentage of those remain buried deep in the Earth's crust?
Are you aware that of that tiny fraction that has not remained deeply buried only a small percentage are potentially accessible?
Are you aware that most of that group are never visited by a specialist capable of recognising their significance?

Those are rhetorical questions. If you were aware of these points you would not have asked such a pointless question.

if these micro mutations gave them an enviornmental advantage- did the environment keep making changes that caused those advantaged creatures to become disadvantaged????

No. What could make you think so, other than a basic failure to understand the theory.

A mutation gives an advantage in that environment to a population of organisms. Another mutation arises that gives an even greater advantage in that environment. The older advantageous mutation is either replaced, or the two proceed to flourish side by side.

If you require a fuller explanation of this last point do ask some relevant questions to help you understand.

 

[Gene2memE]

believers in evolutionism hold that feathers came from scales.

So simply demonstrate the mutations that took a scale which is very anatomically different and is coded so different than a feather, and show how it evolved?

I thought this would be easy for the holders of the dogma os of evolution as it has been declared a fact!

"evolutionism" isn't a thing, but anyway...

Here's what a couple of minutes on Google Scholar comes up with:

Shh-Bmp2 signaling module and the evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. Harris MP, Fallon JF, Prum RO.

Abstract
To examine the role of development in the origin of evolutionary novelties, we investigated the developmental mechanisms involved in the formation of a complex morphological novelty-branched feathers. We demonstrate that the anterior-posterior expression polarity of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (Bmp2) in the primordia of feathers, avian scales, and alligator scales is conserved and phylogenetically primitive to archosaurian integumentary appendages. In feather development, derived patterns of Shh-Bmp2 signaling are associated with the development of evolutionarily novel feather structures.​

Sonic Hedgehog functions by localizing the region of proliferation in early developing feather buds.
McKinnell IW, Turmaine M, Patel K.

Abstract
Feathers are formed following a series of reciprocal signals between the epithelium and the mesenchyme. Initially, the formation of a dense dermis leads to the induction of a placode in the overlying ectoderm. The ectoderm subsequently signals back to the dermis to promote cell division. Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) is a secreted protein expressed in the ectoderm that has previously been implicated in mitogenic and morphogenetic processes throughout feather bud development. We therefore interfered with Shh signaling during early feather bud development and observed a dramatic change in feather form and prominence. Surprisingly, outgrowth did occur and was manifest as irregular, fused, and ectopic feather domains at both molecular and morphological levels. Experiments with Di-I and BrdU indicated that this effect was at least in part caused by the dispersal of previously aggregated proliferating dermal cells. We propose that Shh maintains bud development by localizing the dermal feather progenitors.​

Review: cornification, morphogenesis and evolution of feathers.
Alibardi L1.

Abstract
Feathers are corneous microramifications of variable complexity derived from the morphogenesis of barb ridges. Histological and ultrastructural analyses on developing and regenerating feathers clarify the three-dimensional organization of cells in barb ridges. Feather cells derive from folds of the embryonic epithelium of feather germs from which barb/barbule cells and supportive cells organize in a branching structure. The following degeneration of supportive cells allows the separation of barbule cells which are made of corneous beta-proteins and of lower amounts of intermediate filament (IF)(alpha) keratins, histidine-rich proteins, and corneous proteins of the epidermal differentiation complex. The specific protein association gives rise to a corneous material with specific biomechanic properties in barbules, rami, rachis, or calamus. During the evolution of different feather types, a large expansion of the genome coding for corneous feather beta-proteins occurred and formed 3-4-nm-thick filaments through a different mechanism from that of 8-10 nm IF keratins. In the chick, over 130 genes mainly localized in chromosomes 27 and 25 encode feather corneous beta-proteins of 10-12 kDa containing 97-105 amino acids. About 35 genes localized in chromosome 25 code for scale proteins (14-16 kDa made of 122-146 amino acids), claws and beak proteins (14-17 kDa proteins of 134-164 amino acids). Feather morphogenesis is periodically re-activated to produce replacement feathers, and multiple feather types can result from the interactions of epidermal and dermal tissues. The review shows schematic models explaining the translation of the morphogenesis of barb ridges present in the follicle into the three-dimensional shape of the main types of branched or un-branched feathers such as plumulaceous, pennaceous, filoplumes, and bristles. The temporal pattern of formation of barb ridges in different feather types and the molecular control from the dermal papilla through signaling molecules are poorly known. The evolution and diversification of the process of morphogenesis of barb ridges and patterns of their formation within feathers follicle allowed the origin and diversification of numerous types of feathers, including the asymmetric planar feathers for flight.
​

Here's the problem I have with 99.5% of creationists - they don't do the work. Not even the basics.

If you're going to make claims about scales and feather evolution, investing 15 minutes to make sure your claims are vaguely in the ballpark might be worthwhile.

 

[pitabread]

Here's the problem I have with 99.5% of creationists - they don't do the work. Not even the basics.

Yeah, but if they did the work they likely wouldn't be creationists. Catch-22.

 

[nolidad]

You're right that seals are not the link between whales and land animals. That's not the point though.

The point is that seals demonstrate semi-aquatic features (such as half-legs/half-flippers) that showcase how such features can exist on an organism. If one looks at various extant semi-aquatic mammals, the idea of going from a foot to a flipper becomes a lot easier to see. We have examples of such multi-functional limbs in lots of extant semi-aquatic species.

But once again, we need to see those features in the supposed transitions that believers in evoltionism say went from land to sea animals and then also vice versa.

showing seals that have nothing to do with land animal to whale or fish to amphibian means nothing!

Seals and walruses have always been that way! In 25 million years- they have not developed limbs more suited for land or sea! But evolution demands that they should have.

 

[nolidad]

"evolutionism" isn't a thing, but anyway...

Here's what a couple of minutes on Google Scholar comes up with:

Shh-Bmp2 signaling module and the evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. Harris MP, Fallon JF, Prum RO.

Abstract
To examine the role of development in the origin of evolutionary novelties, we investigated the developmental mechanisms involved in the formation of a complex morphological novelty-branched feathers. We demonstrate that the anterior-posterior expression polarity of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (Bmp2) in the primordia of feathers, avian scales, and alligator scales is conserved and phylogenetically primitive to archosaurian integumentary appendages. In feather development, derived patterns of Shh-Bmp2 signaling are associated with the development of evolutionarily novel feather structures.​

Sonic Hedgehog functions by localizing the region of proliferation in early developing feather buds.
McKinnell IW, Turmaine M, Patel K.

Abstract
Feathers are formed following a series of reciprocal signals between the epithelium and the mesenchyme. Initially, the formation of a dense dermis leads to the induction of a placode in the overlying ectoderm. The ectoderm subsequently signals back to the dermis to promote cell division. Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) is a secreted protein expressed in the ectoderm that has previously been implicated in mitogenic and morphogenetic processes throughout feather bud development. We therefore interfered with Shh signaling during early feather bud development and observed a dramatic change in feather form and prominence. Surprisingly, outgrowth did occur and was manifest as irregular, fused, and ectopic feather domains at both molecular and morphological levels. Experiments with Di-I and BrdU indicated that this effect was at least in part caused by the dispersal of previously aggregated proliferating dermal cells. We propose that Shh maintains bud development by localizing the dermal feather progenitors.​

Review: cornification, morphogenesis and evolution of feathers.
Alibardi L1.

Abstract
Feathers are corneous microramifications of variable complexity derived from the morphogenesis of barb ridges. Histological and ultrastructural analyses on developing and regenerating feathers clarify the three-dimensional organization of cells in barb ridges. Feather cells derive from folds of the embryonic epithelium of feather germs from which barb/barbule cells and supportive cells organize in a branching structure. The following degeneration of supportive cells allows the separation of barbule cells which are made of corneous beta-proteins and of lower amounts of intermediate filament (IF)(alpha) keratins, histidine-rich proteins, and corneous proteins of the epidermal differentiation complex. The specific protein association gives rise to a corneous material with specific biomechanic properties in barbules, rami, rachis, or calamus. During the evolution of different feather types, a large expansion of the genome coding for corneous feather beta-proteins occurred and formed 3-4-nm-thick filaments through a different mechanism from that of 8-10 nm IF keratins. In the chick, over 130 genes mainly localized in chromosomes 27 and 25 encode feather corneous beta-proteins of 10-12 kDa containing 97-105 amino acids. About 35 genes localized in chromosome 25 code for scale proteins (14-16 kDa made of 122-146 amino acids), claws and beak proteins (14-17 kDa proteins of 134-164 amino acids). Feather morphogenesis is periodically re-activated to produce replacement feathers, and multiple feather types can result from the interactions of epidermal and dermal tissues. The review shows schematic models explaining the translation of the morphogenesis of barb ridges present in the follicle into the three-dimensional shape of the main types of branched or un-branched feathers such as plumulaceous, pennaceous, filoplumes, and bristles. The temporal pattern of formation of barb ridges in different feather types and the molecular control from the dermal papilla through signaling molecules are poorly known. The evolution and diversification of the process of morphogenesis of barb ridges and patterns of their formation within feathers follicle allowed the origin and diversification of numerous types of feathers, including the asymmetric planar feathers for flight.
​

Here's the problem I have with 99.5% of creationists - they don't do the work. Not even the basics.

If you're going to make claims about scales and feather evolution, investing 15 minutes to make sure your claims are vaguely in the ballpark might be worthwhile.

I will only ask for you to show their physical research, the observations,repeating and testing of this!

This is not reaserch done- but beliefs written out based on others beliefs written out based on experiments that did not change scales or scutes to feathers. They explained how feathers form, but not how scales evolved from scales to feathers.

 

[nolidad]

Yeah, but if they did the work they likely wouldn't be creationists. Catch-22.

Yeah and you id the work an look at the research that pours out of YEC scientists you would not sound so benighted and bereft or truth.

"evolutionism" isn't a thing, but anyway...

yeah it is a thing- it is the religion of evolution or the belief in the dogmas of evolution.

 

[nolidad]

It’s fun to argue with creationists on forum boards for entertainment value (I mean, c’mon, when do you ever get to talk with people who think the Flintstones is a documentary), but in the real world of academic research, creationism is not useful. In fact, aside from the handful of ‘professional’ creationists who peddle their wares, creo is just a religious ideology based on a misunderstanding of a creation myth.

Well thank you for your opinion. Your Flintstone comment tells lots about your character.

 

[nolidad]

Why would you expect there to be "massive amounts (sic) of transitions"?

Are you aware that the proportion of organisms that avoid destruction prior to burial in sediment is tiny?
Are you aware that very few of such remains avoid destruction during the burial process?
Are you aware that few of those avoid destruction by diagenetic processes?
Are you aware that all but a tiny fraction of a percentage of those remain buried deep in the Earth's crust?
Are you aware that of that tiny fraction that has not remained deeply buried only a small percentage are potentially accessible?
Are you aware that most of that group are never visited by a specialist capable of recognising their significance?

Those are rhetorical questions. If you were aware of these points you would not have asked such a pointless question.

Are you aware that you just wrote a bunch of speculative answers?

According to evolutionary dogma- all mutations must take hold in a population, and then further mutations add to that and so on and son. so that all these micro mutations take a fish and turn it into an amphibian. All this micro mutating is always ongoing and takes eons according tot eh evolutionary high priests. But we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib. And with all the supposed evolutionary jumps we do have fraud, deception (like the whale transitions) and filling in missing vital information by believers in evolution.

Are you aware that most of that group are never visited by a specialist capable of recognising their significance?

Ande by this I assume you mean those indoctrinated in the beliefs of evolution and thus are considered the only ones capable of making an informed decision. IOW people who have never seen evolution actually taking place on the macro scale, who have never seen a flipper turn to a walking limb, or a limb tourn to a wing or a scale turn to a feather, but just guess that they did.
They can rip apart and very accuretaly report on the composition of scales, scutes and feathers, and they even tried to get a scute to become a feather by placing feather genes from a chick embryo into an alligator embryo. But it still failed.
YOur specialists are speculators. Thieu did not see the development of these animals, they cannot test the theory observe and repeat it. They can only make conclusions of the fossils they find based on their pre supposition indoctrination in evolutionary beliefs!

 

[pitabread]

Yeah and you id the work an look at the research that pours out of YEC scientists you would not sound so benighted and bereft or truth.

I spent years looking at YEC material.There is really isn't much in the way of original YEC research. The vast majority of YECist literature is simply aimed at refuting science, not demonstrating YEC.

And the funny thing is when YECs do attempt to do research (e.g. ICR's RATE project), they ended up coming away with some old-Earth findings (re: amount of radiation in the Earth).

 

[pitabread]

But once again, we need to see those features in the supposed transitions that believers in evoltionism say went from land to sea animals and then also vice versa.

There are fossil transitions showing stages of terrestrial to semi-aquatic to full aquatic mammals.

There is also a host of other evidence to support the land-to-aquatic-mammal transition in the form of molecular genetics, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, etc.

showing seals that have nothing to do with land animal to whale or fish to amphibian means nothing!

The purpose is to help gain a conceptual understanding of how certain biological features can have multiple functions. I find that conceptual understanding of how evolution can transition features and what intermediary features might look like tends to be a sticking point with a lot of people.

Seals and walruses have always been that way! In 25 million years- they have not developed limbs more suited for land or sea! But evolution demands that they should have.

Evolution "demands" nothing. The tempo of evolutionary changes is not linear.