ICR Acts and Facts

[Jimmy D]

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

"believers in evoltionism", "yeah it is a thing- it is the religion of evolution or the belief in the dogmas of evolution".

LOL, Mr Kettle, meet Mr Pot.

 

[Jimmy D]

But we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib.

If we were to look for such a fossil how would we go about it?

Well, the fossil record shows that earliest examples of tetrapods capable of walking on dry land, with fully formed limbs date to about 365 million years ago. We also have examples of fossils of tetrapod fish with fins with a similar bone structure but without wrists or fingers, which logically would have evolved into these land walkers which are aroun 385 million years old.

Unfortunately, there's a gap in the fossil record connecting these fish with the early land walkers.

Logically, we'd expect to find such a critter in rock that dated somewhere around 370 million years ago, we'd also expect it find it in what was a coastal, delta or flood plain environment.

Surely finding such a beast that exhibited "transitional" features in rock with the chronological and geographic features described would demonstrate a successful prediction for the theory of evolution right?

 

[Jimmy D]

And with all the supposed evolutionary jumps we do have fraud, deception (like the whale transitions)

How so?

 

[HitchSlap]

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

Yes, thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment.

The fact you think dinosaurs and humans lived together, says much about yours, too.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Identify the speculation, with evidence, in any of the rhetorical questions in my post.

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!

Irrelevant to the point under discussion. The alleged absence of intermediate fossils. If you repeat this practice of deviating from the point under discussion I shall regard it as an act of ill faith and shall cease this dialogue.

(If you wish to discuss the points you have inappropriately raised here then open a new thread and send me a pm. I am not avoiding discussing them, but I shall not tolerate a form of Gish Gallop to help you avoid unwelcome arguments. )

 

[Yttrium]

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

It shows a step between land and see that could easily have occurred in the distant ancestors of whales.

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.

Should have? Why do you think that? If seals and walruses do quite well with what they've got, there's no reason to change much, is there? Different populations in different places can experience very different environmental pressures. Some could be pushed to the sea, some to land, and some to a combination.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

You say this kind of thing a lot. I think that you make a very good case that firm beliefs and indoctrination should be rejected. Everyone should join the skeptic bandwagon!

(But of course I won't hold it against people if they don't.)

 

[nolidad]

You say this kind of thing a lot. I think that you make a very good case that firm beliefs and indoctrination should be rejected. Everyone should join the skeptic bandwagon!

(But of course I won't hold it against people if they don't.)

Well you believe in evolution because you have been indoctrinated in its beliefs in your science classes. I was a swell until I was challenged to compare the hypoitheses of evolution to empirical science. that cracked the foundation of my evolutionary indoctrination wide open!

 

[nolidad]

If we were to look for such a fossil how would we go about it?

Well, the fossil record shows that earliest examples of tetrapods capable of walking on dry land, with fully formed limbs date to about 365 million years ago. We also have examples of fossils of tetrapod fish with fins with a similar bone structure but without wrists or fingers, which logically would have evolved into these land walkers which are aroun 385 million years old.

Unfortunately, there's a gap in the fossil record connecting these fish with the early land walkers.

Logically, we'd expect to find such a critter in rock that dated somewhere around 370 million years ago, we'd also expect it find it in what was a coastal, delta or flood plain environment.

Surely finding such a beast that exhibited "transitional" features in rock with the chronological and geographic features described would demonstrate a successful prediction for the theory of evolution right?

Why logically? Just because they are fins that have a basic similarity?

And that gap is the same gap that is missing fro all teh critical changes between the major groups!

As for finding it? I don't know. There have been many such finds- that either had to be retracted upon further discoveries or exposed as adding parts not there!

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/tetrapod_evo.jpg

Artists conceptions is the best we have for filling in those transitions!

 

[nolidad]

It shows a step between land and see that could easily have occurred in the distant ancestors of whales.



Should have? Why do you think that? If seals and walruses do quite well with what they've got, there's no reason to change much, is there? Different populations in different places can experience very different environmental pressures. Some could be pushed to the sea, some to land, and some to a combination.

Could have? What we need to make evolution science is evidence it did! Not side examples that are not in the line of whales.

But you remember that mutations happen regardless of anything going on! Environmental pressures nor natural selection direct or tell genes how or what to mutate. They do not have life or existence or intelligence. They are concepts we observe in nature. when a mutation happens - it causes the host to survive or not or puts it at a small disadvantage to large disadvan tage and then gets culled out!

The extremely rare mutations we do see occur have never added new and previously uncoded information to a genome!

 

[Yttrium]

Well you believe in evolution because you have been indoctrinated in its beliefs in your science classes.

I know another guy who makes silly comments like that on another site. He goes by "Jorge" there. You're not Jorge, are you? The guy used to keep calling me a naturalist. It was really annoying.

 

[nolidad]

How so?

The now debunked transitions in the whaler series, fraud in the horse series.

A.Afarenses as the branch point between man and ape.
Java man
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal man (upgraded to homo sapien)

I could list many more but I think you get the point!

Flexible tissue samples in fossils ranging from 65-500million years old!

 

[nolidad]

"believers in evoltionism", "yeah it is a thing- it is the religion of evolution or the belief in the dogmas of evolution".

LOL, Mr Kettle, meet Mr Pot.

See I fully and freely admit that creation falls completely outside the realm of empirical science. But nearly all believers in evolutionism will not admit that Big E evolution and the BB also fall outside the realm of empirical science.

 

[nolidad]

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.

So then explain how the evolution of a feather from a scale gave an advantage.

Scales are for cold blooded animals almost exclusively and feathers are for warm blooded animals exclusively!

Scales are skin flaps that occur on the dermis while feathers start from a follicle sub dermally.

According to the theory the change from feather to scale took place over eons of time with one micro mutation after another.

So whenever , whatever creature started evolving feathers, they had to undergo the following: and they all had to give it an advantage

1. Genetic recoding to grow a feather follicle sub dermally
2. Genetic recoding to grow a quill.
3. recoding for the inferior umbilicus
4. recoding for after feathers and/or downy barbs.
5. recoding for the rachis
6. REcording for the vane
7. recoding for the barbs.
8. recoding for the barbules
9. recoding for the hooklets.
10 recoding to have it instinctly preen feathers
11. recoding to create the oil or uropygial gland
12. The creation of of the oil
13. Recoding instinct to teach the creature to learn to press to release the oils and then hold it to spread while preening.
14. Going from cold blooded (endo thermic heat regulation) to wartm blooded (entothermic heat regulation.

Have at it! This is just the change absolutely required just to go from a scale to a feather. Now these micro slow mutations also need to show an advantage in succesive generations.

Miss any of these- and the feather in that population dies!

H

 

[Ophiolite]

See I fully and freely admit that creation falls completely outside the realm of empirical science. But nearly all believers in evolutionism will not admit that Big E evolution and the BB also fall outside the realm of empirical science.

If were to admit that I would be lying. Struggling up a damp, muddy stream bed, sample collecting from overhanging cliffs on a sodden Scottish summer's day, then cataloguing and assessing ones finds always felt assuredly empirical to me.

 

[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.

If all this is just another article on how they took chick embryo feather genes and transplanted them in an alligator embryo. It is a fail! Not only did they not get a croco-duck, but even with using fully precoded genetic info for feathers and put it into a gator, they could not get a gator with feathers! Just a few splayed scutes!

 

[nolidad]

If were to admit that I would be lying. Struggling up a damp, muddy stream bed, sample collecting from overhanging cliffs on a sodden Scottish summer's day, then cataloguing and assessing ones finds always felt assuredly empirical to me.

Well that is empirical work- but looking at bones and then saying it is a transitional step between X and Y is more imagination than information!

 

[Ophiolite]

So whenever , whatever creature started evolving feathers, they had to undergo the following: and they all had to give it an advantage

1. Genetic recoding to grow a feather follicle sub dermally
2. Genetic recoding to grow a quill.
3. recoding for the inferior umbilicus
4. recoding for after feathers and/or downy barbs.
5. recoding for the rachis
6. REcording for the vane
7. recoding for the barbs.
8. recoding for the barbules
9. recoding for the hooklets.
10 recoding to have it instinctly preen feathers
11. recoding to create the oil or uropygial gland
12. The creation of of the oil
13. Recoding instinct to teach the creature to learn to press to release the oils and then hold it to spread while preening.
14. Going from cold blooded (endo thermic heat regulation) to wartm blooded (entothermic heat regulation.

Do you imagine that all evolutionists are experts in every aspect of evolution? Surely not. Do you have any reason to think I am an expert in the evolution of feathers? (I'll give you a hint, I'm not.)
Do you think it is intellectually honest to challenge someone whom you know is not in possession of a full set of answers to provide them with the obvious intention, explicitly expressed, of declaring evolution false when they fail to do so? (I'll give you a hint. It isn't.)

But I shall, nevertheless, play your game. First, though, provide documented evidence that demonstrates that all of the steps detailed above are essential for the evolution of feathers. Take as long as you need.

 

[nolidad]

I know another guy who makes silly comments like that on another site. He goes by "Jorge" there. You're not Jorge, are you? The guy used to keep calling me a naturalist. It was really annoying.

So tell me then, have you started evolutionary research from scratch, and by years of digs and biological research and genetic information have you validated the theory?

Or do you believe it because that is what you have been taught in science all you rlife so that it is now your presuppositional worldview.

No I am not Jorge. Are you
Satans Son 666 from another discussion board? YOu give near identical answers as he does! That is a two way swinging door!

 

[Ophiolite]

Well that is empirical work- but looking at bones and then saying it is a transitional step between X and Y is more imagination than information!

Interesting, but wholly unsubstantiated opinion refuted by an examination of any of the thousands of peer reviewed papers dealing with transitional forms. Your opinion is thus contradicted by the evidence.