ICR Acts and Facts

[HitchSlap]

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!

Have you read David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here?

My suspicion is you've never read a real biology book, and your anti-evolution missives are entirely based on credo/id sites.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well then tell us what area of evolution you have expertise in and we shall delve into that. that is fair!

 

[nolidad]

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.

No my opinion is not contradicted by the evidence, but by others opinions!

Paleontologists never had live specimens to look at. To study the cahnging taking place over millions of years. Then they get like minded believers to review their work and agree!

I can bring the same peer review process for YEC scientists showing in great detail why those supposed transitions are not transitions. Looking at bones, makes you an expert at bones- but creating the lifestyles and habitats and reproduction cycles and all that is all speculation based on their belief system in evolution!

 

[nolidad]

Have you read David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here?

My suspicion is you've never read a real biology book, and your anti-evolution missives are entirely based on credo/id sites.

Well your suspicions are wrong. I have done hundreds of hours of reading as well as on line seminars from such notables as Dawkins, Coyne, Miller et. al.

What you choosde to accept is your affair, not mine!

Yes I do research and study regularly ICR.
I have not read the book you mentioned. does it offer any new and compelling evidence to give any credulity to evolution that the legions of others texts have not?

 

[HitchSlap]

No my opinion is not contradicted by the evidence, but by others opinions!

Paleontologists never had live specimens to look at. To study the cahnging taking place over millions of years. Then they get like minded believers to review their work and agree!

I can bring the same peer review process for YEC scientists showing in great detail why those supposed transitions are not transitions. Looking at bones, makes you an expert at bones- but creating the lifestyles and habitats and reproduction cycles and all that is all speculation based on their belief system in evolution!

Honestly, you're coming across as colossally confused and borderline conspiracy theorist. Many of us here understand ToE, and some here actively work in different biological fields, and are willing to help you come to a proper understanding of ToE. But you've got to cut the snarkyness and your anti-evolution tirades if we're going to make any progress.

As for picking one area of evolution to discuss, may I suggest Tiktaalik. IMO, this is an easy example of evolution and it's predictive capabilities.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well then I await you showing from among all these peer reviewed experts an empirical line of transition that has met the criteria of scientific validity.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well post it and you shall be the first on 4 diswcussion threads I have been on to do so!

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.

Well according to most scientists evolution is fact! So it should be past the "can have" to where they show the did have multiple functions.

Thjat is what they say with the small bones in the rear of whales. They call them vestigiasl legs, but they have no hard evidence! All wer can prove about them bones is they are used for reproduction!---Everything else is all conjecture and conjecture is not scinece but simple random thoughts!

 

[pitabread]

Well post it and you shall be the first on 4 diswcussion threads I have been on to do so!

I'm hardly going to post every single thing written on whale evolution. That would be a rather extensive list.

I can refer you to a specific article I read recently which discusses the molecular evidence for whale evolution: Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

Wikipedia also has an article on the subject with an extensive list of references: Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia

Biologos has an article on the subject: Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence - Articles

Even a cursory search on Google Scholar reveal loads of scientific papers on the subject (searching for whale evolution returns over 140,000 results; cetacean evolution returns over 20,000 results). The information is out there and available to anyone who wants it.

Well according to most scientists evolution is fact! So it should be past the "can have" to where they show the did have multiple functions.

Thjat is what they say with the small bones in the rear of whales. They call them vestigiasl legs, but they have no hard evidence! All wer can prove about them bones is they are used for reproduction!---Everything else is all conjecture and conjecture is not scinece but simple random thoughts!

Comparative anatomy studies are hardly what I would call "conjecture". It's directly based on real, physical evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well your suspicions are wrong. I have done hundreds of hours of reading as well as on line seminars from such notables as Dawkins, Coyne, Miller et. al.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you. Had you, your anti-evolutionary rhetoric would be more refined and contain actual relevant thoughts.

What you choosde to accept is your affair, not mine!

Of course. Who else's would it be?

Yes I do research and study regularly ICR.

Which is something I don't recommend, as I've not once seen a creo/id accurately convey the findings of a primary source. (At least you didn't say Hovind, so props for that.)

I have not read the book you mentioned.

I really didn't expect you have. This book puts a nail in humans being six thousand years old. (Oh, and Neanderthals and Denisovans have both had their genomes mapped, and they are not H. sapiens, though they did breed with them, and we have the DNA to prove it).

does it offer any new and compelling evidence to give any credulity to evolution that the legions of others texts have not?

I can only presume that by "legions of others texts have not," you mean strictly anti-evolution sites. And yes, it does offer new and compelling evidence that bolsters an already robust and airtight theory.

 

[Yttrium]

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

You haven't really thought out the ramifications of your personal scientific standards, have you? You don't want the theory of evolution to be accepted, so you try to redefine science in a way that would exclude it. The thing is, you're throwing out whole branches of science by doing that. Like forensics. You don't want to put forensics scientists out of their jobs, do you? And all those poor archaeologists. Astronomers extrapolating the past motions of objects in the solar system. It's a long list.

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!

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. The English seems a bit mangled.

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

I think what you mean is that we haven't observed a big enough addition to the genome (since I'm sure others here have pointed out some additions to you in the past) by your personal standards. Well, we can always specify a big enough change that we can't observe. That's why it's a theory, and we have to remain skeptical, right?

 

[Yttrium]

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.

Believe it? I believe that I exist. I'm flexible on everything else. I don't have a presuppositional worldview of any kind. If a scientific theory fits the evidence in nature, I'm fine with it, until new evidence shows we need some changes. I don't need to believe in it, as long as it's working okay for the time being.

Are you Satans Son 666 from another discussion board? YOu give near identical answers as he does! That is a two way swinging door!

Ew, no. What a tactless forum handle.

 

[JackRT]

I've seen heated debates between physicists on this point. An alternate view, and one that I lean to, is that Newton's theory was a very good approximation. So, not wrong, just not exactly right in some circumstances.

As an "approximation" Newtonian mechanics is actually so good that it has taken humanity to orbit and to the moon and back and robotic probes to every planet and even beyond. It only becomes problematic at speeds beyond 10% of light speed and we are still well below that.

 

[Gene2memE]

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!

Edited, as it was at the person, not at the topic.

This response does leave me with me repeating myself though: Here's the problem I have with 99.5% of creationists - they don't do the work. Not even the basics.

Look at my earlier post to work out why....

 

[Ophiolite]

Well then tell us what area of evolution you have expertise in and we shall delve into that. that is fair!

I wouldn't describe myself as being as expert in any area, except in comparison with Creationists.

I take it that this attempt of yours to change the subject means you are unable to meet the reasonable challenge I set you to justify the steps you insist are necessary in order to develop feathers. If I am mistaken, then I await that justification with interest. Once that is complete you may tackle me upon either of these two aspects of evolution:
1. Darwin's development of the theory of evolution as it relates to his youth, educational history, voyage on the Beagle, geological investigations, biological experimentation, friendship and acquaintance with contemporary scientists.
2. The fatuous assertion that Darwinism supports eugenics.

Your other responses to my posts were low grade opinion pieces. Please note I shall not be wasting my time on such in future. Please present demonstrable facts if you wish to have a discussion.

 

[Ophiolite]

As an "approximation" Newtonian mechanics is actually so good that it has taken humanity to orbit and to the moon and back and robotic probes to every planet and even beyond. It only becomes problematic at speeds beyond 10% of light speed and we are still well below that.

I think it has to be used for GPS satellites because of time differences due to different gravity, but I took a geology degree rather than astronomy because my maths was poor, so what do I do?

 

[Jimmy D]

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

Because all the evidence available to us from biology, paleontology, biogeography etc suggest common descent. So for the sake of our hypothesis - that a transitional fossil should be found at a particular location, from a specific time period, we are assuming that such creatures did evolve.

I would have thought that was obvious, but hey ho.

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

You bought up "fish to amphibians" which I am attempting to discuss, not all major groups. This appears to be an attempt to change the subject to avoid dealing with the specifics of your original assertion, please desist from this, it's rude and unproductive.

As for finding it? I don't know.

Why don't you know? Shouldn't you at least have a passing familiarity with a subject you're attempting to debunk? People have spent years gathering information, studying data, researching the subject, and you come along saying you don't really know much about the subject, but the experts are wrong.

Don't you see a problem here?

Mr Dunning meet Mr Kruger.

There have been many such finds- that either had to be retracted upon further discoveries or exposed as adding parts not there!

Which finds of early tetrapods have been exposed or retracted?

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

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

You do realize that those artist conceptions are based on real fossil don't you?

Anyway, as I asked....

"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?"

As you're reluctant to answer I'll do it for you..... Yes, it would be a successful prediction.

I say "would be", actually it is a successful prediction. Tiktaalik was discovered using the exact methodology I described, and exhibits the exact transitional features we would expect to see.

Are you willing to reconsider your assertion that "we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib"?

 

[Jimmy D]

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!

I am well aware of the standard creationist PRATTs thanks.

I was asking specifically about fraud / deception relating to "whale transitions".

 

[nolidad]

Don't know what creationist PRATT is, but the hominid line is filled with evolutionary frauds.

 

[nolidad]

Because all the evidence available to us from biology, paleontology, biogeography etc suggest common descent. So for the sake of our hypothesis - that a transitional fossil should be found at a particular location, from a specific time period, we are assuming that such creatures did evolve.

I would have thought that was obvious, but hey ho.

Well biology speaks loudly against evolution!, paleontology is fraught with seeing what you believe instead of believing what you see. Whales are an example! They have the bones of a land animal, but because its head has a small resemblance to a whale they call it a transition.

Biogeography can be explained several other ways as well.

You bought up "fish to amphibians" which I am attempting to discuss, not all major groups. This appears to be an attempt to change the subject to avoid dealing with the specifics of your original assertion, please desist from this, it's rude and unproductive.

Well then let us stay focused on fish to amphib. I apologize.

Why don't you know? Shouldn't you at least have a passing familiarity with a subject you're attempting to debunk? People have spent years gathering information, studying data, researching the subject, and you come along saying you don't really know much about the subject, but the experts are wrong.

Don't you see a problem here?

Mr Dunning meet Mr Kruger.

What is your area of expertise in then?

You would think that with all the advancements in genetics it would be easier to prove evolutioj, but it is getting harder and harder as YEC predicted it would!

You do realize that those artist conceptions are based on real fossil don't you?

Anyway, as I asked....

"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?"

As you're reluctant to answer I'll do it for you..... Yes, it would be a successful prediction.

I say "would be", actually it is a successful prediction. Tiktaalik was discovered using the exact methodology I described, and exhibits the exact transitional features we would expect to see.

Are you willing to reconsider your assertion that "we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib"?

Ah yes old tiktaalik
! Th elobe finned fish found in 1996. There were skeptics in both creationist and evolutionary circles.

Seemed like evolutionism hjad a real transtion, until they discovered that tetrapods were fully walking around in Poland 18million years before tiktaalik supposedly existed! So tiki got demoted to asnother lobe finned fish like we have some today!

 

[nolidad]

I wouldn't describe myself as being as expert in any area, except in comparison with Creationists.

I take it that this attempt of yours to change the subject means you are unable to meet the reasonable challenge I set you to justify the steps you insist are necessary in order to develop feathers. If I am mistaken, then I await that justification with interest. Once that is complete you may tackle me upon either of these two aspects of evolution:
1. Darwin's development of the theory of evolution as it relates to his youth, educational history, voyage on the Beagle, geological investigations, biological experimentation, friendship and acquaintance with contemporary scientists.
2. The fatuous assertion that Darwinism supports eugenics.

Your other responses to my posts were low grade opinion pieces. Please note I shall not be wasting my time on such in future. Please present demonstrable facts if you wish to have a discussion.

Well as I believe in Divine creation I do not believe feathers "developed" but were created in an instant! So far the fossil record is 100% in support of that.

As for teh feather- what I listed are teh parts of a feather that are coded in genetics to produce! A creature with scales does not have that and needs its genome re written to produce all that! I say it never happened so I would not expect (as is true) that no mechanism exists to re order all those features for just a feather! never mind all the other rewritings of the genome in order for a thrapod to become a bird as evolutionists declare as fact!

#2 I do not know if Darwins works either implicitly or explicitly endorsed eugenics- but that is not germaine to the the supposed science of evolution.

#1 same answer as #2

I care not a whit of Darwins friendship, his youth, etc. What I do care about darwin is that he saw variation in species and extrapolated that backwards to popularize natural evolution.

Tell you what as you have yet gotten specific in anything- take an area you feel comfortable and can be specific and not require a biography (like whatr you requested about Darwin) that you think creationists are wrong about and we can discuss it.

If you do not want to discuss with me--so be it!~