ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

The zachelmie tracks are actually contested.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20

And there aren't actually bones associated with the zachelmie tracks to even look at.

Some have suggested that they may be fish feeding traces, as well as tracks made by tiktaalik like species.

And even if hypothetically, the tracks were tetrapod in nature, said tracks would still exist in the devonian, right next to tiktaalik, where the theory of evolution suggests they ought to be.

Ie. It's not like the tracks are first appearing in the ordovician or Cambrian, carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic, cenozoic etc.

Which basically means that whether or not the trace fossils were actually tetrapod tracks, is irrelevant to the prediction. The prediction was made and held true, regardless.

Which is something that deniers are incapable of explaining.

I am not surprised they are contested by some. It shatters the entire fish to amphib story held for decades!
But as I love reminding another ardent evolutionist here- with evolution you always get to have a buffet to choose from.

One group believes this- another one contests it.
One group accepts this another one accepts another!

YOu can choose from column A, Clumn B or Column C. and you will agree with some evolutionists!

 

[Gene2memE]

Nebraska Man

Not a fraud, a mis identification. Picked up within two years of the original species type classification. Also, this occurred 95 years ago.

Java man

Also not a fraud. Java man was originally identified as a belonging to a proposed intermediate species between chimps and humans (Anthropopithecus) and then later reclassified as an entirely new species (Pithecanthropus). As more early human fossils were discovered, it became clear that the fossil was not a new species afterall, but a Homo erectus. However, it was distinct enough that it has since been classified as a sub species (Homo erectus erectus)

That's the thing, science is open to revision of its conclusions, based on the availability of new and better evidence.

Peking man

Also not a fraud. Peking man is a group of fossils originally classified as Sinanthropus pekinensis in the very early 1930s (I think). However, as early hominid palentology developed and more early hominid fossils developed, it became clear that Sinanthropus was not a unique specimen, but another Homo erectus sub species.

neanderthal man which had to be upgraded to homo sapien.

Neanderthal man was never "upgraded" to homo sapien.

Neanderthal man was always classified in the Homo genus, but there is an ONGOING debate about whether it is distinct enough to be classified as a Homo sapiens sub-species, or remain a distinct species on its own.

This is difficult, as Neanderthal existed for ~300,000 to 450,000 years and clearly interbred with Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens and possibly Homo denisovan. There's significant type plasticity between fossils classified as Neanderthals.

 

[USincognito]

YEC scientists show by empirical research and the scientific method that tardigrades survive all known conditions! near zero, high temps, they have learned to shut down nearly all biological functions in order to survive.

No YEC scientist did any such thing. I'm aware of zero YEC staffers who specialized in terdigrades. All of the information in that article was discovered by actual scientists. Randy Guliuzza didn't even cite a scientific source like a journal article. He cited two New Scientist articles, one by a marine biologist and another by a science reporter.

 

[USincognito]

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?

Evolution of feathers.
Feather evolution

Placodes are the key to development of feathers and hair from scales.
The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes

More on placodes and the evolution of feathers and hair from scales.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/human-hair-bird-feathers-came-reptile-scales

 

[USincognito]

1. we have never observed mutations take one family, order, phyla, or genus and mutate it to another family, order, phyla or genus.

If you think evolution predicts extant taxa "mutating into" another extant taxa, then you don't understand evolution.

The whole evolutionary tree is by inference as far as fossils go.

The fossil record is just one line of evidence (among dozens) supporting evolution. The most powerful is genetics.

2. there is no demonstrable or empirical evidence to demonstrate how things like flippers became limbs

Flippers didn't become limbs. Fins became limbs which subsequently evolved into flippers in cetaceans.
Discovery reveals evolutionary path from fins to fingers
Adaptive evolution of 5'HoxD genes in the origin and diversification of the cetacean flipper. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[USincognito]

100 years of trying to change a fruit fly and they ended up with a fruit fly!

You think the purpose of the fruit fly mutation experiments was to produce something other than a fruit fly?

40,000 generations of e-coli under carefully controlled conditions and all they could produce was e-coli with a different appetite!

Again, where do you get the idea that the experiment was supposed to produce anything other than e-coli?

Science is validated by the scientific method! test observe repeat!

A lot of laymen have the mistaken notion that events have to be repeated. That is not correct. We don't need to reconstruct another earth in the lab in order to study geology. It is the observations that must be repeated.

I would have much greater respect for evolujtionists if they were honest and called evolution their belief system instead of science!

Why would science advocates do something stupid like that? Evolution is science and it's powerfully supported by numerous lines of evidence.

We have never seen a frog turn into something other than a frog!

Good thing we never see that because if we did it would falsify evolution.

 

[USincognito]

In 25 million years- they have not developed limbs more suited for land or sea! But evolution demands that they should have.

Citation?

 

[USincognito]

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

The research is discussed right there in the abstract. If you look at the original paper there will be even more details.

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.

 

[USincognito]

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

This fantasy of yours bears no relationship with reality. We have numerous fishopod transtional fossils. Additionally we have large amount of evidence from genetics.

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.

Absolutely false. All your bluster and bloviation isn't impressing those of us who know the facts.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not surprised they are contested by some. It shatters the entire fish to amphib story held for decades!
But as I love reminding another ardent evolutionist here- with evolution you always get to have a buffet to choose from.

One group believes this- another one contests it.
One group accepts this another one accepts another!

YOu can choose from column A, Clumn B or Column C. and you will agree with some evolutionists!

Well, if you don't actually have any fossils to work with, and majority of the alleged tracks look like formless blobs, then contesting the alleged tracks if fair game.

Is anyone contesting that tiktaalik is part fish part tetrapod? No, because we have 10+ specimen and complete skeletons.

So it all depends on the veracity of the claim.

Your counter argument to tiktaalik lacks scientific support in the form of actual bones. And as it's been said multiple times, even if the trace fossils were made by a tetrapod, the prediction which resulted in the discovery of tiktaalik would still hold true.

Unless the zachelmie traces were found somewhere that were actually an issue for the theory (such as anywhere other than the early to mid devonian right next to tiktaalik in the other 99% of the geologic column), whether or not they are tetrapod tracks, really is irrelevant.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's funny how Creationists get mad when we have 50% of a skeleton that is a transitional fossil.

But then when it comes to the zachelmie traces, they have 0 bones but they would swear by God's word that they were tracks made by a tetrapod lol.

Which is all ultimately irrelevant, as whether or not the zachelmie traces are of a tetrapod nature, still doesn't address the methods used in the prediction and discovery of tiktaalik.

 

[USincognito]

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!

Why do you keep asserting things that simply aren't true? Whales don't use hind leg bones for reproduction because they don't have hind legs. The is a vestigial pelvis and partial femur that in some species have coopted to anchor larger testes and penises in males of more promiscuous species.
Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips

 

[USincognito]

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

Laughably, demonstrably wrong. There was a single fraud in the hominid line and that was from over 100 years ago.

 

[USincognito]

Nebraska Man
Java man
Peking man
neanderthal man which had to be upgraded to homo sapien.

Nebraska "man" was a misidentification. Porcine molars and primate molars are very similar. Not a fraud.
Java is Homo erectus. Not a fraud.
Peking is Homo erectus. Not a fraud.
Neanderthal's are a cousin species to Homo sapiens. We know this from comparing our genomes. Not a fraud.

 

[lasthero]

Not a fraud, a mis identification. Picked up within two years of the original species type classification. Also, this occurred 95 years ago.



Also not a fraud. Java man was originally identified as a belonging to a proposed intermediate species between chimps and humans (Anthropopithecus) and then later reclassified as an entirely new species (Pithecanthropus). As more early human fossils were discovered, it became clear that the fossil was not a new species afterall, but a Homo erectus. However, it was distinct enough that it has since been classified as a sub species (Homo erectus erectus)

That's the thing, science is open to revision of its conclusions, based on the availability of new and better evidence.



Also not a fraud. Peking man is a group of fossils originally classified as Sinanthropus pekinensis in the very early 1930s (I think). However, as early hominid palentology developed and more early hominid fossils developed, it became clear that Sinanthropus was not a unique specimen, but another Homo erectus sub species.



Neanderthal man was never "upgraded" to homo sapien.

Neanderthal man was always classified in the Homo genus, but there is an ONGOING debate about whether it is distinct enough to be classified as a Homo sapiens sub-species, or remain a distinct species on its own.

This is difficult, as Neanderthal existed for ~300,000 to 450,000 years and clearly interbred with Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens and possibly Homo denisovan. There's significant type plasticity between fossils classified as Neanderthals.

You know what makes me sad? Even though all of this is written well and 100% verifiably true, it won’t matter. He probably won’t even read it. I have not a single shred of doubt that he’ll parrot the same things in another topic, as if he was never corrected.

It’s just the same arguments getting regurgitated, over and over.

 

[Gene2memE]

You know what makes me sad? Even though all of this is written well and 100% verifiably true, it won’t matter. He probably won’t even read it. I have not a single shred of doubt that he’ll parrot the same things in another topic, as if he was never corrected.

It’s just the same arguments getting regurgitated, over and over.

Its not written for the posters, it's written for the lurkers. 90% of the time I've spent on this forum has been passive rather than active. Correcting factually incorrect statements is both a service to the general readership, and personally satisfying when it happens to be in an area I actually DO have some knowledge in.

Plus, it gives me a chance to stretch my intellectual legs on slow days at work (which are sadly fewer and further between).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You know what makes me sad? Even though all of this is written well and 100% verifiably true, it won’t matter. He probably won’t even read it. I have not a single shred of doubt that he’ll parrot the same things in another topic, as if he was never corrected.

It’s just the same arguments getting regurgitated, over and over.

Never accuse a creationist of being intellectually honest. I think intellectual dishonesty is something they are proud of.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well we have apes and we have man!

Man is classified as an ape.

"The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies."

You might not agree, but your opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Here is a pic of H. Habilis
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/de...MER1813_skull_CC_lt_3qtr_sq.jpg?itok=ztVwIc4l

Fully human looking!

Beside a hand all we have of habilis is near full skulls. All within the range of modern man is size.

Where is homo pithecus??? After all if we are gong to believe that A. Afarenses is where man and ape branched- where are they? We have ape and man. Do you want to see the great variation in modertn skulls?

But teh sad fact is is that h habilis has fallen into disrepute with a majority of evolutionists- ling after Creationists questioned its reliability!

H. erectus? many say8 that it should be subsumed into homo sapien, just like they did with homo sapien neanderthal several decades ago!

So no fraud then.

All you've listed is differences of opinion regarding classification amongst scientists and ignorant creationist propaganda.

Here is a pic of H. Habilis
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/de...MER1813_skull_CC_lt_3qtr_sq.jpg?itok=ztVwIc4l

Fully human looking!

Beside a hand all we have of habilis is near full skulls. All within the range of modern man is size.

Either a lie or just an innocent parroting of creationist nonsense.

H. habilis' brain capacity of around 640 cm3 (39 cu in) was on average 50% larger than australopithecines, but considerably smaller than the 1,350 cm3 (82 cu in) to 1,450 cm3 (88 cu in) range of modern Homo sapiens.

Have a read of this article if you'd like to learn about Homo Habilis and the difficulties of classifying early hominids, all above board and out in the open by the way, nothing underhand or fraudulent....

https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.14957!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/508031a.pdf

Where is homo pithecus??? After all if we are gong to believe that A. Afarenses is where man and ape branched- where are they? We have ape and man. Do you want to see the great variation in modertn skulls?

What is Homo Pithecus? What are you talking about?

Besides, it's unknown if A Afarensis is a direct ancestor or a relative of the line that lead to modern humans, don't believe everything you read on creationist websites.

But teh sad fact is is that h habilis has fallen into disrepute with a majority of evolutionists- ling after Creationists questioned its reliability!

"Disrepute" what does this mean? The article I posted above discusses the problems of classification, none of which cast doubt on it's "reliability", whatever that means. Also, I'd like to see evidence of the input of creationists on it's classification, apart from writing their inane articles, which are full of misinformation, no one reads apart from other creationists, their contribution appears to be zero.

H. erectus? many say8 that it should be subsumed into homo sapien, just like they did with homo sapien neanderthal several decades ago!

Who says that? As far as I know it's a complete fabrication, have you got any citations?

So, even if all the points you mentioned were correct (and they're woefully innacurate unfortunately) none of them can be described as fraudulent.

I hope you appreciate the irony in you accusing the scientific community of fraud when all you can up with to demonstrate this is lies and false statements. Shame on you.

As for PRATT! No one here has refuted anything written by YEC scientists to me! I have debunked many major evolutionary trunks with evidence, but still waiting for one even semi solid refutation of YEC research!

See above, The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you. Maybe learn a bit of humility, you are representing the Creationist "side" in these debates and your attitude does not reflect well on them.

 

[Jimmy D]

actually that is just variations of humans and variations of apes.

Yep. But I was asking where the fraud or deception is.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well let us look at some basic biology that has been validated by the scientific method!

1. Evolution in a nutshell says some self replicating organic goo evolved via random undirected unplanned undesigned mutations preserved by natural selection to bring us to teh massive biodiversity we see today! So mutation is the only engine for biological change for natural selection to work on!

2. Through these mutations, greater complexity and constant new information was added to genomes so that the goo by chance got eyes, legs, gills, fins wings etc.etc. etc.

3. What do we observe about mutations? Well over 99.9% of all observed mutations fall on teh harmful side of the Kimera distribution scale (made famous by genetic evolutionist Mutoo Kimera). Granted the super majority are near benign. but as Dr. Wolfe Chair of the Wisconsin school of Genetics ( and an ardent evolutionist) has declared-- all mutations reduce the viability or reproductive virility of any population and ultimately reduces the population through genetic load! IOW the more mutations a population amasses- the greater the risk of extinction!

4. There are over 5,000 human conditions caused by mutations- none beneficial.

5. The theory of continual accumulation of "positive" mutations has never been observed, tested or repeated!

6. Evolutionism says that kingdom,phyla, class, order, family, genus and species all arose through mutations preserved. But the most we have ever observe happen is speciation. and most of that is simple variation of existing genetic material and not new material being added to the genome!

7. The two major experiments to prodice evolution (fruit fly & e. coli) failed to produce any thing new- they remained fruit flies and e. coli.

So yes provable testable observable biology speaks loudly against evolution.

8. Even our supposed closest relative (chimps) whom we are only 75-80% similar genetically does not prove common ancestry. Even where we are identical - we produce qualitatively different results.

I won't be wasting my time addressing all of this Gish Gallup, I'll just pick one which should be adequate to demonstrate that you really don't know what you're talking about......

.................................

"There are over 5,000 human conditions caused by mutations- none beneficial".

4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

The Meniscus: Happy Accidents: Beneficial Mutations in Humans

News Feature: Genetic mutations you want

No, no beneficial mutations.

.................................

"The theory of continual accumulation of "positive" mutations has never been observed, tested or repeated!"

Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection

Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations

Error - Cookies Turned Off

No, never studied .

So it is safe to say you have not bothered to look at teh debunking of so many "evolutionary fossil finds". I also take it you never heard about the massive scandal that was unocovered in the scientific peer review process.

I love basic paleontology! But when you get the indoctrinated evolutionists creating all these stories from a partial skeleton--C'mon don't you get suspicious? Have you ever read in the mags published for normal readers all teh amazing tales of life in the prehistoric eras? Some of them are more fantastic than Jurassic Park!

You're welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that your representation of the practice of paleontology was a childish parody.

Where? From the research without comments by either evolutionists or YEC scientists.

It really doesn't seem like it, it seems like you are posting half-remembered arguments from creationist propaganda sites.

Dr. Kirchner from Harvard Genetic school said in a Boston Herald interview that the study of genetics and molecular biology have advanced without any regard to evolution for nearly a century! He is an evolutionist and wishes they could join them closer, but that is an outstanding claim by the chair of Harvard Genetics.

LOL, a half-remembered quote form a Creationist website, it seems I wasn't far off the mark. Or are you going to tell me that you read the actual interview? Is this quote out of context, who knows? But these 2,800,000 research papers would suggest that your quote is inaccurate....

More later! I had a hard day at work. I am retiring in 18 days from the postal service after being there for almost 36 years. so my energy is limited. Will address the rest of your amazement at me in the morning!

No problem. I hope you have a happy retirement, I bet you're looking forward to it!