If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[notto]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.

 

[Dannager]

Because it is a proven fact (by observation, testing and retesting) that nearly all (>99%) of all mutations are harmful and destructive not inoovative, conservative and progressive.

This is false. Please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html and its cited source documents (there are fifteen of them). The majority of mutations are neutral with respect to selection. A few are beneficial and a few are harmful. That 99% figure is about as far off as a figure can be.

 

[Dannager]

nolidad, where are you getting your information from? A lot of it (especially regarding the nature and frequency of mutation) is just patently false! It looks to me like you're using information from a source that is spreading lies in order to elevate the YEC standpoint. Please do some reading up (on a science-oriented website) of how mutations work (we know the mechanism that produces them), how frequently they occur (you and everyone else on the planet has mutations), and the nature of them (most are neutral with respect to selection, which is all evolutionary theory cares about).

 

[nolidad]

Another lie. We do know what the mechanisms of mutation are. Some are external: radiation, exposure to chemicals. Some are inherent in the process of copying DNA for the purpose of reproduction. The copying process is open to error.

Well then take it up with yoru guys I was just qouting one ofyou.

This is false. Please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html and its cited source documents (there are fifteen of them). The majority of mutations are neutral with respect to selection. A few are beneficial and a few are harmful. That 99% figure is about as far off as a figure can be.

Well please look at my writing again so you will not accuse me of lying when you misqoute me. I specifically wrote that most mutations are neutral but that I was talking (and will from this point on mean this when I say mutations) that of mutations THAT DO PRODUCE CHANGE over 99% are harmful. Please do not acuse me of lying when I spell out what I am saying.

KerrMetric poses a good question. Why, for example, post this incorrect description of what macro-evolution is?

Well maybe the terms have shifted again and I didn't catch the change-- but maqcro evolution ussed to be defined as the progression of life by random mutation and natural selction from single cell to the diversity we see today.

Evolution, the process, is very well documented. And in many cases there is also good documentation for the history as well.

What you should be saying is the theorized process is well documented. On this I would agree with you. But the evidence to support the theory is still almost entirely nonexistent.

Show me lizard to bird or show me ape to man. Bu tmake sure you remove the proven hoaxes and false finds(such as Java and Peking man) and those where they created a whole race of transitional creatures from just 1/4 of a skull.

Changes within the kind do not preclude the common ancestry of all life. The changes from a fish to a lizard did not involve any changes from one kind to another at any point. All they ever required was the same sort of speciation that most creationists call micro-evolution.

Well then show me the evidence that speciation within a genra produced new family and phylum and even kingdom. I agree speciation is well documented, but that just has given change within a kind. Show me where speciation has been empirically demonstrated to produce a new kind from within species. In other words prove that lizards became birds or crocs became birds or whatever creatrure de jour changed from not being a bird to being a bird over however many millions of nonexistent years you wish. Then youy can be onthe path of convincing me.

 

[notto]

. . . mutations THAT DO PRODUCE CHANGE over 99% are harmful.

Can you provide us with a specific cite to research that shows this?

What is an example of a mutation that does not produce change compared to one that does?

How was this measured or studied? How is it determined that a mutation is harmful or beneficial?

I'm guessing there is research to back this up. Please provide some specific references if you can. Quotes are not references or research.

 

[Donkeytron]

Well then show me the evidence that speciation within a genra produced new family and phylum and even kingdom. I agree speciation is well documented, but that just has given change within a kind. Show me where speciation has been empirically demonstrated to produce a new kind from within species. In other words prove that lizards became birds or crocs became birds or whatever creatrure de jour changed from not being a bird to being a bird over however many millions of nonexistent years you wish. Then youy can be onthe path of convincing me.

HOLY MOVING GOAL POSTS, BATMAN!!11!!

A few years ago it was "no evolution. none."
Then it was "only microevolution, and only in petrie dishes"
I guess creationists are hedgeing their bets with"ok fine evolution, but only within a kind, and no im not telling you what kind means. Or information, for that matter"

 

[notto]

HOLY MOVING GOAL POSTS, BATMAN!!11!!

A few years ago it was "no evolution. none."
Then it was "only microevolution, and only in petrie dishes"
I guess creationists are hedgeing their bets with"ok fine evolution, but only within a kind, and no im not telling you what kind means. Or information, for that matter"

The only creationist defense it to ask for evidence that is not expected nor predicted by the theory of evolution.

Bring out the strawmen.

 

[gluadys]

Well then take it up with yoru guys I was just qouting one ofyou.

But not from a scientific source, I take it. Not all of us are scientists, and we sometimes err in what we say.

Well maybe the terms have shifted again and I didn't catch the change-- but maqcro evolution ussed to be defined as the progression of life by random mutation and natural selction from single cell to the diversity we see today.

This is the problem with using YECist sources for information about evolution. That is a common definition among anti-evolutionists. It is, and always has been, a strawman definition. So it is irrelevant when it comes to science.

If you want to object to evolution you need to begin by using the definitions from reputable scientific sources, and look for the weaknesses in those definitions. Scientifically, macro-evolution refers to speciation and common descent, whether or not this is accompanied by the emergence of complex species. IOW, the diversity of bacterial species is just as much macro-evolution as the diversity of plant species, and the diversity of ciliates is just as much macro-evolution as the diversity of mammals.

What you should be saying is the theorized process is well documented. On this I would agree with you. But the evidence to support the theory is still almost entirely nonexistent.

The theory is all about the process. The theory does not predict any particular history of evolution.

Show me lizard to bird or show me ape to man. Bu tmake sure you remove the proven hoaxes and false finds(such as Java and Peking man) and those where they created a whole race of transitional creatures from just 1/4 of a skull.

Neither Java nor Peking man are hoaxes. Both are early finds of Homo erectus. If you still contend they are hoaxes, please cite the documentation which shows that to be the case.

Every fossil is a remnant of one individual within a species. The existance of just 1/4 of a skull of one individual is sufficient to establish that a species once existed of which this fossil is a remnant. Do you really expect an individual to be a species all on its own without ties to parents, siblings and possibly mates and children all of the same species?

Well then show me the evidence that speciation within a genra

Just a spelling correction. The word "genra" does not exist in English biological dictionaries. I believe you are conflating the word "genus" with its plural "genera".

A genus is a group of related species. A taxonomic family is a group of related genera.

produced new family and phylum and even kingdom.

The process of evolution terminates in speciation, because species is the only natural division among life-forms. Every taxonomic ranking above species is a classification made for human convenience. (To some extent this is even true of species--when species are closely related there is no hard and fast demarcation between them.) Speciation, therefore, is THE way a genus is created. Once a population has divided into several species, the group is classified as a genus. When the species within this genus have sub-divided into several species each, the whole group is classified as a family, and each sub-group as a genus.

Of course, since we only began attempting a true phylogenic classification in the last century, the current classification is based primarily on speciations of the past, although on occasion new taxons are created for newly-discovered species. About a year ago, for example, a new kind of frog was discovered in India which was different enough from all known species to warrant setting up a whole new family within the order of frogs. This is extremely rare. Most new discoveries warrant at most a new genus.

I agree speciation is well documented, but that just has given change within a kind.

And the theory of evolution predicts that no other kind of change is possible. All you will ever get from evolution is a new species which is a variant of its ancestral species. Hence, all species are related to each other through common descent. All new "kinds" are variations of an ancestral "kind" and exist as sub-groups within a more encompassing "kind". There is no such thing as a brand-new "kind".

Show me where speciation has been empirically demonstrated to produce a new kind from within species.

Every speciation does that.


I put "kind" in quotes above, because I was not really speaking of what creationists call a kind. Since creationists have steadfastly refused to define "kind", no one, not even creationists themselves, can say what is and is not a kind.

The correct terminology for what I was saying above is "taxon" (plural: taxa). This is an all-purpose term taxonomists use for referring to any defined grouping within or beyond a species. A taxon may be as large as a domain (e.g. bacteria) or kingdom (e.g. fungi) or as small as a species or sub-species, or any level in-between such as family, infra-order or sub-phylum.

What identifies a taxon of any rank is a set of characteristics which are:
1. shared by all individuals in the taxon, and
2. unique to that taxon, not shared with any individuals in other taxa of the same rank and enclosing taxon.

Since every speciation produces such a group, every speciation produces a new "kind" from within the ancestral species, which is distinguished by the characteristics unique to the new group and not shared by other groups derived from the same ancestral species.

In other words prove that lizards became birds or crocs became birds or whatever creatrure de jour changed from not being a bird to being a bird over however many millions of nonexistent years you wish. Then youy can be onthe path of convincing me.

What would constitute proof?

Generally speaking, science does not attempt to prove things like this. Rather it comes to a logical conclusion based on the evidence. It operates by eliminating possible alternate conclusions which are contradicted by the evidence until only one conclusion remains unfalsified.

Scientists are satisfied that the available evidence supports the thesis that birds evolved from reptiles, specifically from therapod dinosaurs. All available evidence is consistent with this thesis and there is, to date, no evidence which contradicts it.


So, scientists will remain satsified with this conclusion until:

1. there is countervailing evidence which falsifies this conclusion, or
2. there is a better explanation of the available evidence.

Can you provide either 1. or 2. ?


Convincing you is less a matter of showing you the evidence of any particular transiton, than of making sure you understand the theory (i.e. the process) of evolution, and the consequence of the process (common descent in a nested hierarchy). Once you are persuaded of these, it is a small matter to show that the existing evidence is consistent with the theory. And that there is no competing theory capable of explaning the evidence.

 

[Dannager]

Well please look at my writing again so you will not accuse me of lying when you misqoute me. I specifically wrote that most mutations are neutral but that I was talking (and will from this point on mean this when I say mutations) that of mutations THAT DO PRODUCE CHANGE over 99% are harmful. Please do not acuse me of lying when I spell out what I am saying.

Ah, now I see where you said that. I missed the caveat added afterwards. My bad.

Regardless, that doesn't prevent your figure of 99% from being incorrect. The 99% quote from the website you cited comes from an article from the 1950s, and the claim itself is not supported. We've learned a lot since the 1950s. To boot, many of the sources you quoted are lying to you. For instance, I saw claims that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. This is false. For a few examples of known beneficial mutation, please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1, specifically the section labeled "Q: Are there favorable mutations?"

You're probably not using these lies on purpose, but you are listening to sources that are lying to you. There is no way around that. The tactics exhibited by most creationist websites are pretty much uniformly reprehensible. They are, generally speaking, misleading, disingenuous and outright false. Please take a look at some sources who both know what they're talking about and aren't trying to manipulate you.

 

[nolidad]

But not from a scientific source, I take it. Not all of us are scientists, and we sometimes err in what we say.

As I said I was just reusing the words an evolutionist on this thread said.

The theory is all about the process. The theory does not predict any particular history of evolution.

Nice garble but take it up with evolutionists who do show an ascent from lower to higher life forms via selection, mutation and time. But they have yet to demonstrate the process produces viable genra changes in the world. On paper yes, proof supporting the hypothesis--NO!!!

Neither Java nor Peking man are hoaxes. Both are early finds of Homo erectus. If you still contend they are hoaxes, please cite the documentation which shows that to be the case.

Yoiu need to read up on both because Debois admitted his find was from 2 seperate digs 500 meters apart and was the skull of homo and the femur of a gibbon.

As for Peking man--DeChardin showed the skulls to be of monkeys for higher up in the dig theyfound human skeletons (remember Chinese delicacy-- i smonkey brains form freshly cracked monkey skulls like Peking man was suppossed to be.

Every fossil is a remnant of one individual within a species. The existance of just 1/4 of a skull of one individual is sufficient to establish that a species once existed of which this fossil is a remnant. Do you really expect an individual to be a species all on its own without ties to parents, siblings and possibly mates and children all of the same species?

No but I do expect honesty when a 1/4 skull is found (and that in seperate sections) and a species is built and a society is established from sections of a skull.

The process of evolution terminates in speciation, because species is the only natural division among life-forms. Every taxonomic ranking above species is a classification made for human convenience. (To some extent this is even true of species--when species are closely related there is no hard and fast demarcation between them.) Speciation, therefore, is THE way a genus is created. Once a population has divided into several species, the group is classified as a genus. When the species within this genus have sub-divided into several species each, the whole group is classified as a family, and each sub-group as a genus.

Of course, since we only began attempting a true phylogenic classification in the last century, the current classification is based primarily on speciations of the past, although on occasion new taxons are created for newly-discovered species. About a year ago, for example, a new kind of frog was discovered in India which was different enough from all known species to warrant setting up a whole new family within the order of frogs. This is extremely rare. Most new discoveries warrant at most a new genus.

Well I should throw out my secular bioology books then for taxonomy is very valid in them. We know a dog is diffewrent from a jelly fish- it is in the same kingdom but different every where else down the line. And the more we get into genetics the more we will see taxonomy validated with some minor adjustments.

And the theory of evolution predicts that no other kind of change is possible. All you will ever get from evolution is a new species which is a variant of its ancestral species. Hence, all species are related to each other through common descent. All new "kinds" are variations of an ancestral "kind" and exist as sub-groups within a more encompassing "kind". There is no such thing as a brand-new "kind".

So are you saying that homo spaien is just a variant species of an ancient protazoan or paramecium??? Is that what you want me to accept?

notto writes:

Can you provide us with a specific cite to research that shows this?

What is an example of a mutation that does not produce change compared to one that does?

How was this measured or studied? How is it determined that a mutation is harmful or beneficial?

I'm guessing there is research to back this up. Please provide some specific references if you can. Quotes are not references or research.

Well I posted sites from both YEC and evo's testifying to the fact mutations are harmful you can go back and check those for links or do a google search on yoru own. I Am surprised you are supposedly this deep into beleiving in evolution by mutation and don't know that of the mutations that do bring about somatic or genetic changes over 99% are harmful and not passed on genetically.

Just a spelling correction. The word "genra" does not exist in English biological dictionaries. I believe you are conflating the word "genus" with its plural "genera".

I apologize for my lousing spelling.

The only creationist defense it to ask for evidence that is not expected nor predicted by the theory of evolution.

Well it was not creationists who said birds came from lizards and back to fish and so on and so on. We are just asking you to demonstrate by evidence (not opinion) that lizards did the following:

Change their forelimbs to wings
change their hind limbs to taloned legs
changer their jaws to beaks
change their scales to feathers
change solid bone to avian bone
change lizard eyes to bird eyes
show where the inverted sternum came from in lizards.
show how the instinct to fly developed (WHICH REQUIRES A BRAIN CHANGE )
show a change from cold blooded to warm blooded
show the change from a two chamber to a four chamber heart.

I know the Holy Grail for you guys (talkorigins.org) even freely says birds evolved from lizards and I could post ten websites that say so.

http://www.ornithology.com/lectures/Evolution.html
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide6.html
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/courses/Ornithology/EEB281_02_Evolution.htm
http://www.besse.at/sms/evolutn.html (a little humor)
http://www.besse.at/sms/evolutn.html

These are a few evolutionary websites that definitively say reptiles changed into birds. So now just demonstrate the how. If this is fact as they all say then please show the evidence which produced the fact.

donkeytron writes:

A few years ago it was "no evolution. none."
Then it was "only microevolution, and only in petrie dishes"
I guess creationists are hedgeing their bets with"ok fine evolution, but only within a kind, and no im not telling you what kind means. Or information, for that matter"

Well we YEC use the term micro evolution so as not to waste so much tiume arguing terms- which was pointless anyway cause people still argue terms.

Most speciation occurs not through random mutation but by simple reshuffling of preexisten genetic material, or latent tendencies already found in the species become dominanats and not recessive. Mendels LAw still is the best and most inclusive answer for explaining variation or speciation within species and genera.

 

[nolidad]

Notto:

In cased you missed it from my earlier post let me reask you the question I asked without the clutter of other information.

Do you beleive that Jesus
christ is almighty God who was manifested in teh flesh 2,000+- years ago and that He physically rose from the dead after dying on the cross and physically ascended ionto heaven?

 

[notto]

Notto:

In cased you missed it from my earlier post let me reask you the question I asked without the clutter of other information.

Do you beleive that Jesus
christ is almighty God who was manifested in teh flesh 2,000+- years ago and that He physically rose from the dead after dying on the cross and physically ascended ionto heaven?

Yes.

Can you provide some specific sources for your claims? A list of links doesn't do it. Point out specifically what research is being referred to or the relevent portion of the material you are linking to.

Can you do that?

The reason that I'm asking is that I don't accept your claim:
mutations that do bring about somatic or genetic changes over 99% are harmful and not passed on genetically

What is the context and research for this claim? How is 'harmful' qualified and measured? Please be specific.

 

[nolidad]

Yes.

Well then Notto do you beleive Jesus was honest and did not lie when He spoke?

Well what kind of research and I guess I would need you to defione what you wish to see by harmful.

Dwarfism is a genetic mutation that is harmful but not necessarily fatal.

Spina bifida is a mutation

Harmful woud be defined as making the host less viable
Fatal would be defined as making the host dead.


Dannager writes:

Regardless, that doesn't prevent your figure of 99% from being incorrect. The 99% quote from the website you cited comes from an article from the 1950s, and the claim itself is not supported. We've learned a lot since the 1950s. To boot, many of the sources you quoted are lying to you. For instance, I saw claims that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. This is false. For a few examples of known beneficial mutation, please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1, specifically the section labeled "Q: Are there favorable mutations?"

I have read these sites already and a few more from talk origins. I owuld disagree with some of their cites as mutations and confer on them what other researchers do-- the adaptibility found within species. Resistence to diseases and bascterium is not mutation at all. The bug able to chew nylon? I do ot know- I would love to peruse their research and see what genetic changes that took place to create that and if the change is replicated in all their offspring.

As for manipulating genes--that is manipulation and not mutation.

And as much as I and other YEC have been accussed of moving goalposts: In the late 70's many things called mutations now were called in evolutionary biology back then--variability within a species.

Well I di dnot make that claim-- on the contrary I by statement said there are some beneficial mutations but they are even more rare than harmful mutations.

And no the 99% qoute comes from an evolutionist not a creationist from the late 1980's.

You're probably not using these lies on purpose, but you are listening to sources that are lying to you. There is no way around that. The tactics exhibited by most creationist websites are pretty much uniformly reprehensible. They are, generally speaking, misleading, disingenuous and outright false. Please take a look at some sources who both know what they're talking about and aren't trying to manipulate you.

So you say because you disagree with them.

 

[notto]

Well then Notto do you beleive Jesus was honest and did not lie when He spoke?

Yes

Well what kind of research and I guess I would need you to defione what you wish to see by harmful.

I'm asking you what reseach you used to get your statistics and what definition of harmful they used and how they determined if a mutation was harmful.

You're making claim to this fact. Can you define it and show us how research supports it and what was used to determine if a mutation was harmful in this research? Where is the research and those conclusions?

Please be specific.

 

[gluadys]

Dwarfism is a genetic mutation that is harmful but not necessarily fatal.

Spina bifida is a mutation

Actually, these conditions may be a result of inheritance rather than of new mutations, but could also be the result of new mutations. It would be necessary to do a DNA analysis of the parents to determine whether the pertinent genes already existed in unexpressed form or whether they mutated during meiosis.

It is important to distinguish the condition itself from the underlying genetic cause. It is the change in the genetic sequence that is the mutation. Many mutations are silent (they do not make any change in the organism), but some mutations are expressed in the physical condition of the organism.

I have read these sites already and a few more from talk origins. I owuld disagree with some of their cites as mutations and confer on them what other researchers do-- the adaptibility found within species. Resistence to diseases and bascterium is not mutation at all. The bug able to chew nylon? I do ot know- I would love to peruse their research and see what genetic changes that took place to create that and if the change is replicated in all their offspring.

If you are going to argue against science it is important to stick with scientific terminology. Changing the definitions of terms is just setting up strawmen to burn.

Adaptability is a response to natural selection. Resistance to disease is a consequence of natural selection. In both cases variability must already exist in the species, so that there is something to select.

Why would changes to the DNA of bacteria not be considered mutation when changes to the DNA of say, cats, would be? The new ability of a bacterium to digest nylon is the conseqence of a change in DNA sequence; hence it is a product of a mutation. For a view of the research see: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Since the nylon bug was found as a population, and has been cultured since, yes, the mutation is being inherited. It is not necessary that it be inherited by every single one of its offspring. Any change in a DNA sequence can, in principle, be reversed. But bacteria are not found one at a time; they are found in colonies of at least thousands, often billions. Speaking of a "nylon bug" as if there were only one of them is just a convention of language. The term really refers to the whole bacterial population.

As for manipulating genes--that is manipulation and not mutation.

If the manipulation produces a change in the DNA sequence, it has produced a mutation. A mutation produced by genetic engineering is still a mutation.

And as much as I and other YEC have been accussed of moving goalposts: In the late 70's many things called mutations now were called in evolutionary biology back then--variability within a species.

Variability in a species is a consequence of mutations. Mutations occur in individuals. When that individual passes the new gene on to its offspring, while those around it are passing on unmutated genes, the consequences is two versions of the gene in the population. Each version is called an allele. Variability is sustained by having two or more versions of the same gene in the gene pool. And these variant versions or alleles are the product of mutation in a past generation.

Well I di dnot make that claim-- on the contrary I by statement said there are some beneficial mutations but they are even more rare than harmful mutations.

And what is the implication of this for evolution? This is the third time I have asked this question, and you have not responded to it yet.

I find that most creationists cannot expound on this correctly. See if you can prove yourself an exception.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

If all mutations are harmful, then how do you explain that there are new strains of the flu virus every years?

 

[shernren]

Well it was not creationists who said birds came from lizards and back to fish and so on and so on. We are just asking you to demonstrate by evidence (not opinion) that lizards did the following:

Change their forelimbs to wings
change their hind limbs to taloned legs
changer their jaws to beaks
change their scales to feathers
change solid bone to avian bone
change lizard eyes to bird eyes
show where the inverted sternum came from in lizards.
show how the instinct to fly developed (WHICH REQUIRES A BRAIN CHANGE )
show a change from cold blooded to warm blooded
show the change from a two chamber to a four chamber heart.

If I held you to your own standards I should say that I have no reason to believe Adam existed until you can dig up a human male fossil showing signs of supernatural removal of one rib. Which part of "perverse, evidential, demands" do you not get?

You are obviously not getting the picture. Instead you are blindly and happily insinuating that fellow Christians are not able to repeat the Nicene Creed and attest to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ simply because we believe in evolution, which you have not been able to substantiate or justify, and which I find rather uncharitable considering this is a thread in a Christians-only forum.

In the first place, how do you define a harmful mutation? The sickle-cell mutation in the haemoglobin genes causes sickle-cell anemia in homozygote form. Yet in heterozygote form it conveys some immunity against malaria, an endemic fatal protozoan disease in the tropics. Is the sickle-cell mutation beneficial or harmful?

Also, you have not been able to show that you are not holding to a God-of-the-gaps belief. Granted, I did not explicitly say that you were holding to one. But I now do. Read and disabuse yourself of some creationist fallacies:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21969093#post21969093

 

[gluadys]

Nice garble but take it up with evolutionists who do show an ascent from lower to higher life forms via selection, mutation and time.

Sure, but that is history, not theory.

But they have yet to demonstrate the process produces viable genra changes in the world. On paper yes, proof supporting the hypothesis--NO!!!

On the contrary, it is the process which we do know (at least the major factors like mutation and natural selection) and have observed. The history is more tentative, but the main lines are clear.

Just remember that the theory does not predict the history. As Stephen J. Gould once said, if we reran the tape of evolution on earth, it is highly improbable we would get the same tree. The most we can say about the history is that if we have parts of it, we can make some solid predictions about the missing pieces.

Yoiu need to read up on both because Debois admitted his find was from 2 seperate digs 500 meters apart and was the skull of homo and the femur of a gibbon.

This is garbling what Dubois said. He actually denied that the skull was truly human, but placed it intermediate between higher primates and human. That is why he called it Pithecanthropus (ape-man). Today it is recognized as belonging to the genus Homo, but not to the human species. As for whether or not it is a gibbon, check out this comparison.

For more on what Dubois actually said see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

As for Peking man--DeChardin showed the skulls to be of monkeys for higher up in the dig theyfound human skeletons (remember Chinese delicacy-- i smonkey brains form freshly cracked monkey skulls like Peking man was suppossed to be.

More garbled history. In the first place the so-called thesis that the Peking skulls were monkey skulls did not come from de Chardin at all, but from Patrick O'Connor. And his quote was a mistranslation of one from Marcellin Boule.

Marcellin Boule was disagreeing with de Chardin on one point. He did not believe the evidences of human culture (tools, fire) found with the Peking skulls were created by Peking Man, known then scientifically as Sinanthropus. He proposed that "true men" (i.e. H. sapiens) existed at the time, produced the cultural artifacts and hunted Sinanthropus. De Chardin, on the other hand, believed it was Peking man himself who was the hunter and the creator of the tools and the user of the fire.

Boule himself never suggested that Peking man, even as prey, was a monkey. That assertion was made by O'Connor in his poor translation from the French.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html

No but I do expect honesty when a 1/4 skull is found (and that in seperate sections) and a species is built and a society is established from sections of a skull.

It would be helpful if you would specify which skull you are referring to. Are you suggesting that no cultural artifacts were found with the skull fragments? Usually social structure is established from such artifacts, not from the skull itself. But, as noted earlier, the skull itself does establish the existence of the species. I am at a loss to understand where you think dishonesty occurred without further precision on this find.

Well I should throw out my secular bioology books then for taxonomy is very valid in them. We know a dog is diffewrent from a jelly fish- it is in the same kingdom but different every where else down the line. And the more we get into genetics the more we will see taxonomy validated with some minor adjustments.

I have said nothing that invalidates taxonomy. I consider taxonomy to be one of the strongest lines of evidence in favour of evolution. Taxonomy reveals the nested hierarchy which is generated by evolution. Nothing explains the facts of taxonomy as well as evolution does.

So are you saying that homo spaien is just a variant species of an ancient protazoan or paramecium??? Is that what you want me to accept?

No. We and paramecia have a common ancestor among some extinct basal eukaryote species. But that doesn't make us "just" anything other than human.

Well it was not creationists who said birds came from lizards and back to fish and so on and so on. We are just asking you to demonstrate by evidence (not opinion) that lizards did the following:

Change their forelimbs to wings
change their hind limbs to taloned legs
changer their jaws to beaks
change their scales to feathers
change solid bone to avian bone
change lizard eyes to bird eyes
show where the inverted sternum came from in lizards.
show how the instinct to fly developed (WHICH REQUIRES A BRAIN CHANGE )
show a change from cold blooded to warm blooded
show the change from a two chamber to a four chamber heart.

Too much to put in a post. I suggest reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins (yeah, the bad atheist guy--but he's a good scientist) for a basic run-down on these transitions.

These are a few evolutionary websites that definitively say reptiles changed into birds. So now just demonstrate the how. If this is fact as they all say then please show the evidence which produced the fact.

The how is the process of evolution. That is why it is important to understand the process before delving into the history. Understanding the process tells you what to look for in the history of evolutionary transitions.

Most speciation occurs not through random mutation but by simple reshuffling of preexisten genetic material, or latent tendencies already found in the species become dominanats and not recessive. Mendels LAw still is the best and most inclusive answer for explaining variation or speciation within species and genera.

Well, this is not enough to produce speciation. Lots of variation in a species a la Mendel's peas of different colours, textures, heights etc. is not speciation. Mendel did not produce any new variation nor any new species. His experiments were not designed for that.


Evolution requires the production of new variants and the impact of natural selection on Mendelian inheritance. Mendel used existing variants, eliminated any unexpected variants that showed up, and protected his plants from the impact of natural selection (though he did so unwittingly).

Speciation requires, in addition to the normal process of evolution, the erection of genetic isolation within a gene pool.

Experiments designed to produce speciation have produced new species.

 

[Gwenyfur]

and here we sit
homo sapiens sapiens
man wise wise

hrmph...somehow I find that hilarious

 

[Dannager]

and here we sit
homo sapiens sapiens
man wise wise

hrmph...somehow I find that hilarious

Sorry, what?