Incredible - a single cell

[Danielwright2311]

That's not an explanation.

That a good enough explanation that i need. it works for me, why not you?

We share a common ancestor with lungfish, a more recent common ancestor than the one that lungfish (or humans) share with most fish.

And you say this with no proof, yes, we are related, by gods design.\

The common ancestor from which both species evolved also had males and females.

Yes, that did not have sex with each other to reproduce , also, its impossible for one male lung fish to eviolve into a man, then a girl lungfish to do the same at the same time for them to come together as male and female.

You are missing the truth, and that is, in evolution, even lungfish, only one microbe evolved, not two at the same time making both male and female.

 

[Danielwright2311]

That's not an explanation. An explanation tells you why things are the way they are, rather than some other way. "God created it this way" could explain any data at all.

We share a common ancestor with lungfish, a more recent common ancestor than the one that lungfish (or humans) share with most fish.

The common ancestor from which both species evolved also had males and females. For detailed information about how we evolved from a fish, I suggest you read Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.

With that said, if we evolved from lung fish, no lungfish would exists today, as the need to adapt is no longer a need. Also, we would see half human half lung fish all over. And fossils of half lung fish and half humans, and we have no such fossils.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Sorry, but 1,000 fundamentalist Protestants claiming to be "scientists" is not going to impress anyone with more than an 8th grade education in actual science.
born again Catholic biologist

 

[Tone]

Uhm... what? You are saying that living organisms do not change?

Just go outside and look around. You will see so many specialized species that did not exist in history.

Who is to say that even more complex creatures didn't exist in the past?

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, but 1,000 fundamentalist Protestants claiming to be "scientists" is not going to impress anyone with more than an 8th grade education in actual science.

Apparently, some got on the list, not realizing what the real agenda was:

Bob Davidson is a scientist — a doctor, and for 28 years a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school.


He's also a devout Christian who believes we're here because of God. It was these twin devotions to science and religion that first attracted him to Seattle's Discovery Institute. That's the think tank that this summer has pushed "intelligent design" — a replacement theory for evolution — all the way to the lips of President Bush and into the national conversation.


Davidson says he was seeking a place where people "believe in a Creator and also believe in science.


"I thought it was refreshing," he says.


Not anymore. He's concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.


"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."


I got Davidson's name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the "central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution." Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn't be on the list because he believes "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."


He's only one scientist, one opinion in our ongoing debate about evolution and faith.


But I bring you Davidson's views because I suspect he is a bellwether for the Discovery Institute and intelligent design, as more scientists learn about them. He was attracted to an institute that embraced both science and religion, yet he found its critique of existing science wrong and its new theory empty.


"I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this," Davidson says.
He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."
"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."


Davidson began to believe the institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program" to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design — the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed — and found them lacking in scientific merit.
The Seattle Times: Local News: Evolving opinion of one man

 

[The Barbarian]

Who is to say that even more complex creatures didn't exist in the past?

The fossil record has many millions of species. How would you measure "even more complex?"

 

[Danielwright2311]

The fossil record

What fossil record? show me this record, i need to see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Calling me ignorant does not prove evolution

I'm merely pointing out that you're just making up stories as you go. As long as you do that, you're going to remain ignorant.

nor prove your smarter then me in any way,

Well, I"m just a dumb old Barbarian, and you're such a clever young fellow. Maybe that's why you feel qualified to tell us about stuff about which you seem to know nothing at all.

all it does is make me move away from your belief even more.

You're locked in to your new religious ideas. But you're helping us a great deal by letting people with open minds see you.

See? God and Jesus do things with love and understanding, no insults or hate

That's why it was a bad idea for you to falsely claim I said I didn't care about the issue. But it serves a purpose in the bigger scheme of things. You're a perfect example of the way YECs operate.

You will never win anyone to evolution calling them ignorant.

You will never learn anything at all, until you learn that you are ignorant. None of us would, if we weren't willing to acknowledge it.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You will never learn anything at all, until you learn that you are ignorant. None of us would, if we weren't willing to acknowledge it.

Defending your position to call others ignorant is a attack and i'm reporting you.

 

[The Barbarian]

What fossil record? show me this record, i need to see it.

Sure. Start here, with a fellow YEC:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and[p. 219] Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[The Barbarian]

Defending your position to call others ignorant is a attack and i'm reporting you.

Don't get mad; get smart. Learn about the issue, and you won't be so easy to handle. As I said, we are all ignorant of many different things; we learn nothing at all, until we are willing to face that.

 

[Tone]

So did lungfish and tuna. The question was, why are lungfish more similar to humans genetically than they are to tuna?

Because that same Creator wanted them to be (assuming you're correct).

 

[Tone]

The number is a bit high, but they are all multicellular eukaryotes, and therefore more closely related to each other than to protists. but the chicken, being a tetrapod, is more closely related to humans, coelacanths and lungfish, than it is to fruit flies or bananas.

In fact, if one uses genetic relatedness, one gets the same family tree of living things first found by Linnaeus, using only phenotypes, to a very high degree of precision.

Who are we most related to as far as consciousness goes?

 

[Tone]

The fossil record has many millions of species. How would you measure "even more complex?"

...with a ruler...duh...

 

[Danielwright2311]

Don't get mad; get smart.

Again, I'm not mad, You are the one who is mad, if i was mad i would insult you, but, I'm not, you are doing the insulting proving your mad at me for my belief.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mendel's laws[edit]

I see you cut and paste pretty well. But you never showed us how any of Mendel's laws prove speciation. Can you do that?

(assertion that sorting of the fossil record was because more advanced organisms could escape the flood longer)

Barbarian observes:
Which explains why the swift sloths were able to outrun the slow velocirapters

Well I can't give specified details for every single creature. for all we know they lived in higher areas and survived aftger the raptors were destroyed by the flood!

In other words, you explanation could be adjusted to fit any outcome. It could, for example, explain why Oak trees were able to outrun conifers.

Barbarian observes:
Your fellow YEC, Kurt Wise disagrees with you. He says the dino/bird series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And he actually knows what he's talking about.

Weill show us where this Wise Guy (all pun intended) said this in context and we then can all see why a YEC would believe ina process that is considered to take eons.

I left you a link. Here:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wise doesn't accept evolution. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You lose. Even AIG and ICR admit the evolution of new genera and often new families.

So you allege! Burt being a faithful reader of ICR for over two decades and AIG for over a decade now-

If so, it's hard to see how you missed Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe. Endorsed by the ICR, this study asserts the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. I discussed this in email with Woodmorappe, and he confirmed this.

AIG
"Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.” Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level."
Number of Estimated Species Reaches 8.7 Million

I will need to see where they wrote this! Because everything I read from them they teach against macroevolution on any level!

They just re-defined "macroevolution" to mean "evolution beyond the family level."

Nope I am talking that the DNA of a bird is QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THAN A RAPTOR.

Wrong again. Raptors are just one kind of bird.

All Raptors have a hooked beak, excellent eyesight, sharp talons, and strong legs and feet. Check out what makes a bird a Raptor and other nesting habits of Raptors!

Again, you've confused analogy with homology. Until you get that worked out, you won't be able to understand what this is about.

that THE dna WHILE HOMOLOGOUS IN 75-80% IS ALSO QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT.

Show us your evidence for that. And typing an all caps is considered to be screaming. Avoid that.

We both code identically to produce muscle tissue and organ tissue and hair,

Actually, we don't. The genes for such things are quite different.

Same with the failed attempt to place a chicken feather gene in an alligator.

That would have been a real problem for evolutionary theory. What they got were tuft feathers, like those on early dinosaurs. Which verifies the common descent of archosaurs like dinosaurs, alligators, and birds.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can not fathom how great a creator our God is. I mean even Earth's orbit around the sun, and the moon affect climate. The narrow range of temperatures to sustain life. All impossible on its own, no matter how long its given. Even sentience is an incredible feat.

That's wrong, too. For example, the Earth, when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, is about one million miles farther from the Sun than it is when it's winter.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, I'm not mad,

Your denial is less convincing than your behavior.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Your denial is less convincing than your behavior.

Ok, lets grow up now.

My behavior is not insulting others.

 

[Tone]

That's wrong, too. For example, the Earth, when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, is about one million miles farther from the Sun than it is when it's winter.

What about the first sentence...is it wrong?