Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

Evolution.

Evolution as its being presented today is like watching CNN to get the truth about President Trump. Satan is the father of lying....

Now? Young Earth Creationism has its own can of worms to contend with. It muddies the waters in regards to Bible accuracy which made spreading the theory of evolution a rather easy task for the humanists. Tradition and sentimentalism trumped over accuracy in teaching.

The earth is not only thousands of years old as Young Earth Creationists contend. Only this current creation we see on the surface of the earth is. For, the Bible teaches and reveals that other creations existed on the surface of this earth long before Adam was ever put in the spotlight. Trouble is when we are reading English translations were a watered down rendition of the Hebrew and Greek that makes it easy to obscure. But, loyalty to ones sect, mixed with traditionalism that is driven by sentimentalism... keeps too many truths found in the Bible buried, being in need of a resurrection itself.

 

[GenemZ]

Prove it. No, I will make easy on you. Prove macroevolution.

Dan

He can't.

But, that will not bother him. He most likely does not want to be like the religious phonies he has known. Evolution gives him ammo that he likes having. Even though its mostly blanks that make a loud bothersome noise.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian observes: He is. Railing against the evidence is a losing battle. I understand the problem. Science changes theories when the facts show them to be inaccurate."

I am a big boy: you can address me directly without playing games. Show us the proof of macroevolution, and I will convert (or, convert back. I was an evolutionist for most of my career).

They do. Darwinism has been repeatedly modified over the years as new evidence accumulates. For example, Darwin's thought that acquired characteristics might sometimes be inherited, and his (then conventional among scientists) thought that inheritance was in the blood have been removed from the theory as Lamackism turned out to be wrong, and Mendel's discovery showed that inheritance was particulate, through genes. That last cleared up a serious problem for Darwin's theory, BTW.

The only proof that will give credibility to Charlie Darwin's hypothesis is solid evidence of macroevolution. Currently there is none. Worse for Charlie, now scientists are demonstrating that the geological column points to a global flood.

While Darwin's basic points remain as solid as ever, many aspects of his theory are different now than when they were first deveoped. Would you like to learn about some others?

Sure! Humor me!

Barbarian observes:While scientists revise evolutionary theory when new information shows a need, creationist can only try to change the facts when they show their beliefs to be inaccurate."

Baloney. (By the way, what's with the "Barbarian this", and "Barbarian that", silliness?)

Barbarian observes (but sees nothing): Some are here to genuinely learn and grow. Creationists often do it, to see how well they can resist it. The more evidence they can ignore and defy the stronger they see themselves to be.

That is NOT proof of macroevolution.

See above. I just gave you two of many changes in evolutionary theory, as new evidence showed a need for it.

What evidence? Do you consider "lack of evidence" to be evidence?

Barbarian observes: Not every creationist. There are many that are open to learning more about it. But so many of them are locked into their modern, man-made doctrines that they cannot accept any facts that contradict their presuppositions.

Blah, blah, blah . . .

You, for example, are locked into old beliefs that many creationists have abandoned.

I was an evolutionist for most of my old life. But one day I actually took the time to actually examine it. It is total and complete nonsense.

Notice that Wise admits openly that the large number of transitional fossils is strong evidence for evolution.

You keep quoting that statement as if it is the only thing you have to support macroevolution. Is it? Probably.

For the rest of you, listen to Dr. Kurt Wise's words today, and NOT from 23 years ago when the creationist understanding of the fossil record was in its infancy.

Many other creationists like John Woodmorappe of the Institute for Creation Research, has admitted the evolution of new species, genera, and families of animals as a required to make the Noah's Ark story plausible. Instead of one family tree of evolution, many modern creationists instead suppose a series of bushes with limited common descent.

Why do you hide or mask the words of your sources? For example, did Woodmorappe "admit" new species via macroevolution or microevolution? (If you are referring ONLY to microevolution (or, "speciation"), then you are equivocating.)

There is no family tree of evolution. Each of the kinds that entered the Ark were created during creation week.

I know you want us to believe that. But as you have repeatedly declined to name even one case of two major groups said to be connected by evolutionary theory, that lack a transitional, your behavior is more persuasive than your denials.

If you will show proof of a transitional line, you will make a believer out of me, and many others. But these snarky platitudes will never convince anyone with half-a-brain that you know what you are talking about.

Surely, if you were right, you could find at least one case, wouldn't you think? Since we are still looking for a few important transitionals, you have at least a chance of finding one. Why not give it a try? Hint: read Dr. Wise's list of known transitionals, for some that you probably shouldn't bring up.

Still quoting that 23 year old paper? Like I said, Evolutionism Icons Die Hard!

By the way, Kurt Wise is a brilliant scientist who also believes there is scientific evidence for the biblical Noah's flood narrative:

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

As you've learned, the evidence for common descent is quite extensive, from several independent lines of data.

There is no evidence for common descent. A common designer, maybe, but not common descent.

Linnaeus' morphological family tree was confirmed by genetic data and by conserved organic molecules. And predictions of common descent, based on existing evidence, such as ear and jaw structure, have been verified by finding transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

I am fairly certain Linnaeus was not an evolutionist; and I am certain no transitional forms been found.

The first evidence was the discovery by Linnaeus that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Later on, transitional forms were found, filling in the gaps between taxa, further confirming the prediction. Then genetics showed that DNA phylogenies precisely recreate the same family tree. And that's confirmed by testing organisms of known descent."

There are no transitional forms, and the science of genetics has proven nothing to support macroevolution. Rather, it predicts macroevolution to be virtually impossible. It is more logical to believe in a common designer than evolution.

Since it's starting to drift off into a Gish gallop, with tossing out as many issues as possible, hoping some of them might stick, we'll break it up into separate posts: Phylogeny bases on cytochrome C:

You posted a chart from at 2005 Brigannica as proof? There have been tons of cellular discoveries since then. So, how does that prove macroevolution?

Phylogeny based on DNA

How does that prove macroevolution?

All three lines of evidence show common descent to a rather precise agreement. And as you know, there are transitional forms only where these diagrams predict them but never where they are not predicted. So we have dinosaurs with feathers and avian respiratory systems, but never mammals with avian or dinosaur apomorphic characters.

Dinosaurs with feathers? LOL! That is funny!

Okay, I'll bite. Are those charts based in pseudogenes?

Dan

 

[GenemZ]

The only proof that will give credibility to Charlie Darwin's hypothesis is solid evidence of macroevolution. Currently there is none. Worse for Charlie, now scientists are demonstrating that the geological column points to a global flood.

More confusion.... That global flood was Genesis 1:2. Not Noah's. God's only purpose in Noah's flood was to destroy mankind as it was becoming.

Mankind was in its mere infancy at the time of Noah. In order to give grace before judgment all men had to hear the warnings (preaching) of Noah in order for God to be fair in judging. If men were living on the other side of the world they would have never heard Noah's voice!

Noah's flood was the flooding of all the "known world" of man. Most likely... man being yet in his infancy was living in an area maybe the size of Rhode Island. For, it was not until Genesis 11 that God forced man against his nature to begin to scatter all over the face of the earth. Until then, men herded close to each other.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian observes: A similar result can be shown from conserved organic molecules. Recently, a small amount of heme was found in the fossil of a T-rex. When checked, it was more closely similar to that of birds than of other reptiles, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone; Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey; PNAS June 10, 1997. 94 (12) 6291-6296;

How does that prove macroevolution?

By the way, I really like this quote:

"Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs’ closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein"​

It is not every day you stumble across 68 million-year-old protein. LOL!

BTW, that quote came from an article that did not reference Swhweitzer et al, 1997.

Two more data points, confirming predictions of evolutionary theory. Fossil data shows that dinosaurs, birds, and mammals are evolved from a common ancestor after lizards and snakes diverged from that line.

It shows no such thing.

Nope. "Common designer" would indicate all reptiles would have the same heme, not birds and dinosaurs.

Why so? Who made that silly rule?

Evidence indicates birds evolved from dinosaurs long before dinosaurs went extinct. Your argument is essentially "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead."

There is no evidence birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor is there evidence of any plant or animal "evolving" from any other.

I know you want us to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit they exist and one of them says that those transitionals are strong evidence for evolution.

It is good to know you consider me to be dishonest. So, prove it! Prove I am dishonest!

I will settle for proof of transitional forms; and if you provide them I will forgive your pretentious behavior.

(BTW, there is nothing dishonest about demanding proof of an assertion; but it is dishonest to claim there is proof when there is none.)

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Noah's flood was the flooding of all the "known world" of man. Most likely... man being yet in his infancy was living in an area maybe the size of Rhode Island. For, it was not until Genesis 11 that God forced man against his nature to begin to scatter all over the face of the earth. Until then, men herded close to each other.

I believed that way until about a decade ago (maybe less). What do you know about lamination of the sedimentary layers (as opposed to bioturbation), polystrate fossils extending upward through multiple coal seams, and laminate coal seam benches? This is a discussion of the latter:

The start time for the coal seam benches is 57:56.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Sorry, apes and humans didn't evolve from each other. They evolved from a primate that was neither a modern ape nor a human.

And you know this how? Do you have a time machine?

However, as creationist Kurt Wise says, the hominid series is good evidence for the evolution of humans from earlier primates.

Kurt Wise believes the biblical Adam was the first man:

Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com​

He also believes:

"there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth"​

So, what do you think a transitional between a primitive primate and a human might be like? What characteristics would you think it might have? If you don't know, say so, and we'll go on and look at the evidence for it.

Present some transitional forms and I will examine them.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, apes and humans didn't evolve from each other. They evolved from a primate that was neither a modern ape nor a human.

And you know this how?

There are no apes of the sort we see today, in the fossil record. But there are generalized primates.

From Nature:
Nature | News


Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups

Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.


15 May 2013
Palaeontologists working in Tanzania have discovered the oldest known fossils from two major primate groups — Old World monkeys, which include baboons and macaques, and apes, which include humans and chimpanzees. The study, published online today in Nature1, reveals new information about primate evolution.
...
The discovery also reconciles the fossil record analyses of 'molecular clocks' — mutations in DNA that can be traced back to estimate how long ago two species diverged. Molecular clocks suggest that Old World monkeys and apes split from their common ancestor 25 million to 30 million years ago.

“It’s a confirmation that the molecular-clock studies are decent estimates for what’s going on in geological time,” says Michael Steiper, an anthropologist at Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups

Do you have a time machine?

We have evidence. And that's what matters.

Kurt Wise believes the biblical Adam was the first man

Good for him. Whether Adam was H. sapiens, H. erectus, or whatever, he was the first to have God give him an immortal soul.

He also believes:
"there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth"

Of course. He also recognizes that there is an abundance of evidence for macroevolution. He just puts his interpretation of scripture above the evidence. He's quite frank about that.

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
Kurt Wise. In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. John Ashton, Ed.

Barbarian asks what Dan might consider to be a transitional between early hominids and modern humans, agreeing that if Dan doesn't know what a transitional is, Barbarian will go show him)

Present some transitional forms and I will examine them.

First, a transitional form has apomorphic characters of two different groups. For example Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, because it has characteristics found only in dinosaurs and others found only in birds.

Do you think it's a dinosaur or a bird?

But let's look a hominids, which Kurt Wise says are strong evidence for human evolution:

Chimps are highly adapted to climbing, and they have very curved digits to facilitate gripping branches. The are, in this respect, very much like primitive apes. Notice that Australopithecines are transitional in this regard between humans and other apes.

Notice that chimpanzees, being arboreal like primitive apes, have a long pelvis and the femur attached low and close to the center of the body. This is good for climbing, but makes bipedal movement clumsy and inefficient.

Australopithecines, being mostly bipedal, are transitional in hips, femurs, and feet between arboreal apes and humans. They retain some primitive ape characteristics, but also some human ones. Their pelvises are nicely intermediate, while their feet are more human-like than ape-like. This "mosaic" evolution indicates that it does not proceed smoothly, but by stepwise changes.

The knock-kneed position of human legs, and to a lesser degree, Australopithecine legs, allows efficient bipedal movement.

Let's look at the skulls, starting at the base:

Notice also, the foramen magnum, where the spinal cord joins the brain. It is transitional in Australopithecines between the primitive ape condition and the human condition. This shows an increasing trend toward upright stance, rather than a quadripedal one. Notice that the dental arcade in Australopithecines is transitional between primitive apes and humans.

There is, in the hominid series, a noticable and gradual change in skulls. They increase in the size of the braincase, and decrease size of the face and teeth. This paedomorphic trend is quite noticable, and was first examined in detail by D'Arcy Thompson, who showed that it was a basic deformation of the normal ape condition.

So, as you have seen, Australopithecines are by definition, transitional between primitive arboreal apes and humans. There are even more interesting transitions between very early members of Homo, and later humans. Would you like to learn about those?

One last point:
Many of the structures in modern humans that have changed greatly over the past few million years, give us a lot of trouble. Because we weren't designed to walk upright, but evolved from quadrupeds, lower backs, hip, knees, and feet are only partially adapted to walking on two legs.

Structures that were just fine for four-legged movement don't work so well for two-legged movement. For most of my working life, I did ergonomics, and I know first-hand how the biomechanics of humans are often suboptimal because of the way we evolved.

I could show you some of that, if you like.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believed that way until about a decade ago (maybe less). What do you know about lamination of the sedimentary layers (as opposed to bioturbation)

The issue of lamina is another line of evidence for an ancient Earth. Varves are a particular sort of lamination, formed in some lakes, with two annual layers, one dark and one light. In some lakes, many thousands of years of varves are still intact:

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

polystrate fossils

There are some of them forming a few miles from my house, where a dam flooded a forest. The trees are dead, but still standing, and layer after layer of sediment is slowly burying them. If this continues for a long time, they will form polystrate fossils. No scientist is puzzled as to how they form.

 

[The Barbarian]

How does that prove macroevolution?

It merely verifies Huxley's prediction that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. As you see, dinosaurs turn out to be more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles.

By the way, I really like this quote:

"Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs’ closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein"​

Such things have been known for a long time. Collagen can survive for millions of years in anoxic environments. Similar molecules have been found in ancient invertebrates High concentrations of iron improve survival, it turns out.​

Barbarian observes:
Two more data points, confirming predictions of evolutionary theory. Fossil data shows that dinosaurs, birds, and mammals are evolved from a common ancestor after lizards and snakes diverged from that line.

It shows no such thing.

That wrong. It verifies a prediction made over a hundred years ago, based on other evidence. As you learned, conserved molecules are more similar in more closely-related species.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. "Common designer" would indicate all reptiles would have the same heme, not birds and dinosaurs.

Why so?

Because common design would require common design.

Who made that silly rule?

It's a religious dogma of "intelligent design."

Barbarian observes:
Evidence indicates birds evolved from dinosaurs long before dinosaurs went extinct. Your argument is essentially "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead."

There is no evidence birds evolved from dinosaurs

As you saw, Huxley used anatomical evidence to predict the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Later, the discovery of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds confirmed his prediction. Even later, the demonstration that collagen and heme further confirmed Huxley's prediction.

And notice, this kind of confirmation never shows up where the theory says it shouldn't.

It is good to know you consider me to be dishonest.

It's clear to me that you've been misled; there's a lot of things about this that seem to be news to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence for common descent. A common designer, maybe, but not common descent.

"Common designer" would not explain homologous organs, or suboptimal structures. ID is religion, not a scientific theory.

I am fairly certain Linnaeus was not an evolutionist

I doubt if he realized what he had. He imagined "the great chain of being" as though God just made it look like a family tree. He was greatly puzzled when the family tree could only be produced for living things, and not for other parts of nature, like minerals. We now understand why that is.

and I am certain no transitional forms been found.

By definition, we have them between almost every major group. So no point in denying the fact.

There are no transitional forms, and the science of genetics has proven nothing to support macroevolution.

As you learned, it cleared up a major difficulty with Darwin's theory. It made macroevolution possible.

Rather, it predicts macroevolution to be virtually impossible.

You've got it backwards, again.

(Barbarian demonstrates that phylogenies from cytochrome C verify the family trees of Linnaeus and from DNA analysis)

You posted a chart from at 2005 Brigannica as proof?

Yep. It's been known for a long time. One of the first conserved molecules to be so tested.

There have been tons of cellular discoveries since then.

Yep. And things like heme and collagen have confirmed the early phylogenies.

So, how does that prove macroevolution?

It confirms the predictions of scientists who based their predictions on anatomical and fossil evidence.

How does that prove macroevolution?

It confirms the fact that the family tree of common descent first shown by Linnaeus, is true.

Dinosaurs with feathers? LOL! That is funny!

Lots of them these days. Most creationists have admitted the fact. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Okay, I'll bite. Are those charts based in pseudogenes?

They are based on DNA or on conserved biological molecules as the case may be. Would you like to start a thread how that's done?

 

[The Barbarian]

Location of nostrils in whales shows transitional forms:

Pakicetus, a terrestrial whale, Rhodocetus, a mostly aquatic/marine whale, and a modern whale. As you see, Rhodocetus is transitional between very early and later whales.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, apes and humans didn't evolve from each other. They evolved from a primate that was neither a modern ape nor a human.

There is no evidence any animal or plant evolved from any other.

There are no apes of the sort we see today, in the fossil record. But there are generalized primates. From Nature:
Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
15 May 2013

"Palaeontologists working in Tanzania have discovered the oldest known fossils from two major primate groups — Old World monkeys, which include baboons and macaques, and apes, which include humans and chimpanzees. The study, published online today in Nature1, reveals new information about primate evolution.

The "study" reveals nothing except the diggers have vivid imaginations.

The discovery also reconciles the fossil record analyses of 'molecular clocks' — mutations in DNA that can be traced back to estimate how long ago two species diverged. Molecular clocks suggest that Old World monkeys and apes split from their common ancestor 25 million to 30 million years ago.

“It’s a confirmation that the molecular-clock studies are decent estimates for what’s going on in geological time,” says Michael Steiper, an anthropologist at Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups.

So-called "molecular clocks" are another in a long list of hypotheses and gadgets based on perpetually unprovable assumptions.

We have evidence. And that's what matters.

You have no evidence. Everything you are pushing on the unsuspecting is based on unprovable assumptions and dogmatic assertions.

Good for [Kurt Wise]/ Whether Adam was H. sapiens, H. erectus, or whatever, he was the first to have God give him an immortal soul.

Dr. Wise believes God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, as written in Genesis 2:7, not according to foolishness of evolutionism.

Of course. [Kurt Wise] also recognizes that there is an abundance of evidence for macroevolution. He just puts his interpretation of scripture above the evidence. He's quite frank about that. "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Kurt Wise. In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. John Ashton, Ed.

Did you bother to read what you copy/pasted? Dr. Wise said, "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".

Did you get that? Dr. Wise now has scientific evidence for the global flood and rapid deposition of the fossil-laden sedimentary layers. That leaves no time for macroevolution, nor did he mention it. This is a lecture by Dr. Wise on the global flood:

Barbarian asks what Dan might consider to be a transitional between early hominids and modern humans, agreeing that if Dan doesn't know what a transitional is, Barbarian will go show him)

There you go with that childish "Barbarian this and that" silliness. When are you going to grow up?

Please show us some transitional forms. I have been searching the literature for years, and have found nothing but anecdotes and fraud.

First, a transitional form has apomorphic characters of two different groups. For example Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, because it has characteristics found only in dinosaurs and others found only in birds. Do you think it's a dinosaur or a bird?"

The one on the left looks like a dinosaur. The middle one looks like a bird -- a strange one, but a bird. It sorta reminds me of the South American Hoatzin. According to one of the world's leading ornithologists (and, evolutionist), the Archaeopteryx was a perching bird:

Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms

Almost forgot. The one on the right looks like a barbarian.

Did you ever wonder why God chose to destroy all land animals, except for the humans and kinds on the Ark? Perhaps the genetic code of the kinds became corrupted. He said as much: "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". There are also extrabiblical sources supporting that interpretation.

But let's look a hominids, which Kurt Wise says are strong evidence for human evolution:"

Where and when did he say that? It us customary to provide a source when you quote or paraphrase someone.

Chimps are highly adapted to climbing, and they have very curved digits to facilitate gripping branches. The are, in this respect, very much like primitive apes. Notice that Australopithecines are transitional in this regard between humans and other apes.

There are no transitional forms, except in the minds of the highly imaginative. Show us the about a hundred clearly-defined transitional fossils between humans and chimpanzees, and you will be more believable.

You are aware that the genetic code is only about a 70% match, don't you? That means it would require millions of carefully-placed and retained mutations to evolve from one to the other. In other words, it is impossible.

Notice that chimpanzees, being arboreal like primitive apes, have a long pelvis and the femur attached low and close to the center of the body. This is good for climbing, but makes bipedal movement clumsy and inefficient.

Wow! Chimps can climb trees? This is silly.

Australopithecines, being mostly bipedal, are transitional in hips, femurs, and feet between arboreal apes and humans. They retain some primitive ape characteristics, but also some human ones. Their pelvises are nicely intermediate, while their feet are more human-like than ape-like. This "mosaic" evolution indicates that it does not proceed smoothly, but by stepwise changes.

Looks like there was a common designer. Since there are no (zero) transitional lines, a common designer is the logical choice for the rationally-minded person.

The knock-kneed position of human legs, and to a lesser degree, Australopithecine legs, allows efficient bipedal movement. Let's look at the skulls, starting at the base:

Notice also, the foramen magnum, where the spinal cord joins the brain. It is transitional in Australopithecines between the primitive ape condition and the human condition. This shows an increasing trend toward upright stance, rather than a bipedal one. Notice that the dental arcade in Australopithecines is transitional between primitive apes and humans.

There is, in the hominid series, a noticable and gradual change in skulls. They increase in the size of the braincase, and decrease size of the face and teeth. This paedomorphic trend is quite noticable, and was first examined in detail by D'Arcy Thompson, who showed that it was a basic deformation of the normal ape condition.

So, as you have seen, Australopithecines are by definition, transitional between primitive arboreal apes and humans. There are even more interesting transitions between very early members of Homo, and later humans. Would you like to learn about those?

How about you? Did you know the Australopithecine is merely an extinct ape?

More evidence Australopithecus an extinct ape - creation.com

One last point: Many of the structures in modern humans that have changed greatly over the past few million years, give us a lot of trouble. Because we weren't designed to walk upright, but evolved from quadrupeds, lower backs, hip, knees, and feet are only partially adapted to walking on two legs.

Structures that were just fine for four-legged movement don't work so well for two-legged movement. For most of my working life, I did ergonomics, and I know first-hand how the biomechanics of humans are often suboptimal because of the way we evolved.

I could show you some of that, if you like.

There have been no changes in the structures of humans since God first breathed the breath of life into them between 6,000 and 7,500 years ago, and no amount of unprovable dogmatic assertions (disguised as "evidence") can change that.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The issue of lamina is another line of evidence for an ancient Earth. Varves are a particular sort of lamination, formed in some lakes, with two annual layers, one dark and one light. In some lakes, many thousands of years of varves are still intact: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

Have you ever heard of Mount Saint Helens?

"A pyroclastic flow, moving at 150 kph, deposited thousands of finely laminated layers in a few hours. Without the documented history, uniformitarian geologists would consider these strata to have taken long periods of time to form. For example, as the mode of sediment transport (pyroclastic or water lain) is often indistinguishable, couplets of such laminated layers would normally be considered varves, each thought to have formed during one year. But Mount St Helens demonstrated that layered sediment can form catastrophically within hours." [Michael J. Oard, "Mount St Helens -- exploding the old-earth paradigm." Creation Ministries International, 2004] ​

[/QUOTE]There are some [polystrates] forming a few miles from my house, where a dam flooded a forest. The trees are dead, but still standing, and layer after layer of sediment is slowly burying them. If this continues for a long time, they will form polystrate fossils. No scientist is puzzled as to how they form.[/QUOTE]

At least you recognize that a catastrophic flood initiated it. But that is a simple example; and there is no guarantee the tree will be around very long since it is exposed to biological factors, even at the embedded roots, unless they are very deep. In fact, rationally-minded evolutionary scientists are more than puzzled by polystrates since they typically progress upward through what they believe are "millions of years" of sediment layering. Some try to explain them away with such notions as, "rapid layering in the area of the polystrate", even when that layer is part of a much larger, slowly-deposited layer.

But it gets even worse for the evolutionary geologist. Some rootless polystrates are embedded upward through multiple coal seams? That is, a rootless upright tree begins in or below one coal seam, rises upward through the seam and a sedimentary bench, and then upward into or through another coal seam. That is a pretty neat trick when one considers the expected "millions of years" for the coal seams to form.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It merely verifies Huxley's prediction that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. As you see, dinosaurs turn out to be more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles.

Nothing has been verified, except in the minds of some who wanted to find some "verification".

Such things have been known for a long time. Collagen can survive for millions of years in anoxic environments. Similar molecules have been found in ancient invertebrates High concentrations of iron improve survival, it turns out.

First, you must prove the collagen is millions of years old; and that is impossible to prove.

Barbarian observes: Two more data points, confirming predictions of evolutionary theory. Fossil data shows that dinosaurs, birds, and mammals are evolved from a common ancestor after lizards and snakes diverged from that line.

Nonsense. The fossil data proves nothing except large quantities of animals were killed in a short period of time, and then rapidly covered with sediment to prevent complete destruction.

That wrong. It verifies a prediction made over a hundred years ago, based on other evidence. As you learned, conserved molecules are more similar in more closely-related species.

It verified nothing.

Barbarian observes: Nope. "Common designer" would indicate all reptiles would have the same heme, not birds and dinosaurs.

That is another assumption. Since everything you believe is based on assumptions, and not verifiable facts, why rule out a common designer?

Because common design would require common design.

Wow! That is Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporting (these days).

It's a religious dogma of "intelligent design."

Haven't you heard? Evolutionism is faith-based religious dogma.

Barbarian observes: Evidence indicates birds evolved from dinosaurs long before dinosaurs went extinct. Your argument is essentially "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead."

That is all anecdotal. It does not even rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. Not even close.

As you saw, Huxley used anatomical evidence to predict the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Later, the discovery of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds confirmed his prediction. Even later, the demonstration that collagen and heme further confirmed Huxley's prediction.

There are no transitional forms between birds and dinos, or any other plant or animal.

And notice, this kind of confirmation never shows up where the theory says it shouldn't.

There is no confirmation.

It's clear to me that you've been misled; there's a lot of things about this that seem to be news to you.

I am reasonably certain you have been misled.

Dan

 

[GenemZ]

I believed that way until about a decade ago (maybe less). What do you know about lamination of the sedimentary layers (as opposed to bioturbation), polystrate fossils extending upward through multiple coal seams, and laminate coal seam benches? This is a discussion of the latter:

The start time for the coal seam benches is 57:56.

Dan

That "flat top" hypothesis given by his professor seemed like a guess that was simply wrong. No big deal.

But, we need to ask? If I am understanding what he is saying? If the flat top hypothesis were about a universal flood in Noah's day? Where did the doves get those olive branches when returning to the ark if the flood destroyed the earth's surface?

And, why do we only find extinct creatures in the fossil evidence? Noah's day had the animals like we now see.

And, if all the species of animals found over the entire planet had to enter the ark in pairs? Noah would have needed to build a large fleet of arks to accommodate them all. Its still not making sense....

And if it were a universal flood in Noah's day? How did salt water and fresh water creatures survive the inundation of mostly fresh water found with that flood? It rained salt water? .... But, that would only explain the survival of the ocean marine life.

Noah's flood was local. The height of water given above the peaks mentioned did not go above other higher peaks found around the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence any animal or plant evolved from any other.

Given the massive evidence you've just seen, denial is really pointless.

From Nature:
Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
15 May 2013

The "study" reveals nothing except the diggers have vivid imaginations.

Nothing but denial? No evidence?

So-called "molecular clocks" are another in a long list of hypotheses and gadgets based on perpetually unprovable assumptions.

You've been misled about that, too. Kimura predicted the molecular clock before it was tested and verified. Would you like to know how he knew about it before it was confirmed?

Barbarian observes:
We have evidence. And that's what matters.

You have no evidence.

Everyone here has seen the massive amounts of evidence shown to you.

Everything you are pushing on the unsuspecting is based on unprovable assumptions and dogmatic assertions.

Canned slogans aren't going to be very useful to you, I think.

Dr. Wise believes God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, as written in Genesis 2:7

Most who follow Christ see that as figurative, as the ancient Christians did.

Did you bother to read what you copy/pasted?

Yep.

Dr. Wise said, "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".

Yep. He believes so, although he never said what they were. What's more important is his admission that the evidence, strong as he says it is, means less to him than his personal interpretation of scripture, and even if all the evidence clearly pointed to evolution, he would still not accept it. He's an honest creationist.

Did you get that?

My observation is that you didn't get it.

Dr. Wise now has scientific evidence for the global flood and rapid deposition of the fossil-laden sedimentary layers.

He thinks so, but actual geologists, people who actually have spent a lifetime studying it, disagree with him.

(another video endorsed)

My thinking is that if you don't understand a video well enough to summarize it, you probably have no idea if it's worth watching.

There you go with that childish "Barbarian this and that" silliness.

Habit from usenet days.

When are you going to grow up?

My kids say they hope never. My oldest is um... 46. Youngest is 23. Three others inbetween. They are all successful, creative people. Partially, I hope. because I didn't get old on them.

Please show us some transitional forms.

As you now realize, Australopithecines are transitional between primitive apes and modern humans. Would you like me to show you some more of those?

The one on the left looks like a dinosaur. The middle one looks like a bird -- a strange one, but a bird.

An ornithologist would strongly disagree with you. It has far more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. It's close to the line of feathered dinosaurs that led to birds, but it's not actually a bird. It has feathers, and it could fly, but it has the following dinosaur characteristics:

1. dinosaur teeth
2 gastralia instead of a keeled sternum
3. dinosaur tail instead of an avian pygostyle
4. unfused hands like a dinosaur
5 dinosaur muzzle with no beak
6 dinosaur ribs, not flattened avian ones
7. unfused metatarsals
8. flexible spine

Bird like:
Feathers
It could fly
furcula (wishbone)

All of these are also found in various dinosaurs.

So there you are.

Almost forgot. The one on the right looks like a barbarian.

Even if you get peeved, never let them know they got to you.

Did you ever wonder why God chose to destroy all land animals, except for the humans and kinds on the Ark?

He didn't say all. Just everything in the "eretz." Meaning "the land." The word was used to mean "a particular place", a nation, "my land", and so on. Never said "the entire globe." However, there was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at about the right time. It created the Black Sea. And there are remains of human settlements under that sea. When the Mediterranean broke through into that basin, it must have seemed like the end of the world to people living there, many of who probably did not escape.

Where and when did he say that? It us customary to provide a source when you quote or paraphrase someone.

"Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms"

Where and when did he say that? It us customary to provide a source when you quote or paraphrase someone.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
Six Days
by Kurt Wise
Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

There are no transitional forms, except in the minds of the highly imaginative.

I already showed you several. By definition, they are transitionals.

Show us the about a hundred clearly-defined transitional fossils between humans and chimpanzees

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. They evolved from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. And your retreat from "there aren't any transitionals" to "I don't think you can show me a hundred hominid transitionals" makes it clear that no amount of evidence or reason would work for you.

But these discussions aren't to sway you or others like you. They are to provide information to those still willing to consider the evidence and decide for themselves. And this exchange has been very useful to those people, no matter which way they decide to go.

My thanks to you for that.

You are aware that the genetic code is only about a 70% match, don't you?

Between chimps and humans, something about 92% and 98%, depending on how you measure it.

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the production of sperm.

Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.


That means it would require millions of carefully-placed and retained mutations to evolve from one to the other. In other words, it is impossible.
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be "turned on" in different amounts, in different places or at different times.
DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps

(Barbarian notes that Australopithecines are transitional between arboreal apes and humans in have digits that are not as curved as those of other apes, but more curved than those of humans)

Wow!

Just one of many ways I showed you that Australopithecines were transitional between arboreal apes and humans.

Barbarian observes:
Australopithecines, being mostly bipedal, are transitional in hips, femurs, and feet between arboreal apes and humans. They retain some primitive ape characteristics, but also some human ones. Their pelvises are nicely intermediate, while their feet are more human-like than ape-like. This "mosaic" evolution indicates that it does not proceed smoothly, but by stepwise changes.

Looks like there was a common designer.

Nope. No designer would every design a lower back like ours. It's very suboptimal, to the point that most Americans will experience back problems.

And would be an easy fix. Instead of moving the nerves between a narrow opening between the L5S1 and L4L5 discs, routing in in the open would prevent most back pain. It's not a big deal for quadrupeds, but it's a huge deal for bipeds.

How about you? Did you know the Australopithecine is merely an extinct ape?

In the sense we are apes. It's an extinct hominin, not just an ape, and as you learned, it's transitional between other apes and humans in may ways.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"Common designer" would not explain homologous organs, or suboptimal structures. ID is religion, not a scientific theory.

Homology is more a sign of a common designer, than evolution. Have you ever read this paper by Yale Evolutionary Biology Professor Gunter Wagner?

The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology​

It is cited here in this article that is written more for the layman:

Homology made simple - creation.com

As for suboptimal structures, there are none.

I doubt if [Linnaeus] realized what he had. He imagined "the great chain of being" as though God just made it look like a family tree. He was greatly puzzled when the family tree could only be produced for living things, and not for other parts of nature, like minerals. We now understand why that is.

Too bad he was not around to be fooled by Darwin.

By definition, we have [transitional forms] between almost every major group. So no point in denying the fact.

Do you want to me to lie? If I claimed there are transitional forms, I would be lying. I have yet to see evidence of any transitional forms; though I am aware of speculations disguised as evidence.

As you learned, it cleared up a major difficulty with Darwin's theory. It made macroevolution possible.

To the contrary. The Human Genome project exposed the myth of junk DNA; so much so that the head of the project, Francis Collins, went from this:

"Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as "junk DNA" just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation." [Collins, Francis, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.136] ​

. . . to this:

"In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”" [Carl Zimmer, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?". New York Times, 2015] ​

Mitochondrial DNA is another huge delimma for the evolutionary geneticist:

Noah and Genetics - creation.com​

But the most serious problem to the evolutionist is the sheer volume and complexity of the instruction coding. Frankly, macroevolution is virtually, if not literally, impossible.

You've got it backwards, again. (Barbarian demonstrates that phylogenies from cytochrome C verify the family trees of Linnaeus and from DNA analysis)

More "Barbarian this" silliness, I see. Will you ever learn to carry on a normal conversation?

I have seen nothing verifying the family trees of Linnaeus. What is your source, so I can examine the methodology? It is not some silly computer model, is it?

Yep. It's been known for a long time. One of the first conserved molecules to be so tested.

Gobbledygook.

Yep. And things like heme and collagen have confirmed the early phylogenies.

More gobbledygook

It confirms the predictions of scientists who based their predictions on anatomical and fossil evidence.

There is no fossil evidence. And I am still unsure what you are trying to prove via anatomical similarities? That is exactly what one would expect from a common designer.

It confirms the fact that the family tree of common descent first shown by Linnaeus, is true.

There is no common descent; and Linnaeus believed in special creation of species.

Lots of [feathered dinos] these days. Most creationists have admitted the fact. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You bet, but only recent citations; and while you are at it please cite your sources for "feathered dinos". Most creationists that I am familiar with believe the "feathered dino" is just another in a long line of evolutionism follies, or frauds. The remainder simply state the evidence is inconclusive (or, in some cases, "far from conclusive").

They are based on DNA or on conserved biological molecules as the case may be. Would you like to start a thread how that's done?

Not really. The concept of the molecular clock is based on too many unprovable assumptions to render it useful for anything other than talking points for the evolutionist.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Homology is more a sign of a common designer, than evolution.

Nope. Homology means the same structure serves as fins in certain fish, legs in reptiles, wings in birds, diggers in moles, and manipulative organs in humans. Same genes, same structures, evolved to different purposes. If you designed a human knee from scratch you wouldn't make it so vulnerable to injury. But it's homlogous with quadrupeds, which have not such problems.

Have you ever read this paper by Yale Evolutionary Biology Professor Gunter Wagner?

The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology​

It is cited here in this article that is written more for the layman:
Homology made simple - creation.com

https://creation.com/homology-made-simple

They don't say the same things, even in a simplified way.

As for suboptimal structures, there are none.

As you just learned, human backs and knees are suboptimal.

To the contrary. The Human Genome project exposed the myth of junk DNA;

Someone's taken advantage of your trust in them. When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, there were articles in the literature on the functions of non-coding DNA. A half-century ago. You're five decades out of date.

More "Barbarian this" silliness, I see.

You'd be more effective if you could avoid personal attacks, and deal in evidence. You're doing your case no small amount of harm this way.

I have seen nothing verifying the family trees of Linnaeus.

As you learned, both DNA analyses and comparisons of cytochrome C give us the same phylogenies, and those are nicely aligned with the family tree prepared by Linnaeus.

I'm going to be in the field for a bit over the next week. I don't know what the internet access will be like, so we'll pick this up after I get back.