Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

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 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.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

That is deceptive. Barbie knows that was from an old 1995 paper by Kurt Wise before he had properly researched the issue.

Nope. That's wrong on the face of it. Notice that he acknowledges over a dozen series of transitionals, each with multiple transitional forms. And he has not changed his story on this.

Now Dr. Wise is convinced that there are no macroevolutionary links.

Dr. Wise didn't think they were links when he admitted that they were strong evidence for macroevolution. He admitted that they were, but he said he had faith that someday he'd be able to explain them in a creationist worldview. He still hasn't been able to to that.

The handful that appear to be links are merely stand-alone Mosaics!

All transitionals are mosaics. Perhaps you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it means?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The tables and photos don't match his claims. For example, the chart showing repose of dunes indicates much steeper slopes than he claims.

Nonsense.

It's right there in his graph. Didn't you read it?

Contary to his claims, dolomite does not form in floods, but from alteration of rocks by magnesium-rich groundwater.

Says who?

Geologists. Didn't you read the cite I left you?

More false doctrine. God did not say the earth brought forth all living things.

He said the earth brought forth living things...

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Just so there would be no misunderstanding, God specifically stated he made these creatures, as well as man

Of course He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

You are a false teacher, Barbie.

I'm just showing you what God said. You're denying what He said. It would seem that you're the false teacher, wouldn't it?

Barbarian observes:
No, that was discovered long before Darwin. Linnaeus was the first to discover it, but didn't have an explanation why it looks like a family tree. Later on, all sorts of evidence such as genetics, transitionals,etc. showed that it looks like a family tree because it is a family tree.

No, Barbie.

Yep. As you know, genetic analyses shows the same family tree as that of Linnaeus. And we know that's a valid check because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Current research shows a bush (or a forest), not a single tree,

Nope. You've been badly misled about that. DNA analyses, comparison of conserved molecules like cytochrome C, and the numerous transitional forms all show the same family tree as first discovered by Liinnaeus (who didn't even know about evolution). No point in denying it.

I understand the basic points of Darwin's theory of magic, which is, all living creatures magically evolved from a glob of protoplasm, which magically appeared from inorganic chemicals, which magically appeared out of nothing.

That's a common superstition among creationists. But as you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Even Darwin (as I showed you) just thought that God created the first living things.

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics. A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution. I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

Quit dreaming, Barbie. Dr. Wise said those mosaics are NOT links.

As he said in his paper, they are transitionals. And you still seem confused as to why transitionals must be mosaics. It seems you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(suggestion that it must have hurt when AiG realized what "mosaic" actually meant)

I suppose it did. I mentioned this years ago to Jon Sarfati (who was posting on another board edit: under an different name), and he wasn't too happy when he realized what it was.

Why would Dr. Sarfati be unhappy that Dr. Wise said mosaics are NOT links?

At the time, he didn't realize what "mosaic" meant and why that meant that these fossils were transitionals, not "links." He was pretty upset, initially in denial, before he realized the truth.

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence)[/QUOTE]

You'd do well to learn what the word means and why transitional forms are almost always mosaics.

 

[pat34lee]

It's been directly observed. Even creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research admit that speciation is a fact.

Show us that. Sounds like another creationist fairytale.

If you mean species as animals divergent enough
that they can no longer breed, that is correct. We
can see that in dog breeds, and nobody claims they
are anything but dogs.

I'm talking about those who are no longer the original
type of animal. A finch that is no longer a finch, or a
dog who no longer qualifies as a dog. The DNA breaks
down long before that can happen.

What do you want me to show, a road that ends?
Or show that adaptation is limited? That is easy.

This article talks about the limits of adaptation,
but still promotes evolution.
The limitations of natural selection

 

[The Barbarian]

f you mean species as animals divergent enough
that they can no longer breed, that is correct. We
can see that in dog breeds, and nobody claims they
are anything but dogs.

No, that's wrong. Dogs are all one species, and they are all interfertile.

On the other hand, we see macroevolutionary changes which result in reproductive isolation. This is quite different than different breeds of dog.

I'm talking about those who are no longer the original
type of animal. A finch that is no longer a finch, or a
dog who no longer qualifies as a dog.

Say, a dog that is no longer a wolf? A chicken that is no longer a jungle fowl? Stuff like that? Directly observed.

The DNA breaks
down long before that can happen.

What evidence do you have for that belief? Show us.

What do you want me to show, a road that ends?
Or show that adaptation is limited? That is easy.

Show us an organism that is at the end of its ability to vary and cannot have any further mutations. And show us the evidence for your claim.

 

[sfs]

Baloney. There is not a shred of evidence for macroevolution, except in the minds of the highly imaginative. Macroevolution has never occurred, and never will.

Great. You should have no trouble telling me why this isn't evidence for macroevolution. I haven't been able to find a creationist who can give me a coherent reason why it isn't, but you must know a lot about genetics to make such a statement, so you should have no trouble with it.

 

[pat34lee]

No, that's wrong. Dogs are all one species, and they are all interfertile.

I think some chihuahuas may think that, but
I don't think they could manage a great dane.

On the other hand, we see macroevolutionary changes which result in reproductive isolation. This is quite different than different breeds of dog.

Ring species: but they are an example of loss
of genetic information, not evolution by any
stretch of the imagination.

Say, a dog that is no longer a wolf? A chicken that is no longer a jungle fowl? Stuff like that? Directly observed.

Proof, please. Before and after, meaning when
it was interfertile and since then.

What evidence do you have for that belief? Show us.

Show us an organism that is at the end of its ability to vary and cannot have any further mutations. And show us the evidence for your claim.

Ever hear of fruit flies?
Six Nobel prizes – what’s the fascination with the fruit fly?

Fruit flies have been used to test evolution
and mutations for over a hundred years and
hundreds of generations. Results?
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

 

[The Barbarian]

I think some chihuahuas may think that, but
I don't think they could manage a great dane.

Actually, chihuahuas are interfertile with great danes. There's just the size problem.

On the other hand, we see macroevolutionary changes which result in reproductive isolation. This is quite different than different breeds of dog.

Ring species:

As Darwin predicted, there is difficulty in determining what is a species, since all sorts of intermediate conditions would have to occur to make speciation, in most cases. Good point.

but they are an example of loss of genetic information

No, you were misled about that. Leopard frogs, for example form a cline from south to north. The frogs in Louisiana can interbreed with frogs in say Arkansas or Missouri, but not with frogs in Iowa. But frogs in Iowa can interbreed with frogs in Missouri. After the glaciers retreated,the frogs moved north slowly, and adapted by mutations that sped up their development because of the short seasons.

And here's the kick; if for some reason, leopard frogs in Arkansas and Missouri should become extinct, then we have retroactive macroevolution, as the two populations become reproductively isolated.

not evolution by anystretch of the imagination.

And now, you know better.

Say, a dog that is no longer a wolf? A chicken that is no longer a jungle fowl? Stuff like that? Directly observed.

Proof, please.

Turns out, genetic analysis shows that gray wolves and dogs descended from a common wolf ancestor.

PLOS Genetics

• Published: January 16, 2014
• Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs

Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs
To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.

And
Macroevolution, new species of fly:
Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky

And yes, it's still a dipteran, just as humans are still primates. The same rules apply.

 

[NobleMouse]

Barbarian observes:
No one here has treated him that way.
No matter how frustrated one gets, that kind of abuse is never a good idea.

How one takes discourse is one's responsibility. However, there are things that are clearly rude or abusive, and those reflect on the one saying them.

None of us have been as abusive as this fellow.

Just to clarify, did you read through every post from every member addressed to Bible Research Tools, and do you know the intent behind every post? And who is "us"? These are rhetorical questions - please do not answer lest we continue to stray from the central issue. I ask these questions only to show that your language is written in absolutes: "No one here..." and "None of us...." and this is presenting a FALSE argument. For example, KomatiiteBIF can be abrasive at times, but as much as he will dish it out, he is comfortable receiving it back. You said no one here, that is false. Let's put that to rest and move on now to the more central issues...

Barbarian observes:
But Wise was honest enough to admit that numerous series of transitional forms (he listed many of them) are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. He merely expressed hope that someday there would be reasonable creationist explanation for them.

So far, he hasn't found the hoped-for explanation. He points out that no amount of evidence would change his personal interpretation of scripture. I find that kind of integrity in a creationist to be commendable.

He's just honest enough to openly admit that the numerous series of transitional forms are a serious problem for YE creationism, one that remains to be explain by them.

He's not. He firmly believes that YE creationism is the truth. He's just honest enough to admit that those dozens of series of transitionals are "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

This was a paper written for a creationist journal. He has never recanted a word of it. He's honest enough to face the facts, even if he admits that the facts won't sway his beliefs.

Kurt Wise also indicated that 95% of the fossil record DOES NOT fit with the evolutionary paradigm, and the 5% that does also fits with the creationist model. But again, this is still not really central, so moving on...

Barbarian observes:
facts are what make a scientific argument work.

For example, the oxygen isotope ratios we discussed are not at all influenced by "assumptions." They are measurable, and we can check on estuary-living organisms today to see if they accurately tell us about the fossil. Turns out that they do.

As you see, it's verifiably true. Oxygen isotope ratios can tell you if a fossil whale lived mostly in fresh-water, salt-water, or estuaries. No point in denying the fact. As you see, we can check that by looking at those ratios in living things.

Oxygen isotope ratios are not a piece of evidence that is exclusive to only the evolutionary paradigm. Again, still not central...

Sorry, I don't buy the story that "if you didn't see it happen, you can't know anything about it." As Wise says, we have "strong evidence" for all of that. And he only mentioned one source of evidence among many. Would you like to learn about other evidence?

You have no basis for forming your conclusions. If, for example, people had observed cases of something about the size of a raccoon evolving into a whale here in the present, we could study the change in the skeletons as it went through all of the transitions from thing1 to thing2, and compare the skeletons to what is seen in the fossil record as verification that this is what happened in the past.

One of my favorite analogies given in support of evolution (and like most analogies, it doesn't work) is that this is no different than what scientists do to solve crimes - like CSI. Here is where this fails, as an analogy: The ability to solve a murder based on the clues left behind ONLY WORKS because we have examples of observed or confessed murders from which the clues can be compared against. With macroevolution and LUCA, there ARE NO observed examples to compare against.

For proponents of macroevolution and LUCA, this fact will remain as a thorn in the side.

Neither does the creation story in Genesis. If you let the text interpret itself, you see that it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings before there was as sun to have them.

If you let the text interpret itself, it says 6 days. It is absurd to imagine that mornings and evenings require a sun when light had already been created. It's also absurd to imagine virgins giving birth to babies and those being scourged, crucified, and laid in a tomb with about 100lb of spices being raised to life. Moving on...

So is evolution. It's directly observed. Macroevolutionary events have been documented as well.

Adaptation and variability within created kinds has been documented and observed only, not macroevolution.

Because those things usually don't cause problems for their new interpretation of Genesis. Usually. However, sometimes they do. For example, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex fossil. When checked it was closest to that of a bird, rather than like that of other repties. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. It's just that most creationists are unfamiliar with the details.

Another example of interesting information, that is not exclusive to supporting the evolutionary paradigm.

Except when they have a religious or emotional bias. Wise is just honest about his; most creationists have a hard time facing the fact.

We've already talked about Wise and it seems clear that in his mind the evidence most prominently supports a biblical creationist view.

Oenothera gigas.

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But saying "it's still just a fly" would be like saying the evolution of humans from Australopithecines wouldn't be evolution. Just a hominin giving rise to another hominin. Rock and a hard place for creastionists.

Thank you for clarifying; does not exclusively demonstrate evolution from LUCA, and people did not evolve from ape-like creatures, no matter how many times the "evolution march" is illustrated.

Barbarian obeserves:
I mean that the number could be billions of years off, and evolution wouldn't be affected.

Kelvin thought that it could be as young as 10 million years. Darwin showed that it couldn't be that young, based on the diversity of living things. Much later, Darwin won the argument when radioactivity was discovered, invalidating Kelvin's calculations.

For common descent of all organisms. Evolution is observed daily. Darwin's theory explained why the family tree of living things, discovered by Linnaeus, looks like a family tree. Because it is. Knowing this, Darwin pointed out that Kelvin's claim had to be wrong. Later on, other evidence confirmed Darwin's prediction.

Thank you for clarifying, again, your assertion is that evolution requires extremely long periods of time.

Genesis neither confirms nor denies evolution and most forms of creationism. It only denies YE creationism, and there are now some YE creationists who don't believe in life ex nihilo.

Given his love of God and his scholarship, much more credible than the opinion of people who invented YE creationism.

We're getting closer to what is relevant. Genesis does not expressively support extremely long periods of time, nor an unguided process driven by random mutation and natural selection. In contrast, Genesis DOES expressively support special creation by an intelligent and loving Creator in the span of 6 days. I hope you do not require that I start citing specific verses to demonstrate this, but will do so if you continue to play "vague/nebulous card" regarding Genesis. Your opinions of Augustine and creationists are off-topic, so we'll move on...

Notice that I've lavishly cited literature, facts, and cases. And I've frequently offered to provide more information if anyone desires. So there is that.

On the other hand, a certain person posting here will simply say "baloney", with no support or citations at all. It's not surprising that many have concluded, "well, this guy is just arguing to argue and will dogmatically refuse to admit he is wrong even when it is as plain as day that he is."

Bible Research Tools has provided citations... and to point out to you again, you're using absolutes "... with no support or citations at all." Not trying to be critical, but when we use absolutes in our language, this is real dangerous to running the risk of being proven wrong. We'll drop it here, unless you'd like me to like specific post #'s where Bible Research Tools provided links to sources he referenced.

Barbarian observes:
I think there were always people who adjusted it to a literal history. They just weren't very well accepted. Even today, most of the world's Christians accept it as written; a figurative account.

I don't see how scripture mentioning a parable, would convert it to a literal history. Since (as Augustine pointed out) God resting was a symbolic passage, observing a day of rest would be in accord with His word.

If you revise it to make it a literal history. But that's not what it is, as early Christians like St. Augustine showed. He correctly saw it as describing categories of creation, not literal days.

That shouldn't be difficult for a Christian. Suppose Jesus made up a parable about a hated Samaritan having mercy on a Jewish traveler, saving him and paying for his care. How would one recognize and observe charity under the interpretation that this was a parable, not an actual even?

When you know that, you'll have your answer.

============================================================
HERE IS THE CENTRAL MATTER
============================================================
What we believe about scripture will invariably affect how we view the world around us and what we perceive to be true. I've now asked twice on when one would observe the Sabbath (the 4th commandment) under the view you suggest, that the days (yom) are figurative.

As a forewarning, I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit here. All of the onlookers you believe are being swayed in the creation vs evolution debate by these discussions are all eyes on you right here and now, and you've yet to address when the Sabbath would be observed, assuming that the days of Genesis are figurative. There is perspicuity (clarity) to scripture, as a whole, including the 10 commandments. When we're told, "You shall have no other God's before me" or "You shall not murder", are you unclear as to what this means, are these just figurative?

Reviewing Exodus 20:8-11 here, this is from the ESV:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Explain for everyone here, especially to the benefit of those looking on, what the purpose of the Sabbath is and when it would be observed, assuming the above is all figurative as it relates to the reference of "days."

The commandments should be easy to understand and explain (though understanding it may be difficult to follow as we all have a sin nature and are still in the process of being made like Christ). That said, you should be able to present a clear and concise explanation of when to observe the Sabbath with days being figurative.
============================================================

Hm...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Yes, I am familiar with Genesis 1:24, thank you for sharing. Other than wishing to share, did you have anything you wanted to elaborate upon?

 

[The Barbarian]

Just to clarify, did you read through every post from every member addressed to Bible Research Tools, and do you know the intent behind every post?

If you have an example of someone saying that sort of thing to him, I'm sure we'd all be willing to see it.

And who is "us"?

People posting here.

These are rhetorical questions - please do not answer lest we continue to stray from the central issue.

Probably not a good idea to ask, on a message board, things you don't want to have answered.

For example, KomatiiteBIF can be abrasive at times, but as much as he will dish it out, he is comfortable receiving it back.

Show us where he was that abusive.

Kurt Wise also indicated that 95% of the fossil record DOES NOT fit with the evolutionary paradigm,

He's a creationist, after all. But an honest one. He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. And while he expresses faith in the idea that creationism might someday find a way to explain all these transitional forms, he admits that he has yet to find that way.

Oxygen isotope ratios are not a piece of evidence that is exclusive to only the evolutionary paradigm.

Like the large number of transitional forms, creationism has no way to explain it.

You have no basis for forming your conclusions.

Kurt Wise disagrees with you, noting that the cetacean series is evidence for macroevolution.

One of my favorite analogies given in support of evolution (and like most analogies, it doesn't work) is that this is no different than what scientists do to solve crimes - like CSI. Here is where this fails, as an analogy: The ability to solve a murder based on the clues left behind ONLY WORKS because we have examples of observed or confessed murders from which the clues can be compared against.

Just as we have examples of structures and functions in existing organisms with which we can compare fossils. The notion that we can't know anything we didn't directly see is a major loser for creationism.

Moreover, evidence such as collagen and heme from fossils confirms evolutionary predictions as to the affinity of those molecules. They are, as predicted, more like those of birds than like those of other reptiles. No way to dodge those facts.

Observed macroevolution makes it impossible deny. It's just what happens. This is why many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation; they just retreat back a few steps and say "it's not real evolution."

If you let the text interpret itself, it says that it can't be a literal six days.

It is absurd to imagine that mornings and evenings require a sun.

That's what the words mean. If you have to redefine words to make the text fit your new beliefs, that's a pretty good sign that they aren't right.

It's also absurd to imagine virgins giving birth to babies and those being scourged, crucified, and laid in a tomb with about 100lb of spices being raised to life.

Science doesn't deny miracles. But if you have to call in all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation, that's also a hint that your new interpretation might be wrong.

Barbarian observes:
Because those things usually don't cause problems for their new interpretation of Genesis. Usually. However, sometimes they do. For example, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex fossil. When checked it was closest to that of a bird, rather than like that of other repties. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. It's just that most creationists are unfamiliar with the details.

Another example of interesting information, that is not exclusive to supporting the evolutionary paradigm.

No, you're wrong. It is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but denied by creationism. Since such molecules indicate common descent, it confirms a prediction of the theory made over a hundred years ago.

We've already talked about Wise and it seems clear that in his mind the evidence most prominently supports a biblical creationist view.

He is a creationist, after all, and he thinks that "there is evidence for creationism." However, as you learned, he admits that the very large number of transitional forms are "strong evidence" for macroevolution, and that creationism has no explanation for this.

Barbarian observes:
If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But saying "it's still just a fly" would be like saying the evolution of humans from Australopithecines wouldn't be evolution. Just a hominin giving rise to another hominin. Rock and a hard place for creastionists.

Thank you for clarifying; does not exclusively demonstrate evolution from LUCA, and people did not evolve from ape-like creatures,

We are ape-like creatures. Huxley demonstrated that there was no structure in human or ape brains that does not exist in the other. And of course the genetic data puts humans among the apes. Indeed,chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. No point in denying the data.

no matter how many times the "evolution march" is illustrated.

That's just a cartoon, and not part of Darwin's theory or of modern evolutionary theory.

We're getting closer to what is relevant. Genesis does not expressively support extremely long periods of time,

Nor does it deny such lengths of time. However, the evidence clearly shows that the Earth has been here for billions of years.

nor an unguided process driven by random mutation and natural selection.

Nor does it deny such a process. But of course, we see that process at work constantly.

In contrast, Genesis DOES expressively support special creation

No. It doesn't say one way or another. All it really does for this debate is rule out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

What we believe about scripture will invariably affect how we view the world around us and what we perceive to be true.

It's true. YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture that misleads many.

I've now asked twice on when one would observe the Sabbath (the 4th commandment) under the view you suggest, that the days (yom) are figurative.

And you learned that there is nothing that says figurative verses can't be used to show what is right for men to do. Indeed, Jesus did that constantly. Why not just take it His way?

As a forewarning, I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit here. All of the onlookers you believe are being swayed in the creation vs evolution debate by these discussions are all eyes on you right here and now, and you've yet to address when the Sabbath would be observed, assuming that the days of Genesis are figurative. There is perspicuity (clarity) to scripture, as a whole, including the 10 commandments. When we're told, "You shall have no other God's before me" or "You shall not murder", are you unclear as to what this means, are these just figurative?

Can you show me where it says that "everything in the Bible has to be either parables or actual events, but there can't be both?" Otherwise, you seem to be in a bit of a fix here.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Hypothetically, God could create life and it could evolve. This is a factual statement that is independent of the question of how life began.

That denies the Word of God.

The other young earther believes that the theory of evolution depends on an abiogenic origin of life which simply isn't true, as they are two independent lines of research.

What then is the "origin" of the species?

Do you think that the theory of evolution depends upon an abiogenic formation of life? If you think so, then you're wrong.

I personally believe it depends wholly on magic.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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 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.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Nope. That's wrong on the face of it. Notice that he acknowledges over a dozen series of transitionals, each with multiple transitional forms. And he has not changed his story on this.

If all you have is a 23 year-old paper, Barbie, then you don't have much.

Dr. Wise didn't think they were links when he admitted that they were strong evidence for macroevolution. He admitted that they were, but he said he had faith that someday he'd be able to explain them in a creationist worldview. He still hasn't been able to to that.

You've gotta come up with something better than a 23 year-old paper, Barbie. You are looking desperate.

All transitionals are mosaics. Perhaps you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it means?

A platypus is a transitional? LOL!

Give it up, Barbie.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian observes:
The tables and photos don't match his claims. For example, the chart showing repose of dunes indicates much steeper slopes than he claims.

It's right there in his graph. Didn't you read it?

Of course I did. You are not making any sense, Barbie. Show us the page numbers, and the angle of repose you are referring to.

Contary to his claims, dolomite does not form in floods, but from alteration of rocks by magnesium-rich groundwater.

Are you certain it cannot be formed by magnesium-ladened hot water and lime?

Geologists. Didn't you read the cite I left you?

No. I must have missed it. Post it again.

He said the earth brought forth living things...

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

You forgot to include the context of the next verse, Barbie:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:25 KJV​

Nothing evolved, Barbie. Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

Of course He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

I am perfectly content with the fact that God created the heaven, earth, and all it's host in 6 days and rested on the 7th day. He is, after all, God.

I'm just showing you what God said. You're denying what He said. It would seem that you're the false teacher, wouldn't it?

You ignore what God says, Barbie, and pretend you do not. God said he created man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils; and only then did man become a living soul. You, on the other hand, claim man evolved from an ape, or some such foolishness.

Barbarian observes: No, that was discovered long before Darwin. Linnaeus was the first to discover it, but didn't have an explanation why it looks like a family tree. Later on, all sorts of evidence such as genetics, transitionals,etc. showed that it looks like a family tree because it is a family tree.

It is a bush of life, Barbie, not a tree. It is exactly like evolutionist and biochemist-geneticist Dr. J. Craig Venter called it in the video, and exactly what the Word of God predicts.

Yep. As you know, genetic analyses shows the same family tree as that of Linnaeus. And we know that's a valid check because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Baloney. Genetic analysis demonstrates there is not a snowball's-chance-in-heck that any organism evolved from any other.

Nope. You've been badly misled about that. DNA analyses, comparison of conserved molecules like cytochrome C, and the numerous transitional forms all show the same family tree as first discovered by Liinnaeus (who didn't even know about evolution). No point in denying it.

There is no evidence for macroevolution; and cytochrome-c is the refuge of low-information types. Are you not aware there are many millions of differences (actually, over a billion differences) between the chimpanzee and humans?

"To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules. " [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers in Genesis, 2015]

"Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. "

[Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers in Genesis, 2015] ​

Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins received his PhD in Genetics from Clemson University.

That's a common superstition among creationists. But as you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Even Darwin (as I showed you) just thought that God created the first living things.

Are you referring to this?

"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." [Charles Darwin, Conclusion, "On the Origin of the Species By Means of Natural Selection." John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap XIV, p.484] ​

Was that "primordial" form a single-celled blob of protoplasm, or a multi-celled blob?

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics. A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution. I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

Still being deceitful, Barbie? Gould had no clue how life was created (he was, after all, an atheist/evolutionist); and Wise has specifically and adamantly claimed there are NO LINKS!

As he said in his paper, they are transitionals. And you still seem confused as to why transitionals must be mosaics. It seems you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it (suggestion that it must have hurt when AiG realized what "mosaic" actually meant)means?

Please refrain from misrepresenting his statement. Dr. Wise is crystal clear that mosaics are NOT LINKS.

I suppose it did. I mentioned this years ago to Jon Sarfati (who was posting on another board edit: under an different name), and he wasn't too happy when he realized what it was.

At the time, he didn't realize what "mosaic" meant and why that meant that these fossils were transitionals, not "links." He was pretty upset, initially in denial, before he realized the truth.

Dr. Sarfati did not seem to have any difficulty distinguishing between the two when he wrote this article:

"Many of the alleged transitional forms do not have structures in transition from one form to another. Rather, the alleged transitional nature is a combination of fully-formed structures that in themselves are not transitional. For example, Archaeopteryx has fully formed flight feathers, an avian lung and an avian braincase (which is why the ‘hoax’ claim is indefensible), but had allegedly reptile features like a tail and teeth. Alleged whale evolution also has a number of ‘modules’, as documented in Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? These creatures with a mixture of characteristics are called mosaics or chimeras." [Jonathan Sarfati, "Tiktaalik Roseae - a Fishy Missing Link." Creation Ministries International] ​

Or, this one:

"Tim White’s team interprets their find from an evolutionary perspective as an intermediate to modern humans because they possess a mosaic of modern and archaic (nonmodern) features. We disagree with this conclusion. From our perspective, a mosaic of features doesn’t make it a transitional form, but rather equally reflects a Creator’s work (based on reasoning similar to that used by Kurt Wise in The Creation Hypothesis)." [Wieland & Sarfati, "Factual errors and distortions about early humans?". Creation Ministries International, 2003] ​

Both were written after Dr. Wise wrote his "Creation Hypothesis", the 1995 paper that you continually take out of context. For example, in his 1995 paper, Dr. Wise wrote.

"God created organisms according to His nature, with such features as beauty, complexity, integration of complexity, disparity, diversity, and mosaic network of form, thus explaining the beauty, complexity, integration of complexity, chimeromorphism, and high homoplasy frequency in fossil organisms; Before the Flood, there were probably biological communities unfamiliar to us today — for example, floating forests dozens to hundreds of miles wide along many of the earth’s coastlines dominated by Palaeozoic plant groups and ‘labryinthodonts’; and perhaps vast epeiric (shallow continental) seas dominated by Sepkoski’s ‘Palaeozoic Fauna’; . . . The Flood was a global, diluvial catastrophe — explaining the commonness of fossils, the rarity of extensive bioturbation, the high species preservability, and the first-order randomness of the first appearance of higher taxa;" [Kurt P. Wise, "Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms." CEN Technical Journal, 1995]​

There is not a lot of room in that statement for macroevolution, Barbie. Perhaps Wise was introducing a revised form of punctuated equilibrium, that one might call "instantaneous equilibrium".

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence) You'd do well to learn what the word means and why transitional forms are almost always mosaics.

There are no transitional forms, except in the minds of those with highly vivid imaginations. You will do well when you understand that, Barbie.

Dan

 

[pat34lee]

Turns out, genetic analysis shows that gray wolves and dogs descended from a common wolf ancestor.

Let's go into detail here and show why it isn't evolution.

The original wolf had DNA which could adapt to environmental
conditions by changing the traits of the animal. It had genes
for taller wolves, shorter wolves, faster, slower, more aggressive,
more cooperative, fur density, fur color, ... Every trait that has
been brought out in dogs and wolves since then.

Dogs and wolves today have lost that variability. There is only
so far you can breed a basset hound or a grey wolf, and you
will never return one back to the original, because the genes
have been bred out of the animals we have today. To even
come close, you would have to splice genes from dozens of
dog breeds in order to fill in the gaps.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's go into detail here and show why it isn't evolution.

First, let's remember what evolution is: "A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

The original wolf had DNA which could adapt to environmental conditions by changing the traits of the animal.[/quote]

No, that's wrong. Your genes you are born with, are the ones you get. But different environments can change how they are expressed.

It had genes for taller wolves, shorter wolves, faster, slower, more aggressive, more cooperative, fur density, fur color, ... Every trait that has been brought out in dogs and wolves since then.

No, that's wrong, too. Mutations change genomes over time. But no wolf could have all those traits, because they could have at most, two alleles for each gene. If there were two original wolves, they could have had only 4 alleles between them. The dozens of others for each gene locus evolved by mutation.

Dogs and wolves today have lost that variability.[/quote]

See above. There is far more variability in canids now, than there could have been originally. It's just the way genes work.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course I did. You are not making any sense, Barbie. Show us the page numbers, and the angle of repose you are referring to.

You posted the chart. Go back and look at it.

Are you certain it cannot be formed by magnesium-ladened hot water and lime?

That's what I said. It came from groundwater. If the flood had been that hot, it would have cooked the ark.

(BRT denies that the Earth brought forth living things)

He said the earth brought forth living things...

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Youi're just wrong about that.

You forgot to include the context of the next verse, Barbie:
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:25 KJV

Of course He did. The problem is that you oppose the way He did it.

You ignore what God says, BRT, and pretend you do not. You're trying to revise Genesis into a literal history. But as you learned, it won't work.

(Barbarian notes that the family tree of all living things was discovered before Darwin)

It is a bush of life, Barbie, not a tree.

All family trees look like bushes. Take a look:

Take a look. It is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. And it is perfectly compatible with Scripture, as you just learned.

(denial of the findings of geneticists)

There is no evidence for macroevolution;

As you learned, your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admitted there is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. No point in denying the fact.

and cytochrome-c is the refuge of low-information types.

Because you didn't have that information, you were easy to fool by other creationists. Now you have it.

Are you not aware there are many millions of differences (actually, over a billion differences) between the chimpanzee and humans?

Something between 6% and 1% of the genomes of humans and chimps are different from each other, depending on how you count. Did you really not know that?

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. "Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

(Barbarian notes that Darwin wrote that God created first living things)

Are you referring to this?

From this:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics. A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution. I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

​

Still being deceitful, Barbie?

I don't think you mean to be deceitful. I think you get yourself all worked up and sometime you write things that you wouldn't, if you waited until you calmed down. I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt on those things.

Gould had no clue how life was created

He did explain why transitionals are (as Kurt Wise says) "mosaics." Evolution moves in stepwise fashion, and so there is no smooth change in bauplane, but rather bits and pieces, without everything changing at once.

Wise has specifically and adamantly claimed there are NO LINKS!

He does, however admit that there are numerous transitional forms, even numerous series of them, that are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. You likely don't know the difference between "link" (an informal creationist term) and "transitional."

Barbarian observes:
As he said in his paper, they are transitionals. And you still seem confused as to why transitionals must be mosaics. It seems you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it (suggestion that it must have hurt when AiG realized what "mosaic" actually meant)means?

Please refrain from misrepresenting his statement.

I cited exactly what he said. He said that the numerous series of transitional forms are "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Dr. Sarfati did not seem to have any difficulty distinguishing between the two when he wrote this article:

"Many of the alleged transitional forms do not have structures in transition from one form to another. Rather, the alleged transitional nature is a combination of fully-formed structures that in themselves are not transitional. For example, Archaeopteryx has fully formed flight feathers, an avian lung and an avian braincase (which is why the ‘hoax’ claim is indefensible), but had allegedly reptile features like a tail and teeth.

Sarfati missed a lot. Archaeopteryx has a dinosaurs tail, teeth, ribs, hands, pelvis, sternum, lower leg, spine, and face. It lacks avian pygostyle, ribs, hips, beak, spine, pelvis, etc. And the "avian" lung and feathers are found first in dinosaurs. Would you like to learn about those?

There are no transitional forms, except in the minds of those with highly vivid imaginations.

As you learned, your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise disagrees with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

This Famous Dinosaur Could Fly—But Unlike Anything Alive Today
The feathered dinosaur Archaeopteryx is sometimes called the “first bird” because the winged creature was the first to show an evolutionary link between birds and reptiles. But could it fly?

Paleontologists have fiercely debated this question for decades. Despite its winged form, it’s been unclear whether the animal could get airborne via its own power. Did Archaeopteryx primarily glide down from treetops? Did it flap its wings to escape grounded predators? Or did it do something different altogether?

Now, analysis of the creature’s forelimb bones finds that their structure closely resembles that of wing bones in today’s quails and pheasants, species that can fly for short bursts.

The discovery, published in Nature Communications on Tuesday, strengthens the case that Archaeopteryx could indeed take to the air. Experts are also hailing the study for its non-destructive look deep inside the fossil.
This Famous Dinosaur Could Fly—But Unlike Anything Alive Today

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Great. You should have no trouble telling me why this isn't evidence for macroevolution. I haven't been able to find a creationist who can give me a coherent reason why it isn't, but you must know a lot about genetics to make such a statement, so you should have no trouble with it.

The author, Stephen Schaffner, made this assumption:

"Since we are comparing common descent with the special creation of a single ancestral couple, we also have to consider the possibility that some of the genetic variation that we inherit was already present in Adam and Eve and not the result of subsequent mutation. To avoid this possibility, I looked only at genetic variants that were seen in roughly 1% of the modern population; any variant we inherit from Adam and Eve would be shared by a larger fraction of the population."​

That is an odd assumption? He also made this one:

"I cannot think of any reason why a designer should choose to make the differences look exactly like they were the result of lots of mutations."​

Mere men do not have the mind of God, no matter how highly they deem their own understanding. Remember this?

"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." -- Eccl 8:17 KJV​

Remember Collins' arrogant folly?

"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." [Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.136] ​

I prefer the wait-and-see approach to Schaffner's claims. See what you think of this paper by two PhD Geneticists (Harvard and Clemson):

Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve
​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Macroevolution, new species of fly:
Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky

And yes, it's still a dipteran, just as humans are still primates. The same rules apply.

No macroevolution. The fly is still a fly. Even Dobzhansky is not foolish enough to call it macroevolution. Why are you?

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

No macroevolution.

As you learned, it's directly observed.

The fly is still a fly.

And humans are still primates. Rock and a hard place.

Even Dobzhansky is not foolish enough to call it macroevolution. Why are you?

You've been misled about that...

Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution"
Macroevolution - Wikipedia

Particularly relevant to the issues at hand are Dobzhansky's increasing conviction, from about 1940 on, that intra-specific differences among organisms and populations, although perhaps brought forth by
historical accident or genetic drift, are typically maintained by selection and by intra-specific
competition, and his ever-stronger insistence that no macro-evolutionary mechanisms other than the
ones described in micro-evolutionary theory are required (or play an important role) in nature.

Now if selection maintains the differences among organisms that cause populations to differentiate,and the differences among populations are converted to differences between species by acontinuation of the very same selective processes, distinctions between micro- and macroevolution
become distinctions only of scale; no distinct macro-evolutionary processes need be invoked.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7278/c0cad9b0967569589efbd28df9f80e104206.pdf

I thought you knew. Sorry about that.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You posted the chart. Go back and look at it.

Admit you don't understand it, Barbie, so we can move on.

That's what I said. It came from groundwater. If the flood had been that hot, it would have cooked the ark.

That is quite an extrapolation -- from the flood waters in the vicinity of the Coconino, to the entire ocean? That is beyond silly.

For the rest of you, there were localized volcanisms that could have provided (and most likely did provide) both the magnesium and the heat. The marine shells and bacteria blooms could have provided the calcium. All were readily available at certain times during the flood.

(BRT denies that the Earth brought forth living things)

He said the earth brought forth living things...

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Youi're just wrong about that.

Of course He did. The problem is that you oppose the way He did it.

God created them (and all things); and I have no problem with that. It is his universe. I am just a sojourner and stranger.

After God created the living creatures, the earth provided the food and resources for them to multiply. He also made man in his image and likeness:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:25-27 KJV​

God also created great whales and fowls, and told them to multiply (e.g., have plenty of babies):

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." -- Gen 1:21-22 KJV​

You ignore what God says, BRT, and pretend you do not. You're trying to revise Genesis into a literal history. But as you learned, it won't work.

It is pretty hard to ignore what God says, Barbie, when I am directly quoting Him in context. It would be much easier to ignore Him if I quoted Him out of context, like you do.

(Barbarian notes that the family tree of all living things was discovered before Darwin)



All family trees look like bushes. Take a look:

Take a look. It is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. And it is perfectly compatible with Scripture, as you just learned.

(denial of the findings of geneticists)

It is compatible with the god of Darwin, which is abject foolishness.

As you learned, your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admitted there is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. No point in denying the fact.

Because you didn't have that information, you were easy to fool by other creationists. Now you have it.

I am sad to see you so confused, Barbie:

"Based on their faulty assumption that present-day slow processes have always been at work, early biologists interpreted the fossils in Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous rocks as a series of communities that lived during different eras, separated by long periods of time. They believed each community replaced a previous community that had gone extinct. Each new community spread over much of the world before it also went extinct, to be replaced by another community. Modern creationists, on the other hand, accept the Bible's straightforward record of history. God created every kind of living thing in six days—only a few thousand years ago—and later He destroyed the earth in a worldwide Flood. Based on these facts, the same fossils can be interpreted as three different dinosaur communities living at the same time just before the Flood but at different locations. These communities were buried in succession, as each was overrun by rising Flood waters." [Kurt P. Wise, "Noah’s World—Same Time, Different Place." Answers in Genesis, 2011] ​

"Even if natural process could indefinitely generate new species at the rate suggested by macroevolutionary theory (the view that all of life evolved from a single organism, in contrast to the Bible’s teaching that God separately created every kind of creature in just six days), and even if this has been happening for billions of years (though it also cannot be true because it contradicts the Bible), there would still not be enough time to generate the disparity of life we observe on this planet." [Kurt P. Wise, "Noah’s World—Same Time, Different Place." Answers in Genesis, 2011, Footnote #1] ​

Something between 6% and 1% of the genomes of humans and chimps are different from each other, depending on how you count. Did you really not know that?

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. "Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
That is more old research, Barbie. The current estimates are about 70% the same, with more than a billion overall differences.

I know this may break your heart, Barbie, but you will not find your ancestors among the chimp genealogies.

(Barbarian notes that Darwin wrote that God created first living things) From this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

What edition are you quoting, Barbie? The 1st Edition doesn't mention a creator in that paragraph:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [Charles Darwin, Conclusion, "On the Origin of the Species By Means of Natural Selection." John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap. XIV, p.490] ​

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics.

False. Dr. Kurt Wise does not believe there are any transitional forms.

A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution.

There is no evidence for macroevolution, except in the minds of the highly imaginative.

I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

​

I am pretty certain you don't have a clue, one way or another.

I don't think you mean to be deceitful. I think you get yourself all worked up and sometime you write things that you wouldn't, if you waited until you calmed down. I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt on those things.

You are delusional, Barbie. Get a grip on reality.

He did explain why transitionals are (as Kurt Wise says) "mosaics." Evolution moves in stepwise fashion, and so there is no smooth change in bauplane, but rather bits and pieces, without everything changing at once.

Dr. Wise both believes and claims there are no transitional links -- ONLY mosaics. Big difference!

He does, however admit that there are numerous transitional forms, even numerous series of them, that are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. You likely don't know the difference between "link" (an informal creationist term) and "transitional."

No, you took his words out of context, as usual. Get a grip on reality, Barbie.

Barbarian observes: As he said in his paper, they are transitionals. And you still seem confused as to why transitionals must be mosaics. It seems you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. What do you think it (suggestion that it must have hurt when AiG realized what "mosaic" actually meant) means?

Get a grip on reality, Barbie.

I cited exactly what he said. He said that the numerous series of transitional forms are "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

The Bible says that Cain slew Abel, and it says to, "Go and do thou likewise." That is your kind of "truth", Barbie.

Sarfati missed a lot. Archaeopteryx has a dinosaurs tail, teeth, ribs, hands, pelvis, sternum, lower leg, spine, and face. It lacks avian pygostyle, ribs, hips, beak, spine, pelvis, etc. And the "avian" lung and feathers are found first in dinosaurs.

Dr. Sarfati is right on the money.

Would you like to learn about those?

In, or out of context?

As you learned, your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise disagrees with you.

Right now he is probably wondering why I am trying to carry on a civilized conversation with a delusional child.

Dan