Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

So, to conclude from my above post, bioturbation that has resulted in the destruction of subsurface lamination is common.

Now, there is an alternative question of...how deep or how wide or large of an area does bioturbation occur?

And the above sources, images, quotes etc. show us that destruction of laminated surfaces ranges from a few centimeters, to several feet, and in a few cases, even tens of feet both in depth and lateral distance.

@Bible Research Tools

So, you cannot rightfully deny that bioturbation and the destruction of subsurface sediments, occurs. And regarding the depths and complexity of bioturbation, you cannot deny that the fossil record contains burrows, deep (feet in depth) large (feet in width), long (feet in length), and complex networks that involve multiple levels and tunnels, laterally and vertically position around one another...




What more could you possibly ask for?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think so. The Silurian layers were deposited during the Tippecanoe megasequence, which was the same year that the Cambrian and most other layers were deposited.

"the intensity of bioturbation in the sediment record suggests that evolutionary advances in sediment colonization outpaced advances in sediment mixing"​

That is convenient.

Dan

Yes, and so, if you took the entire geologic column, your silurian section, is relatively brief as well as early on in the history of earth. And early on in the history of life, as derived through the fossil succession. You dont find complex burrowing organisms at the beginning of the fossil succession. But as the paper describes, as you proceed through time, beyond those initial strata, you find increasing depth and complexity in burrowing activities and bioturbation.

And I just want to point out that this is another concept that is tested. Someone for example, could go out and find giant mammalian tunnels, like those in south america, and it alone would completely destroy the theory of evolution, easily.

But of course, of no surprise to us, such tunnels do not exist. And young earthers have had hundreds of years to find them and to show us, if they were out there. But they just arent.


I just want to add in one other concept as well.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e5f/d138ffd8e4b9d923766f4129b8fdc31e2738.pdf

Plants also were rooting themselves throughout the geologic column.

Now tell me...if thousands of feet of sediment were laid down in some giant wave that moved across north america...tell me, how in the world...how could it be, that plants were commonly rooting themselves throughout these deposited layers around the world?

Plants, i dont know if you are a gardening kind of person, but if a plant doesnt have sunshine, 99% of the time, its going to die, and its not going to root itself, its not going to grow. It would just die. Especially if feet, or even hundreds of thousands of feet of sediment were piled over it. And especially if it, itself were deposited by these waves.

Really, large rooted structures shouldnt even exist throughout the column, because trees should have already been dead with the onset of the flood.

So here we are again with another strange idea, trying to understand how large waves could wash over north america and could deposit these 5-6 multi thousand foot megasequences of sediment...while simultaneously, trees are taking root right in the middle of it.

@Bible Research Tools you dont have to be in denial. You dont have to...ignore this. Its ok to say..."ya know what komatiitebif?" "you're right, this doesnt make any sense at all".

There would be no shame in recognizing that it doesnt make any sense.

And you can call it a strawman all you want, but this is what kurt wise was describing in his video. He described these megasequences as having been deposited by insanely large waves that washed over north america. Hence the non existence of time in which animals would have to burrow.

But as we can see, animals did have time to burrow, they had time to destroy subsurface lamination, they had time to breed and lay eggs, and trees had time to root.

Life had time to live.

 

[Job 33:6]

In this contribution, we describe an intimate relationship between small terrestrial invertebrate trace fossils and thallo-ichnomorphs [following the terminology of White & Curran (1997)] that reflects the rooting architecture of large forest trees in Quaternary siliciclastic dune deposits of coastal settings.
"Compound trace fossils formed by plant and animal interactions: Quaternary of northern New Zealand and Sapelo Island, Georgia (USA)"

"The discovery of several distinctive root fragments in carbonate petrifaction material from Illinois provides the basis for the investigation of a Middle Pennsylvanian medullosan rooting system. Specimens range from minute rootlets with incomplete primary development, to large axes over 2 cm in diameter with extensive secondary development. The axes are characterized by an exarch actinostele with up to five protoxylem points. The pericycle of small rootlets is surrounded by endodermis, parenchymatous cortex, and epidermis. More mature specimens exhibit periderm at the outer margin of the pericycle, and in the largest specimens the periderm forms the outermost tissue zone. Secondary xylem is extensively developed in large specimens, and completely surrounds the primary wood. The newly discovered specimens are compared with previously described medullosan roots, and possible affinities with the Middle Pennsylvanian species of Medullosa and Sutcliffia are discussed."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Rooting structures of the Carboniferous medullosan pteridosperms
G. W. Rothwell, K. L. Whiteside
Canadian Journal of Botany, 1974, 52 (1), 97-102, 10.1139/b74-013



And again, tree rooting, commonly observed throughout the geologic record, that allegedly was the result of 5-6 individual giant waves that washed over north america, depositing thousands of feet of sediment per wave.

 

[The Barbarian]

And, as much as you want to say there are enough in-between species, there are not. All fossils jump, and you can't fill them, no matter how much you want to stretch it.

No, that's wrong. From a creationist source, a few cases of series of in-between species:
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.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

So your own people disagree with you.

The large number of disputed species in various taxa (as Darwin documented in his book) make it clear that there are no hard distinctions between varieties and species.

 

[NobleMouse]

According to Kurt Wise, there are 5 stratigraphic sections that are the product of 5 mega waves that passed over north america. One wave that formed the cambrian, one the ordovician, one in the later silurian to devonian, one in the carboniferous and one that sort of takes up most of the mesozoic, and then like maybe half of one in the cesozoic.

So if this is the case... then one wave of the mesozoic would have deposited >7000 feet of sediment (actually it would be a greater amount because there are currently 7000 feet of dense compacted mesozoic rock at the grand canyon) in a single wave.

Now, think about that for a second. How exactly is it that...dinosaurs, such as...those of the jurassic or cretaceous...how did they somehow manage to...make nests or even walk or do anything...if 7000 feet were deposited by a single giant wave? We have found predators and prey together with predator teeth marks in their respective prey, in the mesozoic. There are unique independent ecosystems throughout the mesozoic. And this guy is suggesting that it all just got deposited, 7000+ feet of it, all by a giant...just one giant wave.

It really does sound ridiculous when you think about it.

I don't think anybody really knows the exact conditions back then and we don't have another event of equal scale to compare against for reference. I understand some things can be discerned from smaller scale floods today, but at some point scale makes a difference and nobody knows for certain what a flood of this scale could accomplish. A few things known from the Bible:

Genesis 6:17
"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

Here we can see it was God's intent to destroy all flesh.

Genesis 7:11-12
"...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights"

We see two things here: the fountains of the great deep (I don't know if it is the transition zone or not, but some have speculated it may have been), as well as constant rain for more than a month.

Genesis 7:19
"And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

If the high mountains are covered in one area of the world and water always seeks to level itself, then we know everywhere on earth lower than the high mountains are also covered. So, this idea of the flood being global leans in favor with what we are told in Genesis 6:17 where "everything that is on the earth shall die."

Genesis 8:5
"And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen."

As has already been noted, the flood persisted for approx a year... so there is ample time for many events (and subsequent catastrophes) to occur both during this year, as well as even after the flood. Noah and his family exited the ark in one place on the planet... doesn't mean subsequent catastrophes couldn't have occurred elsewhere in the world as a result of the flood.

Luke 17:26-27 (Jesus)
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

Here Jesus also affirms that the flood destroyed all flesh on the earth, as we were told back in Genesis 6:17.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside of the Bible, as you know better than me, there is evidence for massive world-wide devastation - literally billions of fossils from life forms no longer alive... it's down in the valleys, it's up in the mountains, it's everywhere, all over the earth - every continent.

So, given what is told in the Bible (Do you and I have reason to doubt God's word? Have we been led astray or been "duped" before by His word?), and what is evident today, the flood of Noah is the probable culprit.

Whether we (or K. Wise) identifies the mechanisms precisely or tells the naturalistic story of exactly how it happened, in sequence, with the timing nailed down... is not critical. It really just boils down to whether we believe God's word regarding Noah and his family, and the flood. Jesus believed it. That fact alone, should be significant in determining one's own consideration of whether to believe it or not.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think anybody really knows the exact conditions back then and we don't have another event of equal scale to compare against for reference. I understand some things can be discerned from smaller scale floods today, but at some point scale makes a difference and nobody knows for certain what a flood of this scale could accomplish. A few things known from the Bible:

Genesis 6:17
"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

Here we can see it was God's intent to destroy all flesh.

Genesis 7:11-12
"...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights"

We see two things here: the fountains of the great deep (I don't know if it is the transition zone or not, but some have speculated it may have been), as well as constant rain for more than a month.

Genesis 7:19
"And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

If the high mountains are covered in one area of the world and water always seeks to level itself, then we know everywhere on earth lower than the high mountains are also covered. So, this idea of the flood being global leans in favor with what we are told in Genesis 6:17 where "everything that is on the earth shall die."

Genesis 8:5
"And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen."

As has already been noted, the flood persisted for approx a year... so there is ample time for many events (and subsequent catastrophes) to occur both during this year, as well as even after the flood. Noah and his family exited the ark in one place on the planet... doesn't mean subsequent catastrophes couldn't have occurred elsewhere in the world as a result of the flood.

Luke 17:26-27 (Jesus)
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

Here Jesus also affirms that the flood destroyed all flesh on the earth, as we were told back in Genesis 6:17.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside of the Bible, as you know better than me, there is evidence for massive world-wide devastation - literally billions of fossils from life forms no longer alive... it's down in the valleys, it's up in the mountains, it's everywhere, all over the earth - every continent.

So, given what is told in the Bible (Do you and I have reason to doubt God's word? Have we been led astray or been "duped" before by His word?), and what is evident today, the flood of Noah is the probable culprit.

Whether we (or K. Wise) identifies the mechanisms precisely or tells the naturalistic story of exactly how it happened, in sequence, with the timing nailed down... is not critical. It really just boils down to whether we believe God's word regarding Noah and his family, and the flood. Jesus believed it. That fact alone, should be significant in determining one's own consideration of whether to believe it or not.

The reason "nobody knows" the details and mechanisms of how it occurred, is because such details and mechanisms don't exist. It's as simple as that.

In the most literal sense of the situation, we have our eyes and mathematics and knowledge of things like basic physics, that tell us the earth is old. And not only is the earth old, but the vast majority of the rock record was not produced by giant flood waves as Kurt wise suggests.

Alterbatively, you have people who interpret scripture in ways that contradict our understanding of physical reality.

Some people choose to accept physics and reality. Other people choose to accept their perception of literature that is scripture.

Kurt wise clearly does not accept reality. He is in some sort of an imaginary world where 5 giant waves created the grand canyon, which no person could ever actually justify with evidence . But when we look at reality, we see that this is clearly not the case.

 

[NobleMouse]

You're the only one who even suggested he said that. He merely cited many different series of transitionals, each with several to dozens of transitional forms.

Nope. Post #929, I quoted YOUR exact words ([Ctrl]+C, [Ctrl]+V), where you said Wise indicated a "huge". Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope. Post #929, I quoted YOUR exact words ([Ctrl]+C, [Ctrl]+V), where you said Wise indicated a "huge".

Nope. I said he cited the huge number of transitionals. He did.

No one said he used the word "huge." Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[NobleMouse]

As you learned, they are testably transitional. Remember the definition. If you forgot, it's an organism with apomorphic characters of two major groups, such dinosaurs with feathers, or mammals that lay reptilian eggs.

It's just a fact. That's how they are defined.

Assigning a definition to a process never observed doesn't prove the processed has occurred.

It's just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was confirmed. Notice that monotremes don't lay bird eggs, which would have been a serious problem for evolutionary theory. They lay reptilian eggs, which is exactly what would be expected for a transitional mammal. They also have a reptilian cloaca, reptilian shoulder girdle, so on.

Repetition of the same assumptions. Nobody questions similarities, but the interpretation of what the similarities mean is what creationists reconsider and give further thought.

They invented the term, so they get to decide what it means. As you have probably figured out by now, it's not safe to expect dictionaries to accurately describe technical terms.

Agreed they get to decide what it means, just like book- and play-writers get to decide what things like "fellbeasts" or "orcs", or any other fictional thing means.

(Barbarian demonstrates evidence showing that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than to other apes)

Correction: (Barbarian demonstrates evolutionary bias in believing that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than to other apes).

That's how science works. Testable claims and evidence. As you see, genetics has confirmed predictions about relatedness made much earlier.

I don't think false accusations will help you now. Abuse really only makes it worse for you. Instead of making up stories, you should try to pull some facts together and present a cogent argument.

And that is why evolution gets called a pseudo-science... what is testable and is evident does support variation within kinds, but the concept of macro-evolution is built on UNtestable claims and evidence that largely does not support that framework.

Stop for a second, if you can. Try to put on a biblical creationist hat here and see that God created living kinds and each kind has similar features to other kinds though all created together during the 6 days of creation. Over time, these kinds diversified as they adapt to the changing environment, but each remains true to it's kind. What would you expect to see that is different that what is seen today?

Would you expect one kind to be coded using something called DNA and other kinds not (they use some other kind of coding mechanism)?
Would you expect one kind that has eyes to have no similarities in coding with other kinds with eyes (we can use eyes, organs, tissues, etc...)?
Would you expect no similarities in morphology at all (given that all life was created to be fruitful and multiply on this planet) across the different kinds?

I think everyone here understands why evolution is believed by some... but if you evaluate the evidence assuming God created all life, all the kinds, during the 6 days of creation as the Bible says, you will find that there is nothing that refutes the truth of God's word.

You seem to think life can make these giant leaps with radical changes to support what is assumed to be a transitional fossil, without consequence. Genetically, life is very sensitive as even slight alterations in the wrong way can and do lead to deadly diseases... yet evolution asserts significant amounts of change have happened (all of a sudden too... else there would literally be millions of fossils that fall into the "transitional" category between any two life forms said to be directly evolutionarily related - things would more or less blur from one thing to another).

The standard responses:
1. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2. Fossilization is rare and occurs only under certain circumstances.
3. If there were no fossils at all evolution would still have enough other evidence.Fossils are like the icing on the cake.
4. There are no valid reasons for not accepting the truth of evolution.

Just pointing out that most Christian accept the Apostle's Creed, which professes belief in the "holy catholic church." Do you think the Apostle's Creed is false?

Nope, but I didn't reference the Apostle's Creed. You know what I referenced and there are clear distinctions where those things adhered to by many Catholics (such as praying to the saints, or praying to Mary, or the use of a rosary, etc...) are not adhered to by those who do not identify themselves as 'Catholic'. Oddly enough, part of the Apostle's Creed indicates believing that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet you seem insistent that there's a scientific explanation... Jesus and Mary weren't plants or lizards... it was a miracle, just as was all of creation.

God says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. ... [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. ...

So God makes it explicit what was there in the beginning, and there was no male or female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humanity, not the beginning.

He said it. I believe it. That's all there is.

Right, God said they were created on day 6... I think everyone's reading comprehension level here is up to par to understand that Adam and Eve were not there when God's spirit moved over the waters as described in Genesis 1:1 - they were later in the week. Where are things falling apart for you on this?

No, that's wrong, too. As you see, science doesn't and can't deny miracles. In fact, it's highly unlikely, but parthenogenesis is possible, scientifically.

It was 100% impossible as the Bible told us it happened as a result of the Holy Spirit.

Yep. Science is limited to the physical universe. So it can't address those things, even if scientists can.

Good, now that we've established science is inadequate since it can only consider the physical universe then let it be known to all here that if you are a proponent of evolution, you are so on the basis of a method of study that has been established as not considering all possibilities, upon which God's word expressly states that all things within our physical and finite universe are the result of that which is beyond our universe and is infinite and is not physical.

I do think it would be better for you, if you argued about things you understand. Or at least did some checking up before doing this kind of thing.

Couldn't hurt.

I don't need a PhD in the dilusionary and philosophical view of evolution to know God's word is ultimately true. No matter how much a false doctrine is rationalized and written about, God's word will be found true and be all that stands in the end. If you and others here don't want to believe God created life on days 3, 5, and 6 - you are free to do so, it is your free will.

 

[NobleMouse]

The reason "nobody knows" the details and mechanisms of how it occurred, is because such details and mechanisms don't exist. It's as simple as that.

In the most literal sense of the situation, we have our eyes and mathematics and knowledge of things like basic physics, that tell us the earth is old. And not only is the earth old, but the vast majority of the rock record was not produced by giant flood waves as Kurt wise suggests.

Alterbatively, you have people who interpret scripture in ways that contradict our understanding of physical reality.

Some people choose to accept physics and reality. Other people choose to accept their perception of literature that is scripture.

Kurt wise clearly does not accept reality. He is in some sort of an imaginary world where 5 giant waves created the grand canyon, which no person could ever actually justify with evidence . But when we look at reality, we see that this is clearly not the case.

Then clearly you reject what is written in the Bible as it relates to the flood. As I've told the Barbarian, you are free to do so, it is your free will.

 

[NobleMouse]

Nope. I said he cited the huge number of transitionals. He did.

No one said he used the word "huge." Who do you think you're fooling?

Though your knowledge of science is very extensive, apparently not many classes on writing were required as part of your major.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then clearly you reject what is written in the Bible as it relates to the flood. As I've told the Barbarian, you are free to do so, it is your free will.

If only reality were so simple, that by simply reading words on a piece of paper, someone could answer all the questions of the universe.

 

[NobleMouse]

If only reality were so simple, that by simply reading words on a piece of paper, someone could answer all the questions of the universe.

Now now, don't discount too quickly, it may be that easy... see, it's also the basis from which you and I have come to understand our salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ - sealing our eternity with Him. That's pretty important... and you & I only know it is true because God told us so, as simple words on a piece of paper. What makes all the difference with the simple words on paper is not the words themselves but from whom they are from... I think if we can trust God with our eternal future, we can probably trust Him with our past as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now now, don't discount too quickly, it may be that easy... see, it's also the basis from which you and I have come to understand our salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ - sealing our eternity with Him. That's pretty important... and you & I only know it is true because God told us so, as simple words on a piece of paper. What makes all the difference with the simple words on paper is not the words themselves but from whom they are from... I think if we can trust God with our eternal future, we can probably trust Him with our past as well.

If what you see in scripture, does not coincide with what physically exists around you, then you should not be so quick to...disregard what physically exists around you, for what you perceive through ideas that you have conjured up in your imagination.

The earth is something that exists as it is. You and I can both go outside and touch it, smell it, taste it, feel it etc. It doesnt change. And you can get anyone from around the world to say...test the hardness of a quartzite. It never changes. No matter what religious background, no matter what your level of education is, no matter what degree you have, the earth is as it is.

Perception of scripture is just the opposite. Never in history have people all united over...interpretations of scripture. As they are based in...perception and interpretation that only exists in the mind. It is only in your imagination that a global flood happened, there is nothing in physical reality that makes it so.

And with that, you have to choose what you wish to follow. Physical reality, or what you have in your imagination. And if the two are in conflict, then i would say that is an issue.

And this isnt about being Christian or not. It isnt about rejecting scripture or not either. It is about perception and imagination with respect to literature.

You just have to make a choice. Of if you accept physical reality, or if you would rather live the rest of your life in conflict with what is real, and in a sort of darkness of knowledge of the physical universe.



Notice how nobody actually has an explanation for the lack of geologic evidence for a global flood. Kurt Wise offers a few ideas, but just as quickly as he offers them, others here such as yourself, are suggesting that many things are unknown, or perhaps cannot be known.

This is because such evidence doesnt exist. This is why young earthers cannot get a single unified story of how it all happened, because there are too many logical contradictions that young earth creationism holds with reality.

They live in a perpetual darkness, continuing to vary and to be divided and without an understanding of their own reality. In a dream world. Where only what they imagine is real, and beyond their own minds, nothing makes sense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Though your knowledge of science is very extensive, apparently not many classes on writing were required as part of your major.

Perhaps English is not your first language? If I say that Dr. Wise wrote that the huge number of transitionals is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", the part in quote marks is what he said. he part not in quote marks is what I said.

I strongly suspect you already know this. Probably everyone else reading here, knows this. So why even bother with that kind of thing? C'mon.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then clearly you reject what is written in the Bible as it relates to the flood.

In this case, we're rejecting your revision of what God said, which is something else entirely.

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps English is not your first language? If I say that Dr. Wise wrote that the huge number of transitionals is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", the part in quote marks is what he said. he part not in quote marks is what I said.

I strongly suspect you already know this. Probably everyone else reading here, knows this. So why even bother with that kind of thing? C'mon.

Could you provide the post number so that we could verify the nature of the statement?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, they are testably transitional. Remember the definition. If you forgot, it's an organism with apomorphic characters of two major groups, such dinosaurs with feathers, or mammals that lay reptilian eggs.

It's just a fact. That's how they are defined.

Assigning a definition to a process never observed

Transitionals aren't a process. They are organisms with apomorphic characters of two major groups. I don't see how you can confuse the two.

Barbarian, regarding how scientists predicted these transitionals:
It's just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was confirmed. Notice that monotremes don't lay bird eggs, which would have been a serious problem for evolutionary theory. They lay reptilian eggs, which is exactly what would be expected for a transitional mammal. They also have a reptilian cloaca, reptilian shoulder girdle, so on.

Repetition of the same assumptions.

You've confused "prediction" with "assumption." As you just learned, the prediction that there would be transitional forms between reptiles and mammals has been repeatedly confirmed. This is how hypotheses are confirmed to be true. Notice again, that if there were transitionals between birds and mammals, that would be a huge problem for science, because the evidence shows that mammals evolved from reptiles, not birds.

Nobody questions similarities

Creationists deny the facts, constantly. As your fellow creationist, Dr. Wise writes:
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.

(my emphasis) You need to accept the fact.

Barbarian notes that dictionaries often fail to accurately define scientific terms:
They invented the term, so they get to decide what it means. As you have probably figured out by now, it's not safe to expect dictionaries to accurately describe technical terms.

Agreed they get to decide what it means, just like book- and play-writers get to decide what things like "fellbeasts" or "orcs", or any other fictional thing means.

As you learned, a YE creationist familiar with the issue openly admits the reality of transitional forms. No point in denying the fact.

(Barbarian demonstrates evidence showing that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than to other apes)

Correction: (Barbarian demonstrates evolutionary bias in believing that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than to other apes).

You're wrong, again. As you learned, genetic data clearly shows this fact, and we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. No point in denying this,either.

(Barbarian observes that creationists often ignore evidence and merely call names)

And that is why evolution gets called a pseudo-science...

Unfortunately so. There are honest creationists, but often they can't resist the temptation to abandon reason and merely call names. It's sad.

what is testable and is evident does support variation within kinds, but the concept of macro-evolution is built on UNtestable claims and evidence that largely does not support that framework.

As you learned earlier, your fellow YE creationist admits that your claim is false. He quite openly admits that (for example) the huge number of transitional forms are "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Stop for a second, if you can. Try to put on a biblical creationist hat here and see that God created living kinds and each kind has similar features to other kinds though all created together during the 6 days of creation. Over time, these kinds diversified as they adapt to the changing environment, but each remains true to it's kind. What would you expect to see that is different that what is seen today?

There wouldn't be intermediate cases of half-species, quarter-species, etc. No ring species, no clines. There wouldn't be transitional forms. This is why Dr. Wise admits that such forms are an insoluble problem for creationism, although back in the 90s, he expressed faith that someday he'd find an answer consistent with his religious beliefs. So far, he's been unable to do that.

Would you expect one kind to be coded using something called DNA and other kinds not (they use some other kind of coding mechanism)?

I would expect some variation, yes. Turns out, there is:
Mitochondria are not alone in having an unusual genetic code. In a series of discoveries beginning in 1985 it was found that single-cell ciliates – tiny organisms like Paramecium – show variants of the nuclear genetic code that have appeared several times during their evolution. In some species of ciliate, UAA and UAG code for glutamate rather than stop, with only UGA encoding stop, while in others UGA codes for tryptophan.


In a few rare instances in single-celled organisms without a nucleus, UGA and UAG have even been recoded by natural selection to code for extra amino acids, not normally found in life – selenocysteine and pyrrolosine, respectively. A recent study of 5.6 trillion base pairs of DNA from over 1700 samples of bacteria and bacteriophages isolated from natural environments, including on the human body, revealed that in an important proportion of the sequences, stop codes had been reassigned to code for amino acids, while an investigation of hitherto unstudied microbes revealed that in one group UAG had been reassigned from stop to code for glycine.


More than 15 alternative or non-canonical genetic codes are known to exist, and it can be assumed that more remain to be discovered. The non-canonical codes almost always involve the reassignment of stop codons; this may indicate that there is something about the machinery involved in stop codons that makes them particularly susceptible to change, or it may simply be that as long as the organism can still code stop using another codon, reassigning one stop codon to an amino acid does not cause any important problems.
Guest post: Why the genetic code is not universal

If there was a "common designer" instead of an omnipotent Creator Who uses evolution to do His will, then we would expect to see a universal code with no changes. We certainly would not expect to see variations sort out according to phylogenies that fit evolutionary theory.

Would you expect one kind that has eyes to have no similarities in coding with other kinds with eyes

Funny you should ask...

Hox genes are a group of regulatory genes that control the timing and route of development. They’re a bit like lighting engineers at a concert; they control when and where a light goes on, how strongly and for how long it is switched on. They all cluster together on the genome and play a major role in the development of animal segments with different Hox genes being expressed in different segments. Hox gene evolution played a big role in the diversification of these segments. But how do we know this?


Homologous structures are things that are similar because they evolved from one common ancestor. For example the bones in your arm are homologous to the bones in a mouse’s foreleg. In the same way genes in different animals can be homologous. This is the case for Hox genes. Biologists have been able to isolate Hox genes from many animal groups.


By looking at which Hox genes are present in many different animals it is possible to track their evolution. The number ofHox genes has actually expanded during animal evolution. Jellyfish and other cnidaria have only two Hox genes. Sometime after they split from the rest of the animals these genes duplicated – this means when the DNA was being copied in the sex cells of our ancestors mistakes were made, and instead of copying the Hox genes once they were copied twice. In fact the bilateria have at least seven Hox genes, meaning they were duplicated more than once.
...
Scientists have now looked at Pax6 expression (turned on) in eyes across the animal kingdom. In as diverse groups as vertebrates, arthropods, annelids and molluscs Pax6 is expressed during eye development. In cnidaria Pax6 is even expressed in their photoreceptor cells – these are single cells used to detect light. This suggests that the basic eye evolved only once early in animal evolution and that Pax6 had a key role in its development. So key in fact that through hundreds of millions of years its role has been maintained despite the diversity of animal eyes expanding greatly.
Christs Darwin200

The expression of the Pax6 gene remains constant, although the gene can recruit different cell lines in the embryo to do the same things. Hence the "backwards" retina of vertebrates, compared to the "right-side-out" retinas of mollusks. And yet the same homobox gene organizes each of these. This makes no sense at all in terms of special creation, but is entirely understandable in terms of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think everyone here understands why evolution is believed by some...

Evidence. And the fact that nothing in scripture denies it.

You seem to think life can make these giant leaps with radical changes to support what is assumed to be a transitional fossil, without consequence.

Let's test your belief. What change between reptiles and mammals do you think could not have a transitional form?

The standard responses:
1. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Most of them are. But there are some dead ends, where no further variation happened. Would you like to learn about them?

2. Fossilization is rare and occurs only under certain circumstances.

For most vertebrates, this is true. For many marine organisms, it's not true. Would you like to see why?

3. If there were no fossils at all evolution would still have enough other evidence.

This is demonstrably true. Darwin correctly predicted the way evolution works, even though there were very few or no transitional fossils known in his time.

Fossils are like the icing on the cake.

They are validation of evolutionary theory, which predicted them, such as Huxley's prediction of feathered dinosaurs. As Dr. Wise says, they are strong evidence for macroevolution, but even more convincing, there are no transitionals where evolutionary theory says they should not be. That is a much more devastating fact for creationism, which has no explanation for this.

4. There are no valid reasons for not accepting the truth of evolution.

Dr. Wise thinks there is. He says that no amount of evidence would overcome his personal understanding of the Bible.

Babarian, noting that even non-Roman Catholics consider themselves part of the catholic church:
Just pointing out that most Christian accept the Apostle's Creed, which professes belief in the "holy catholic church." Do you think the Apostle's Creed is false?

Nope

Each time you say it, you acknowledge Christians are part of the "holy catholic church." Many Christians do not accept all things taught by The Church. They remain part of the Body of Christ, however:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
From:
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Good, now that we've established science is inadequate since it can only consider the physical universe

More than that, it's inapplicable. It's not what science can do. It would be like saying that a scalpel is inadequate for painting your house.

then let it be known to all here that if you are a proponent of evolution, you are so on the basis of a method of study...

...that depends on evidence to know what is true of the physical universe. You might find that objectionable, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding this world.

As you now realize, creationism, which depends only on a modern revision of scripture, is wholly inadequate to understand this, since it must deny the evidence. Because God doesn't base your salvation on whether or not you approve of His creation, you won't be sent to hell for being a YE creationist. But you should be very cautious about denying the faith of those of us who do accept the way He did it.

That might be harmful to your soul. Worth considering.

 

[The Barbarian]

Could you provide the post number so that we could verify the nature of the statement?

Post 929 in this thread.

Mouse wrote:

Nope. Post #929, I quoted YOUR exact words ([Ctrl]+C, [Ctrl]+V), where you said Wise indicated a "huge". Who do you think you're fooling?

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps English is not your first language? If I say that Dr. Wise wrote that the huge number of transitionals is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", the part in quote marks is what he said. The part not in quote marks is what I said.

I strongly suspect you already know this. Probably everyone else reading here, knows this. So why even bother with that kind of thing? C'mon.

The actual statement:
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.