Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Mr Laurier]

I don't believe that.

We know. And based on your history, that fact alone makes it more credible.

 

[chad kincham]

I think the problem is that you will never accept any evidence that exposes the Turin Shroud as a fraud, no matter the test, or the evidence.
You have latched into this one scrap of linen, and tied your whole faith to it.
This places you in an awkward position.

The tests I’ve seen on the shroud indicate that the image on the shroud is a negative image that was put on the cloth via very high intensity light.

Since the shroud is much older than photography which brought us the novelty of photographic negatives that are a reversal of the image put on a photograph, it is extremely unlikely that someone faked a negative image centuries before such a thing was dreamed of, existed.

 

[SelfSim]

What's a "higher animal"? How do we define such a thing?

A giraffe?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Are we going to start this again?

Did Joe the Reporter name this thing Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

You have already been told that NO. Your "Joe the Reporter" did NOT name it.

 

[Speedwell]

Micro evolution is obviously lateral evolution, and macro evolution is vertical evolution, meaning a lower animal changing into a higher animal.

There is no such thing as "higher" and "lower" in evolution; just "different."

All the evidence that is presented is micro evolution, which is merely variations within a species...

and observed instances of speciation, which is technically macroevolution.

- any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a bacterium still bacteria, a moth still a moth, doesn’t demonstrate that life forms can undergo the quantum leap in genetic information needed to morph into a new and higher animal.

I don't know what you are taking about, but that is not a description of the evolutionary process.

Yet they extrapolate macro from micro evolution as if it’s proven fact.

Scientific theories are never "proven." They are confirmed by empirical evidence and then accepted provisionally until such time (if any) that they are falsified by new contrary evidence.

 

[sjastro]

On the subject of the Shroud of Turin.......
Does the locality of physical uniqueness allow death and decay?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The tests I’ve seen on the shroud indicate that the image on the shroud is a negative image that was put on the cloth via very high intensity light.

Since the shroud is much older than photography which brought us the novelty of photographic negatives that are a reversal of the image put on a photograph, it is extremely unlikely that someone faked a negative image centuries before such a thing was dreamed of, existed.

The camera obscura was known by the 14th century, but that's not the point. The artist probably just used some pigment that he thought would leave stains that resemble those left by sweat, blood, and body oils with aging.

It is almost certainly a 14th century French forgery and it has been suspected as such from nearly the moment it emerged from an obscure French town.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Look in the mirror when you say that, because it applies to you.

Huh?

I accurately stated that Darwinian evolution is the claim of gradualistic morphing of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection of the fittest to survive.

That's "Inaccurately stated"

The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory added genetic mutation to natural selection, sine it was recognized that Darwinism is only about the SURVIVAL of the fittest, and not about the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

Not even close

It’s pretty lame that evolutionists accuse those who reject macro evolution of doing so because of the claim that we don’t understand the science of the simplistic fairy tale for atheists known as the theory of evolution.

Given that there is no such fairy tale. The only thing known as "the theory of evolution" is the actual theory of evolution.

There are thousands of those with PhDs in biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines who reject the presupposition of naturalistic materialism used to interpret the data - and to claim they don’t understand the so-called science, is ludicrous.

We aren't talking about your "naturalistic materialism" though.
We are talking about evolutionary biology. One of the most studied fields of science in the world.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The tests I’ve seen on the shroud indicate that the image on the shroud is a negative image that was put on the cloth via very high intensity light.

Since the shroud is much older than photography which brought us the novelty of photographic negatives that are a reversal of the image put on a photograph, it is extremely unlikely that someone faked a negative image centuries before such a thing was dreamed of, existed.

And?
Your point is?

 

[chad kincham]

I think you should stop using those terms as they could cause confusion with the concepts of lateral and vertical gene transfer. A very different concept.

Micro and macro evolution are more established and understood terms. Making up your own terminology will just sow confusion.

We have examples of micro evolution taking steps to the point of species no longer being able to breed and being considered new species.

There are also ring species where:

A is similar to and able to inter breed with B
B is similar to and able to inter breed with C
C is similar to and able to inter breed with D
D is similar to and able to inter breed with E
E is so different to A that they are clearly separate species and can't interbreed.

That sort of situation is one or two species extinction from multiple clearly distinct species... and thus macro evolution (or vertical evolution is your personal system).

In addition macro and micro don't propose different mechanisms... just larger degrees of change over a typically longer period.

DNA is self limiting. Any changes are from gene shuffling of already coded-for genes, and the interaction of dominant and recessive genes.

Horses, donkeys, mules, burros, and jackasses are a good example of change being limited.

Some of them have changed their DNA enough they can’t interbreed, but they clearly remain the same family of animals - they haven’t changed enough, nor can ever change enough, to morph into a new body plan - thus your example still comes far short of demonstrating that an animal can change over time into another and higher life form.

There remains no data that shows any animal can gain enough new genetic information from mutations or any other genetic mechanism, to change one animal into a different animal, such as bacteria to fish, fish to amphibian, or mammal, or a theropod into a bird.

And concerning the latter, actual bird experts dispute claims from paleontologists that there were feathered dinosaurs and that birds evolved from theropods.

For one thing, theropods have a bellows lung, but avian lungs are radically different and use a continuous airflow system due to the high demand for oxygen when flying - and there’s no possible way to have an intermediate lung form to change a bellows lung into an avian lung.

 

[chad kincham]

Which god? The islamo-judeo-christian god? Since you capitalized "God" in English, should I assume you are talking about your god? (You, know the Christian one that includes Jesus. If so there goes the Jews, Muslims, and Deists from the candidate pile as they don't think Jesus was god.)

Most people believe in a god of some sort.
Sciences were founded by people.
Therefore, most sciences were founded by a believer in some sort of god.

The same applies to forms of government, styles of music, literature, and art, etc.

None of this makes science dependent on religious belief generally or specifically.

If you want to demonstrate the necessity of a religious origin to a specific science, then get specific. Tell me about how Bohr's Christianity influenced the quantization of the atom.

You deliberately miss the point that science today demands atheism and claims it has to exclude any allowance for any causation apart from naturalism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And concerning the latter, actual bird experts dispute claims from paleontologists that there were feathered dinosaurs and that birds evolved from theropods.

For one thing, theropods have a bellows lung, but avian lungs are radically different and use a continuous airflow system due to the high demand for oxygen when flying - and there’s no possible way to have an intermediate lung form to change a bellows lung into an avian lung.

I don't know the rest of the stuff (as I am no expert), but the very first claim I quoted about "bird experts" disputing the existence of feathered dinosaurs is just flat wrong. They have their own "wikipedia" page:

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia

There seem to be several non-avian dinosaurs with feathers.

 

[chad kincham]

What's a "higher animal"? How do we define such a thing?

Does this assessment of evolution apply to "higher plants" or "higher fungi" as well?

Do you know what a new body plan is? Look it up.

Single celled organisms can’t become a fish; fish can’t become a mammal or amphibian, theropods can’t become birds, tree climbing simians can’t become humans.

Evolution occurs, but is limited to micro evolution.

You can breed dogs for a million years, but you will never get anything but a dog.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You deliberately miss the point that science today demands atheism and claims it has to exclude any allowance for any causation apart from naturalism.

Not even close to true. No scientific society, or degree program, or research funder requires that scientists be atheist. If so I would have abandoned my studies before I reached that destination.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you know what a new body plan is? Look it up.

Single celled organisms can’t become a fish; fish can’t become a mammal or amphibian, theropods can’t become birds, tree climbing simians can’t become humans.

Evolution occurs, but is limited to micro evolution.

You can breed dogs for a million years, but you will never get anything but a dog.

What make a body plan "higher"?

Most fish start life as single-celled organisms, just like I did. By the rules of cladistics, mammals and amphibians *are* fish. I used to climb trees but don't any more.

Dogs are only about 10,000 years old as a separate species.

 

[chad kincham]

I don't know the rest of the stuff (as I am no expert), but the very first claim I quoted about "bird experts" disputing the existence of feathered dinosaurs is just flat wrong. They have their own "wikipedia" page:

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia

There seem to be several non-avian dinosaurs with feathers.

Open letter from the curator of birds, Smithsonian institute:

1 November 1999

OPEN LETTER TO:

Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,

I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.

Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.

There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

 

[chad kincham]

There is no such thing as "higher" and "lower" in evolution; just "different."

and observed instances of speciation, which is technically macroevolution.I don't know what you are taking about, but that is not a description of the evolutionary process.

Scientific theories are never "proven." They are confirmed by empirical evidence and then accepted provisionally until such time (if any) that they are falsified by new contrary evidence.

That’s laughable - just read National Geographic or Time magazine, or a litany of other publications, and apologists for evolution continually make claims that it’s all proven fact, beyond dispute.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Open letter from the curator of birds, Smithsonian institute:

1 November 1999

OPEN LETTER TO:

Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,

I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.

Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.

There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Your up to *1* expert now. I read that letter after you posted it and I see a criticism of what he sees as a undercautious identification of feather like features on dinosaur fossils.

I also see an senior guy who doesn't like these findings taking every shot he has at their methodology, while confidently asserting that they will all look bad in the future. (Who hasn't run in to that.) There have been 20 years of discovery since then and the rest of the bird paleontology community would seem to differ with Mr. Olson.

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you going to try to stop using your personalised evolution terms of lateral and vertical as synonyms for micro and macro?

DNA is self limiting. Any changes are from gene shuffling of already coded-for genes, and the interaction of dominant and recessive genes.

Horses, donkeys, mules, burros, and jackasses are a good example of change being limited.

Some of them have changed their DNA enough they can’t interbreed, but they clearly remain the same family of animals - they haven’t changed enough, nor can ever change enough, to morph into a new body plan - thus your example still comes far short of demonstrating that an animal can change over time into another and higher life form.

You are using the term "highger"... how is that measured? What about donkeys and horses makes them higher or lower then the ancestral common ancestor you apparently accet in this circumstance?

You are presenting a situation where change between species has not been particularly large as evidence for more significant change over longer periods being impossible. That is not logical.

This is the same as presenting evidence that people have only walked a kilometre as proof that no one can actually walk ten.

There remains no data that shows any animal can gain enough new genetic information from mutations or any other genetic mechanism, to change one animal into a different animal, such as bacteria to fish, fish to amphibian, or mammal, or a theropod into a bird.

I have never seen a definition of genetic information that had an objective unit of measurement and method of measuring it. Do you have one?

The point is that there is no demonstrated barrier to small changes building up slowly shifting structure and body plan.

A house cat is clearly similar to a lion in structure... but a cat and a dog are more similar to each other in structure and bone than either is to an ape.

(Also, check out the Tiktaalik).

And concerning the latter, actual bird experts dispute claims from paleontologists that there were feathered dinosaurs and that birds evolved from theropods.

For one thing, theropods have a bellows lung, but avian lungs are radically different and use a continuous airflow system due to the high demand for oxygen when flying - and there’s no possible way to have an intermediate lung form to change a bellows lung into an avian lung.

I'm dubious, do you have a source?

Because variations of unidirectional breathing appears to be present in related non-avian reptiles and probably present in various dinosaur families.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you going to try to stop using your personalised evolution terms of lateral and vertical as synonyms for micro and macro?
...
You are using the term "highger"... how is that measured? What about donkeys and horses makes them higher or lower then the ancestral common ancestor you apparently accet in this circumstance?

The model has obviously been created to justify the idea of humans being 'appointed' as occupying a 'superior' position in biology, by an omnipotent God .. Which would be fine, as long as it led to a testable 'omnipotent God' .. (Unfortunately, clearly, that's a dead end as far as science is concerned).