Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[mmksparbud]

You said the reason most can't is due to size, how do you get evolution in 100 years to go from a cat kind to lions and cats? Or lions and tigers, jaguars, leopards and such?

100 years?? Diversity in animals who are actively interbreeding can happen very quickly, may take more than a 100 years, though.---how should I know!---The basic kinds that Noah had diversified and as in everything, including people, they seek out their own kind. We have much interracial marriages now, which is fine---but still, you have people that want to marry those of their own race. Personally, I like the mixed, very pretty, I like variety.

 

[USincognito]

@USincognito Still can't debunk the fact that they are here, can you!

I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to debunk. You have posted an image of two human skeletons in what could be dirt or could be rock and that might or might not have been fossilized. I've asked for some more information about those images, but you appear not to have any.

You have also posted a bunch of photos showing that some types of animals haven't changed much. Not sure what the trilobite photo is supposed to show. Is the one on the left supposed to be a living trilobite?

eta - Ah, I found the actual story behind that photo. It's not a trilobite, it's an isopod named Serolis trilobitoides.
http://www.trilobites.info/triloimposters.htm

The blog you're getting those images from thinks coelacanths are an index fossil meaning he doesn't know what an index fossil is.
https://sepetjian.wordpress.com//?s=trilobite&search=Go

 

[USincognito]

100 years?? Diversity in animals who are actively interbreeding can happen very quickly, may take more than a 100 years, though.---how should I know!---

Not when you only have a population of two it can't. Do you understand what genetic bottlenecks are? Do you understand what diploid means?

The basic kinds that Noah had diversified...

The Flood didn't happen and one of the most glaring evidences that it didn't is the lack of a genetic bottleneck in every terrestrial vertebrate species including humans from ~4,000 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes that further narrows the definition and I have noticed that but didn't include it. Well done.

Thank you!

I learned to use that verse from Kent Hovind.

 

[klutedavid]

No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

Hello UScognito.

Agree with your post. Even within the scientific world, people stumble from
pillar to post, misusing the vocabulary of science. People need to buy dictionaries
and learn the simple definitions. A fact is something that is proven to be true.
The physical sciences do not use the word fact. Proof is another word that should
be absent in the physical sciences.

 

[Commander]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to debunk. You have posted an image of two human skeletons in what could be dirt or could be rock and that might or might not have been fossilized. I've asked for some more information about those images, but you appear not to have any.

You have also posted a bunch of photos showing that some types of animals haven't changed much. Not sure what the trilobite photo is supposed to sho

I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to debunk. You have posted an image of two human skeletons in what could be dirt or could be rock and that might or might not have been fossilized. I've asked for some more information about those images, but you appear not to have any.

Can't debunk a picture of a live animal and the same animal fossilized.

You have also posted a bunch of photos showing that some types of animals haven't changed much. Not sure what the trilobite photo is supposed to show. Is the one on the left supposed to be a living trilobite?

eta - Ah, I found the actual story behind that photo. It's not a trilobite, it's an isopod named Serolis trilobitoides.
http://www.trilobites.info/triloimposters.htm

"Perhaps it is the isopods that come the closest to pulling of an effective trilobite impersonation. After all, they belong to the same phylum of hard-shelled, segmented, multi-legged creatures." I wonder if the names have been changed, since science likes to change names frequently.

The blog you're getting those images from thinks coelacanths are an index fossil meaning he doesn't know what an index fossil is.
https://sepetjian.wordpress.com//?s=trilobite&search=Go

An index fossil-a fossil that is useful for dating and correlating the strata in which it is found. FYI-from this evolutionary scientist get their circular reasoning. There are no index fossils, you cannot date the rocks that the bones are found in, or date the bones that are found in the rocks.

 

[klutedavid]

Not when you only have a population of two it can't. Do you understand what genetic bottlenecks are? Do you understand what diploid means?



The Flood didn't happen and one of the most glaring evidences that it didn't is the lack of a genetic bottleneck in every terrestrial vertebrate species including humans from ~4,000 years ago.

Hello UScognito.

Apparently there was a big flood in the middle east, dated at around 6000 BC.
This was not a world wide flood of course. Whether or not the Biblical flood
is an exaggerated account of this flood is unknown.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently there was a big flood in the middle east, dated at around 6000 BC.

I'd say that's an understatement.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And although I wouldn't call it a "flood" per se, I also wouldn't call it the "middle east" either; since the land didn't exist as yet.

 

[USincognito]

I reject the out of Africa explanation and favor an out of the middle east explanation.

No such "explanation" exists. There are only two viable hypotheses - out of Africa and multi-regional.

There are no old cities in Africa, the oldest known cities are in the middle east.

Non sequitur. The out of Africa migrations happened about 50,000 years before the advent of cities.

Mankind probably wandered down into Africa to escape a widespread drought in the middle east.

Ah, the every popular "making stuff up" hypothesis.

Hence genetic tracing of populations would be biased towards Africa. Language studies would also follow the same track, e.t.c.

Actually haplogroup analysis would show an African origin for humans only if it actually happened.

Very little direct evidence of human habitation in Africa going back beyond six thousand years.
Very powerful evidence of human habitation in the middle east going back beyond seven
thousand years.

You have no idea what you're talking about. We have fossils showing anatomically modern humans along with many other species in Genus homo living in Africa for 2 million years. There are enough stone tools lying around Africa to build a pyramid.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/saharan-carpet-of-tools-is-the-earliest-known-man-made-landscape
We also have fossils showing human habitation in the middle east 80,000 years ago. Further, we have numerous examples of human habitation from Australia, China and Europe 20,000-50,000 years ago long predating your proposed cradle of humankind.

Genetics is a fascinating subject.

It is. You should try leaning something about it some time.

 

[USincognito]

There is no evidence for this. Evolutionists don't know they guess and assume based on a belief system. They assume ERV is evidence they assume genome evidence they assume everything.

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but your hyperbolic and simultaneously vacuous rhetoric is not actually addressing the evidence.

There is NO proof of a common ancestor.

Again, there is no proof in science. If you wish to be taken seriously, learn to use the proper verbiage. As far as evidence of common ancestry, there is a bunch of it. You might not be aware of it. You might not understand it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is NO evidence that spiders have been anything else but a spider.

You sure do make a lot of assertions on a topic you know anything about.
Hundreds of papers on arachinid evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arachnid++evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=
Thousands of papers on spider evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=spider+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
And a spider-like fossil that's not quite a spider yet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/300-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-evolution-of-spiders/
>> the "almost spider" lacks only the spinnerets that spiders use to turn silk into webs."It's not quite a spider, but it's very close to being one," said study researcher Russell Garwood, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. <<

 

[pat34lee]

To be fair, the way he's talking about it is that DNA is subject to entropy on like a greater system. At least that's what I'm taking away from it. He really just seems to write down whatever h's read in creationist literature that he things somehow disproves evolution. So a lot of it is nonsensical.

So, you don't understand, but instead of asking clarification, you mock.

 

[pat34lee]

And yet from what we see from the ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF HIS CREATION, we plainly see numerous animals evolving over time.

No, we see adaptation within kinds.

 

[USincognito]

Can't debunk a picture of a live animal and the same animal fossilized.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to debunk. The guy on that blog posted some photos of living beings and photos of fossil ancestors which is supposed to show they haven't changed at all. Of course a layman, like the blog guy, like me, and like you can't really tell the subtle differences. Dishonest Creationist often rely on the ignorance of their intended audience.

I wonder if the names have been changed, since science likes to change names frequently.

I'm willing to bet you hadn't heard of isopods until I posted what I did so your musing is more like amusing.

An index fossil-a fossil that is useful for dating and correlating the strata in which it is found. FYI-from this evolutionary scientist get their circular reasoning. There are no index fossils, you cannot date the rocks that the bones are found in, or date the bones that are found in the rocks.

Actually your Hovindesque claim is not based on reality, but most Creationists don't understand:
- What is, and is not an index fossil
- How index fossils are used
- How strata are dated
so I'm not surprised you responded as you did.

Index fossils are widespread, limited in time and a specific species. Coelacanth's are an order and been around for 400 million years and thus are not used as index fossils. Index fossils do not date strata absolutely, but instead identify the strata which is given a provisional date until it can be given an absolute date via radiometric dating.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you don't understand, but instead of asking clarification, you mock.

Mock before you communicate.
Communicate before you investigate.
Investigate so as to mock.

That's how educatees approach our doctrine.

 

[pat34lee]

yes over GENERATIONS, remember the rabbit/leopard example I gave weeks ago, your not going to see a butterfly become something different, if you look at it or it's ancestors or offspring, but over time maybe every 30-100 generations if you look at just that, you will notice differences, so that thousands or so generations ago the butterfly looked very different. Same with everything, the common ancestor with humans and chimpanzee's probably looked closer to chimpanzee's, and if you looked at every father between it and myself, it will look exactly the same if you just compare those imediatly around it, but every few hundred generations you will notice subtle changes over time that make it look more and more human untill it reaches me.

The major problem is that mutations don't work that way.
You can't count on one after another, all having the same
goal in mind. Not to mention the safeguards of DNA and
sexual reproduction. In having offspring, you have a 50%
chance of losing any 'advantageous' mutations.

Anyhow, Darwinism made sense when a cell was a simple
glob of protoplasm and DNA was unknown. When you are
dealing with cells more complex than any man-made object,
and DNA which makes computer software look simple, there
is no longer a place for random chance and mutations to
take the place of God and purposeful creation.

 

[pat34lee]

Mock before you communicate.
Communicate before you investigate.
Investigate so as to mock.

That's how educatees approach our doctrine.

Seems like it many times.

 

[USincognito]

But there is no evidence that it occurred. No evidence that something slowly changed over millions of years from one type of creature into another.

You keep repeating this like a mantra, but you never actually address any of the evidence presented. This is the problem with bible college attendees - they have no background or understanding of science and yet think they no more than the experts of actually study these fields and the laymen who actually have educated themselves on the subject.

DNA only proves that the creature with the DNA is that creature. It doesn't prove it was anything other than that.

Can you at least try and stop with the proof/prove thing? And your clearly don't understand DNA. That doesn't surprise me though given your background. DNA is inherited from ancestors and is used to establish relatedness. The same DNA analysis that Ancestry and 23 and Me does to find your genetic cousins is used to establish phylogenetic relationships between different taxa.

It's all assumption.

You also need to stop with the magic words. Saying "assumptions" over and over like it's "abracadabra" and poofs away the evidence in a cloud of smoke doesn't work. The evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

 

[pat34lee]

I use this meme on Facebook.

Why shouldn't hurricanes form? They require very specific
circumstances, and huge amounts of energy. Show me one
that outputs more energy than it takes in, and you may have
a valid point.

 

[pat34lee]

Ooops.
http://www.nature.com/news/dwarf-planet-stretches-solar-system-s-edge-1.14921

I think somebody forgot to dust their lenses. Anyhow, a
few items does not a vast oort cloud create.

 

[pat34lee]

The Flood didn't happen and one of the most glaring evidences that it didn't is the lack of a genetic bottleneck in every terrestrial vertebrate species including humans from ~4,000 years ago.

That assumes that Noah and his family had the same
flawed DNA that we have today, instead of the nearly
perfect DNA that they had. If you have ever read the
history of the next thousand years or so, you would
see how quickly the average life span dropped from
father to son, and from 600-800 years down to 120
years or less.