Lines of Evidence

[stevevw]

Gracchus

If a genome has more than one copy of a gene and one copy is changed or deleted, would you consider that “new information”? If one copy is changed, it may code for a new protein. If it is deleted this may cause a missing protein that will change the chemistry of the cell, interrupting some reactions and perhaps causing others. Would you consider that “new information”?

I am not sure. I am researching this at the moment. One of the things I am reading talks about our Genomes being a complex super computer full of info already. So complex that all the brains in the world cant work it out. There are multi levels of messages stored and different dimensions of information that scientists are still discovering. What they thought was junk DNA is turning out more and more to be useful. But all this information was already there and its actually deteriorating not getting better. We are accumulating about 100 million mutations each in our life time and passing a certain amount onto our offspring's. They in turn accumulate another 100 million on top so we are slowly deteriorating. But a single mutation is so small and insignificant that it cannot be recognized on its own and doesnt give any stand out benefit or negative effect itself. But overall mutations are not giving positive things to our genomes. Its more like entropy that we are slowly deteriorating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

[/quote]You write of “big changes”. What is the qualitative difference between one big change and lots of smaller incremental changes? In fact, the smaller incremental changes over extended periods of time is what we observe in the evolutionary process. Rhodopsin and cholorphyll change their physical conformation when they intercept a photon. This causes the chemistry of the cell to change. This can cause new reactions or even change the chemistry of neighboring cells. Such changes are the basis of both sight and photosynthesis. An organism with such chemicals can react to light. If the cells containing such reactants become localized, because some cells lose that photosensitive chemical, the organism may now have the benefits of phototropic responses that will enable sensitivity to the direction of the light. This is seen in some flatworms. If the sensitive areas of cells buckle inward or outward the ability of the organism to sense the direction of the light is improved. As the buckling grows greater the ability to form images is generated. It is small steps, small improvements, that we find in various organisms where it has stopped without making the next step, that give us understanding and justification for the evolutionary development of complex structures.[/quote]
Yeah I dont really understand how an eye can be made and I dont really think many people can honestly explain step by step how an eye can be made gradually. You can explain some aspects of it but I would think there is 100s of things that need to happen. I understand that evolution states that it is a gradual process and so therefore you start with something very simple. But if you stand back and look at it and say once there was no eye and then there was this complex eye or living cell or person you would have to say that new information had to be added to get there. New abilities and new genes had to be added to make those things. Remembering that all this is coming from is basically damage to the copying process of genes. So if you stand back you then have to say that there needed to be 1000s if not 100s of 1000s of positive mutations to gain all that. When you consider that positive mutations are rare you begin to wonder.

Originally Posted by stevevw

But when a creature say needs to get a sonar ability that has to come from something that doesnt exist.
​

When a creature that has no sonar ability needs sonar ability it dies. The ability doesn't have “to come from something”. Evolution doesn't magically discover what you need and give it to you. It is not a fairy godmother. If you need it and have it, you survive and have a chance to reproduce. If you need it and don't have it you die and don't reproduce.
Originally Posted by stevevw

So how and why did a whale or bat get sonar ability. How would they get that gradually.

I think most people agree with the basic idea of evolution. But its how far you take it.

Biologists don't take it anywhere. They merely observe how far it takes them.

No they dont, they dont observe evolution in the ways they have explained it. They can observe micro evolution in a lab like with bacteria or with fruit flies. But they have never observed any creature turn from say a bacteria to a fish or worm like they say happens. That is a hypothesis based on micro evolution which is changes that happen with existing genetics not new info that is needed to make new creatures. A bacteria hasn't got the gene information to make itself into a fish in the first place. The cambrian explosion caused many complex creatures to appear with all the basic body parts for all living creatures. There is no evidence of any gradual stages in the fossil records tracing back to bacteria.

Originally Posted by stevevw

No wonder people give up debating with people like you. You shouldn't assume everyone is the same as you. People are different and have different understanding and knowledge levels. You may have a certain level of knowledge but you cant assume everyone should know the same as you. And if they dont you shouldn't then put them down for it like they should know what you know.
​

I do not assume that you are the same as I. If you have less knowledge than your teacher, (And believe it or not, I am trying to teach you something!) you should consider what your teacher is trying to tell you before you dismiss it as unpleasant or just because it conflicts with your own opinion.

I dont mind someone explaining things to me. But I also dont always assume they are correct. I have been around long enough to know that even qualified people can be wrong. I try and get a varied view of things and look at both sides of the story. But when someone starts to get personal that I see no need for this. It goes beyond just a debate.

I have been studying biology on and off for nearly sixty years, since when I first read an article by the biochemist and writer, Isaac Asimov, titled “The Sea Urchin and We”. (I was ten, or thereabouts.) In this article he presented biochemical evidence that chordates (ancestral to vertebrates) are more recently related to echinoderms, (star-fish and sea urchins,) than to annelids (segmented worms). I have taken a few courses in biology since then, several at the college level, and read a great many books and articles. So maybe, just maybe, others know a bit more about the subject than you do, and maybe you ought not disregard what more learned people have to say.

Of course and I have said I am not very knowledgeable about these things. I have a good basic knowledge and am learning all the time. But I can research others and get other expert opinion as well. So even though I may not have that degree level of understanding I can turn to those who do. The thing is I believe despite all the knowledge involved evolution can still have a degree of opinion and belief on both sides of the debate. I know that some evolutionists that dont have my level of knowledge but believe in evolution and dont really know why. But they just believe that and thats because its their belief and they dont believe in God. So there is a certain amount of an underlying influence happening. Even the experts can have a bias and consensus about things because thats what they want and anything different will upset the apple cart.

Now you go on to say, that everyone has a right to an opinion. I'll go further: Everyone even has a right to voice an opinion, at least in some situations and environments. But if someone disagrees with your opinion they also have a right to challenge it. If it is patently ridiculous they have the right to ridicule. That reaction might be rude, but it also might be justified. If your error is based on ignorance they may try to inform you. If you cannot accept the new information, if you reject it, for no reason you can defend, then they may dismiss you as stupid, insane, or perverse. Of course all those qualities are relative. And there is nothing wrong with being stupid. We all have intellectual limits. I'm still trying to get my head around general relativity. I know that you are not, by far, the most stupid person I have ever dealt with. You should be able to understand the subject. If you would only listen and consider!

Fair enough but I just think its unnecessary. Especially like I said that I have read other so called experts say something different. Then you begin to wonder who is right here. If two experts can say different things about the same topic which happens a lot in this area then why say someone is stupid and someone isn't. They maybe both right to a degree. Or one maybe wrong not through stupidity but through a misunderstanding of information. I think calling someone names is a bit extreme and not needed.

To debate those who have studied and understood a subject that you have not studied so deeply or understood so well, to dismiss argument or evidence because it does not fit into your world view is likely to give the impression of perversity. Most people find perceived perversity annoying. Perhaps you might not even recognize your own perversity. Maybe it has never been called to your attention. We often overlook our own faults, so busy we are focusing on the faults of others.

Fair enough but most of what I say doesn't just come from me in this subject. It is what I have researched and comes from other experts as well. If I misunderstand it then thats my bad and I will have to get a better understanding. But I believe its not to far off the right track as I have studied it. If you look at the evolution debate like on this site there are good qualified experts who will disagree with what you say. Are they stupid for having a different view. Sometimes it comes down to a point of view and the interpretation of the evidence. But a case can be made for both sides sometimes. Sometimes there are assumptions and things are not based on facts as much as people think. An evolutionists can have a faith in their views as well you know.

Sometimes, when you want to learn, you have to unlearn previous erroneous education. Sometimes the truth is very unpleasant, but it is still more useful to know the truth than to believe untruth, or be totally ignorant.

Well I use to be an evolutionists. So I guess I'm unlearning some of the things I thought were correct back then. I think there is a middle ground where both sides can be stated. But its not good to be extreme either way and to be open to learn which I agree with.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

stevevw: 'Well I use to be an evolutionists. So I guess I'm unlearning some of the things I thought were correct back then. I think there is a middle ground where both sides can be stated. But its not good to be extreme either way and to be open to learn which I agree with.'

Of course there is. *

The tragedy is when one finds hotheads on either side of this so-called scientific divide that are unwilling to put their 'religious' beliefs to one side and simply talk about the science.

That has been my primary goal with this thread, and all discussions that I've had about the subject.

Earnestly,
Sgt. Pepper

---
* Faraday Institute of Science and Religion : http://faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/

 

[[serious]]

Just to pick a nit, it would seem to be the other way around.

"Scientists believe that the swim bladder of modern fish evolved from a lung that early bony fish possessed. Probably these fish lived in shallow tropical waters that had a low oxygen content, and which even have dried up in the summer, or dryer season. The possession of a lung allowed the fish to gain essential O2 from the air. When the environment these fish lived in changed so that they no longer needed the lung to breath nature slowly adapted it for its new role as a buoyancy organ."


The Earth Life Web, Fish Swim Bladder Page

Hmm.. must be remembering wrong. Thanks for the correction.

I'll revise my point about it's origins. The lungs develop as an outgrowth of the digestive tract, so it's still built on existing structures. The original purpose of that pocket is not well preserved in the fossil record, so we could only speculate about possible purposes such a pocket may have. Other such pockets have various purposes such as secretion, digestion, etc. Any of those purposes provide a possible step wise way of making the structure prior to it's use as a method of absorbing oxygen.

 

[[serious]]

Ok so I can understand the duplication, deletion and maybe the alteration. The alteration possibly being a recombination of existing genes. But I can't see how any of that can produce something that requires new info. Like you say its an extension of existing features and abilities or maybe an addition but that is something like with the nylon eating bacteria. But I understand this was not an addition of any new info but a change in the shape of an existing enzyme that allowed it to eat bacteria. The genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation to allow them to eat nylon. But none of this shows any ability to create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms out of existing genetics.

The central problem with this argument is that you don't define "information". Those mutations you accept can add to the size of a genome, and create novel function. What else is needed?

Looking back at my example:

1. An organism duplicates a hemoglobin gene
2. The new copy gets altered so that it has a different binding affinity
3. The altered gene gets deleted.

Let's say that altered hemoglobin binds to carbon monoxide less efficiently than oxygen, allowing better survivability in high levels of carbon monoxide. Is that new information? Would the loss of said function be loss of information? We are still in a position in which information is either creatable or irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

The central problem with this argument is that you don't define "information". Those mutations you accept can add to the size of a genome, and create novel function. What else is needed?

Looking back at my example:

1. An organism duplicates a hemoglobin gene
2. The new copy gets altered so that it has a different binding affinity
3. The altered gene gets deleted.

Let's say that altered hemoglobin binds to carbon monoxide less efficiently than oxygen, allowing better survivability in high levels of carbon monoxide. Is that new information? Would the loss of said function be loss of information? We are still in a position in which information is either creatable or irrelevant.

I think the definition of information is hard to define from many peoples definition. There seems to be different interpretations about what is info and what is beneficial. I think mutations can add some benefits but it is very rare and at a cost. I am still trying to understand all this. Like I said I am not a geneticists so I have to research and rely on expert opinion. Of course then you have evolutionists on one side saying one thing and creationists on the other saying something else. Both can have expert opinion and so its hard to garner what the truth is especially when you are not in the know yourself. I would expect there is some middle ground that will have the answers. But I also think this is an ongoing and expanding area of research that is being added to all the time.

I know when some have mentioned the anti biotic resistant bacteria that this was a gain in ability and info but its seems more of a switching off of an existing genetic ability and therefor may have come at a cost. So though it has added some ability it also has taken away overall. In the overall scheme of evolution I find it hard to believe that a primarily damaging things as mutations can build such vast and complex life that seems to go beyond the rare benefits that random mutations appear to be able to achieve.

From what I am beginning to understand our genetics are more like a top down evolution rather than a bottom up. We had perfect genetics in the beginning but sinse then we are deteriorating and accumulating mutations. So some of those mutations may appear to give some benefits but in the overall picture they are damaging and we are becoming weaker not evolving up as stronger to survive. An individual mutation is a very insignificant thing that really cannot be recognized as something that can stand out and have a great affect on its own whether beneficial of damaging. But accumulated together they can have an effect. because they are mostly a error to what should be they are mostly damaging.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not sure. I am researching this at the moment. One of the things I am reading talks about our Genomes being a complex super computer full of info already. So complex that all the brains in the world cant work it out. There are multi levels of messages stored and different dimensions of information that scientists are still discovering.

Doesn't change the fact that when we compare DNA sequences they fall into the predicted nested hierarchy, which is evidence for evolution.

What they thought was junk DNA is turning out more and more to be useful.

Reference? All of the papers I have read show that evidence of negative selection can only be found in 10% of the human genome, making 90% of the human genome devoid of any function that impacts fitness. This also means that the vast majority of mutations have no impact on fitness (i.e. neutral).

But all this information was already there and its actually deteriorating not getting better.

Are we deterioriated chimps because of the 40 million mutations that separate us?

We are accumulating about 100 million mutations each in our life time and passing a certain amount onto our offspring's.

We are born with <100 mutations, and accumulate a few thousand mutations in our somatic cells which are not passed on to the next generation.

You should really do some fact checking.

Also, Sanford's "Genetic Entropy" work would have rabbits going extinct in a few hundred years. The fact that observations in nature contradict Sanford's work is a very good reason to toss his "Genetic Entropy" claims.

No they dont, they dont observe evolution in the ways they have explained it. They can observe micro evolution in a lab like with bacteria or with fruit flies. But they have never observed any creature turn from say a bacteria to a fish or worm like they say happens.

No one says that a bacteria turns into a fish or worm. Want to try again?

Also, producing new phenotypes in new species of bacteri and fruit fly do require new information, and this is done through the selection of new mutations.

That is a hypothesis based on micro evolution which is changes that happen with existing genetics not new info that is needed to make new creatures.

That is false. Microevolution is what happens within a population, and it does include the production of new information in the form of mutations that produce new phenotypes. Macroevolution occurs when that population is split into subpopulations, and microevolution causes different mutations to accumulate in each subpopulation. Macroevolution is speciation + microevolution.

The cambrian explosion caused many complex creatures to appear with all the basic body parts for all living creatures.

Depends on what you call basic. There are no jawed fish, mammals, birds, trees, ferns, reptiles, amphibians, grasses, flowers, or octopus in the Cambrian. How do you explain this?

There is no evidence of any gradual stages in the fossil records tracing back to bacteria.

There are gradual stages in the fossil record that trace back to our common ancestor shared with chimps, and you refuse to accept those fossils. Why should we trust your claims about other fossils?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the definition of information is hard to define from many people understanding. There seems to be different interpretations about what is info and what is beneficial. I think mutations can add some benefits but maybe at a cost.

Of the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, are you saying that none of them are beneficial to either chimps or humans? What cost comes with these mutations?

Like I said I am not a genetisists so I have to research and rely on expert oponion. Of course then you have evolutionists on one side saying one thing and creationists on the other saying something else.

99.9% of those experts are evolutionists, and less than 0.1% are creationists. Of the 0.1% who are creationists, they are not doing research using creationism and only seem to preach to the choir.

Both can have expert oponion and so its hard to garner what the truth is especially when you are not in the know yourself.

It isn't hard. Read the peer reviewed primary literature. You will notice that none of it describes creationism. All of the peer reviewed lit written by real scientists in real journals supports evolution.

I know when some have mentioned the anti biotic resistant bacteria that this was a gain in ability but more of an switching off of an existing genetic ability and therefor may have come at a cost.

There are many examples of mutations giving rise to antibiotic resistance. We can go over the Lederberg plate replica experiment if you like, but I have a feeling that real science will not change your mind.

In the scheme of evolution I find it hard to believe . . .

That would be an argument from incredulity.

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't change the fact that when we compare DNA sequences they fall into the predicted nested hierarchy, which is evidence for evolution.

But isn't that circular reasoning. You are already assuming that evolution is true so.

Reference? All of the papers I have read show that evidence of negative selection can only be found in 10% of the human genome, making 90% of the human genome devoid of any function that impacts fitness. This also means that the vast majority of mutations have no impact on fitness (i.e. neutral).

Fair enough I will have to do some more research.

Are we deterioriated chimps because of the 40 million mutations that separate us?

I dont know. But from what I have read the human race is deteriorating (genetic entropy). Every cell is mutating 100 million mutations in each person in a life time.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation
Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally | Uncommon Descent

We are born with <100 mutations, and accumulate a few thousand mutations in our somatic cells which are not passed on to the next generation.
You should really do some fact checking.

Well I'd check out this short video from an expert in the field. That is what I am saying that there seems to be some vastly opposing ideas out there and all seem to say they are experts and know what they are talking about.
From what Dr Stanford has said is that we add 3 new mutations per cell division per day. So how many cells do we have in our bodies and do the sums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

Also, Sanford's "Genetic Entropy" work would have rabbits going extinct in a few hundred years. The fact that observations in nature contradict Sanford's work is a very good reason to toss his "Genetic Entropy" claims.

Well its not just him as I have linked other experts agree such as Michael Lynch of the elite National Academy.

Depends on what you call basic. There are no jawed fish, mammals, birds, trees, ferns, reptiles, amphibians, grasses, flowers, or octopus in the Cambrian. How do you explain this?

Because they are what is at the bottom of the sea and they would be expected to be found deeper down in the geological column. But the fact is for the theory of evolution which relies on the gradual formation of life from a single celled organize there is nothing showing this gradual evolution. There is a sudden appearance of complex life for many of the basic forms of life we see today.

There are gradual stages in the fossil record that trace back to our common ancestor shared with chimps, and you refuse to accept those fossils. Why should we trust your claims about other fossils?

I just disagree with the interpretation. I dont think there is any solid evidence. What some show as evidence such as a hip bone or a similar feature shared with two different animals isnt enough evidence to prove that one came from the other. This is based on observational interpretation which is subject to personal views which can be wrong. DNA evidence is undoing many of those links and even linking distant creatures together on Darwin's tree of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

But isn't that circular reasoning. You are already assuming that evolution is true so.

You don't have to assume that evolution is true in order to conclude that life falls into a nested hierarchy. You can also directly observe in living populations that evolution produces a nested hierarchy completely independently of a comparison between species.

I dont know. But from what I have read the human race is deteriorating (genetic entropy).

The paper didn't show that. Sanford's paper was never peer reviewed in a biological journal. Sanford didn't back it with anything.

Every cell is mutating 100 million mutations in each person in a life time.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation
Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally | Uncommon Descent

Uncommon descent is not a peer reviewed journal.

As for the PNAS paper:

"For the genes involved in this study, the average rates of base substitutional mutation are 11.63 (1.80) and 11.22 (3.23) × 10^-9 per
site per generation for autosomal and X-linked loci (SDs in parentheses), respectively (Dataset S1)."
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

That is about 10 mutations per billion bases, or 30 mutations per 3 billion bases, which is the size of the human genome. Perhaps you should reread the paper?

Well I'd check out this short video from an expert in the field.

Sanford is not an expert in population genetics.

That is what I am saying that there seems to be some vastly opposing ideas out there and all seem to say they are experts and know what they are talking about.

That's the way lying creationist sites try to make it look. It isn't the truth. In the real scientific arena, there are no creationists. They don't publish. They don't present at scientific conferences.

From what Dr Stanford has said is that we add 3 new mutations per cell division per day. So how many cells do we have in our bodies and do the sums.

Do you understand the difference between germ line mutations and somatic mutations?

Because they are what is at the bottom of the sea and they would be expected to be found deeper down in the geological column.

The Cambrian is a time period, not an environment. We have terrestrial deposits from the Cambrian, and they are devoid of life, except for a few bacterial mats.

But the fact is for the theory of evolution which relies on the gradual formation of life from a single celled organize there is nothing showing this gradual evolution.

You won't even accept gradual evolution when it is shown in the fossil record.

There is a sudden appearance of complex life for many of the basic forms of life we see today.

How do you determine if a fossil species suddenly appeared?

I just disagree with the interpretation. I dont think there is any solid evidence.

99.9% of the experts disagree with you. So much for relying on the experts.

 

[[serious]]

I think the definition of information is hard to define from many peoples definition. There seems to be different interpretations about what is info and what is beneficial.

It isn't so much that it's hard to define, as that the term has different uses. While the argument can be countered for every individual use of the term, I find it more helpful to use the previous example as a method of demonstrating that ALL uses of the term information are either creatable via evolution, or irrelevant to the discussion.

I think mutations can add some benefits but it is very rare and at a cost. I am still trying to understand all this. Like I said I am not a geneticists so I have to research and rely on expert opinion.

Some come at a cost, some don't. In my previous example, having an additional copy of hemoglobin, for a organism of our size, has no measurable cost. The numbers of hemoglobin are variable anyway. Heck, my example is probably pretty much how we got hemoglobin F (a type of hemoglobin that grabs oxygen a little tighter that is produced prenatally)

Of course then you have evolutionists on one side saying one thing and creationists on the other saying something else. Both can have expert opinion and so its hard to garner what the truth is especially when you are not in the know yourself. I would expect there is some middle ground that will have the answers.

Assuming the truth is somewhere in the middle is actually a logical fallacy:
Argument to moderation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I also think this is an ongoing and expanding area of research that is being added to all the time.

I know when some have mentioned the anti biotic resistant bacteria that this was a gain in ability and info but its seems more of a switching off of an existing genetic ability and therefor may have come at a cost.

some yes, some no. It's not a resistance example, but look at the e. coli long term evolution project in which e coli evolved to metabolize citrate aerobically, a trait that both wild type and the lab stock lack. Now, of course, the new function arose from variations of existing genes, but as I'm discussed before, that is expected as that is the mechanism by which evolution works.

From what I am beginning to understand our genetics are more like a top down evolution rather than a bottom up. We had perfect genetics in the beginning but sinse then we are deteriorating and accumulating mutations. So some of those mutations may appear to give some benefits but in the overall picture they are damaging and we are becoming weaker not evolving up as stronger to survive. An individual mutation is a very insignificant thing that really cannot be recognized as something that can stand out and have a great affect on its own whether beneficial of damaging. But accumulated together they can have an effect. because they are mostly a error to what should be they are mostly damaging.

First off, there is no perfect genome. What is well adapted to one environment can be poorly adapted to another. As far as mutations generally weakening organisms, I don't know of any evidence to support that. Is modern MRSA somehow generally weaker than the run-of-the-mill staph that preceded it? I would argue no.

Now, what may cause that confusion is the breeding of lab strains, which are some times intentionally weakened for safety. Lab strains of staph Aureus, if I recall correctly, are less virulent than either MRSA or wild staph.

 

[stevevw]

Loudmouth

You don't have to assume that evolution is true in order to conclude that life falls into a nested hierarchy. You can also directly observe in living populations that evolution produces a nested hierarchy completely independently of a comparison between species.

Yes you do because evolution uses something that does happens with natural selection but then expands that into it being able to create all living things from one common ancestor. But natural selection has limits. It can add variation and changes to animals within their own groups but it has limits which it cant go beyond. Once again the tree of life which maps out the links that animals have between each other has many inconsistencies. This can't be accounted for with the ToE. If there are any breakdowns in the links then it breaks the lines of decent. Genetic evidence is showing more and more incongruence of phylogenetic trees.

The paper didn't show that. Sanford's paper was never peer reviewed in a biological journal. Sanford didn't back it with anything.

As I said Michael Lynches peer reviewed work did.
Dr Sanford is a plant geneticist who co invested the gene gun. It seems he has enough knowledge to comment on this topic. Why do people try to bring down the credentials of experts just because they say something different that may contradict what evolutionists say.
Uncommon descent is not a peer reviewed journal.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation
As for the PNAS paper:

"For the genes involved in this study, the average rates of base substitutional mutation are 11.63 (1.80) and 11.22 (3.23) × 10^-9 per
site per generation for autosomal and X-linked loci (SDs in parentheses), respectively (Dataset S1)."
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

That is about 10 mutations per billion bases, or 30 mutations per 3 billion bases, which is the size of the human genome. Perhaps you should reread the paper?

Sanford is not an expert in population genetics.
The point is that our genomes are deteriorating and mutations are not adding positive benefits and making us or other species able to survive as the ToE states. If you look at the human race we are getting more and more viruses and other diseases all the time. More as time goes on. We have discovered ways to combat some of these diseases with vaccinations and other medicines but that doesn't change the fact that we are deteriorating in our genetics.

Do you understand the difference between germ line mutations and somatic mutations?

Thats what I am reading now. As I said I am not a geneticist and have to do research to find out. I rely on what others say as well and learn as I go along. You may say that a religious scientists opinion is invalid because of their belief so you then discount them on that basis which is wrong. But then how do I know you are correct when you are not as qualified as them. So its all trial and error but as I said there are different opinions and interpretations and things are changing pretty fast with genetics. I am finding that there are more and more challenges to the long held beliefs with darwinian evolution as more data comes out.

The Cambrian is a time period, not an environment. We have terrestrial deposits from the Cambrian, and they are devoid of life, except for a few bacterial mats.

You won't even accept gradual evolution when it is shown in the fossil record.

Thats where you are wrong. I accept there is change in creatures where they need to adapt. There are new types of insects and plants that are discovered and to a less extent animals. But I dont automatically accept that this is because of the ToE as Darwin states and many believe. Evolutionists can also have a faith in the theory and just believe its so because that has been the long held position. But like I said evidence is coming out more and more to challenge that. What evolution does is take something that does happen which is a limited change and adaptation with animals and organisms and expand that to give it a creating power of making something new out of whats not really there in the first place. If you stand back and look at a bacteria and then look at what we have today you would have to say thats a miracle that everything could have come from that. Of all the time and expert engineering with bacteria in a lab they havnt been able to show anything more than some changes of existing genetics. The bacteria can get some new ability but its still bacteria after all this time. You would think there would be some sort of new forms besides bacteria happening. So it has its limits and that seems to be what the evidence is showing.

How do you determine if a fossil species suddenly appeared?

By it appearing in the records with no previous line from where it came from. By it suddenly disappearing and having no trace of where it went and then appearing again without any trace of where it came from.

99.9% of the experts disagree with you. So much for relying on the experts.

Thats a bit of a misconception and simplification. If you look at the experts that agree on evolution you will find many disagree on many aspects of it. If you look at the experts that may believe that man came from apes you will find disagreement of the individual evidence all the time. So there is no uniform agreement just a statement of such. The actual evidence is inconsistent and very patchy and often disagreed. There is more and more evidence coming out on many fronts now that is disagreeing with the traditional view of evolution. Look at all the recent evidnece about darwins tree being wrong and what has stemmed from that. There have been many papers and write ups on incongruent trees and individual animals that dont conform to the standard way that evolution is presented. What was thought as junk DNA is now being found to have use. That in itself is creating some big questions. Its giving more complexity and use to the genome so therefore it has inplications of the relationship between animals.

 

[stevevw]

Ok heres some more I found on mutation rates.
Assuming 15 trillion cells, if each cell carried 3 independent mutations it would add up to a total of 45 trillion somatic mutations.
However, not all somatic mutations are independent. Mutations which happen early in development are propagated to many progeny cells while mutations which occur late in development are shared by very few cells. If there are only three mutations total per cell in the 45 cell divisions in the development of a human, the mutation rate is approximately one new mutation every 15 cell divisions. It takes 30 trillion cell divisions to give rise to 15 trillion cells, so a total of (30/15) = 2 trillion independent mutation events would account for the three mutations seen per cell. Given that there are only ~13 million minutes in 25 years, the average number of mutations per minute over a 25 year old's life is ~350,000, which seems like a lot until you average it out across trillions of cells.
Re: On average,how many mutations take place every minute?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes you do because evolution uses something that does happens with natural selection but then expands that into it being able to create all living things from one common ancestor. But natural selection has limits. It can add variation and changes to animals within their own groups but it has limits which it cant go beyond. Once again the tree of life which maps out the links that animals have between each other has many inconsistencies. This can't be accounted for with the ToE. If there are any breakdowns in the links then it breaks the lines of decent. Genetic evidence is showing more and more incongruence of phylogenetic trees.

I see a lot of claims, but zero evidence to back any of them.

The fact of the matter is that you can determine if life falls into a nested hierarchy without any assumption of common ancestry or evolution. You claim that evolution can't account for something, but can't name what it is. You claim there are inconsistencies, but can't show how they are a problem for evolution. You claim there are limits, but can't demonstrate a single limitation.

What we can demonstrate is that the observed pattern of shared similarities in both morphology and DNA matches what we would expect to see from evolution. That is why it is evidence for evolution.

As I said Michael Lynches peer reviewed work did.

And those papers are . . . ?

Dr Sanford is a plant geneticist who co invested the gene gun. It seems he has enough knowledge to comment on this topic.

Knowing how to shoot DNA into plant cells does not make you an expert in population genetics. I shoot DNA into bacterial cells, and I wouldn't count myself as an expert in population genetics.

Why do people try to bring down the credentials of experts just because they say something different that may contradict what evolutionists say.

Why do you have to boost the credentials of creationists in order to pretend that they have a point? At the end of the day, Sanford's claims were not peer reviewed, and they are not supported by any experimental data. In fact, if you plug data from rabbit populations into his calculations, you will find that rabbits should have gone extince in a few hundred years. His claims don't match reality.

The point is that our genomes are deteriorating and mutations are not adding positive benefits and making us or other species able to survive as the ToE states.

The point is that this is an empty assertion backed by zero evidence.

If you look at the human race we are getting more and more viruses and other diseases all the time.

Yet another empty assertion.

Where is your survey of disease over the last 100,000 years in humans? Where is your evidence for this claim?

Thats what I am reading now. As I said I am not a geneticist and have to do research to find out.

Then why do you go to creationist sites like Uncommon Descent? Why do you make claims that are found nowhere in the peer reviewed literature?

I rely on what others say as well and learn as I go along.

You ignore 99.9% of biologists.

You may say that a religious scientists opinion is invalid because of their belief so you then discount them on that basis which is wrong. But then how do I know you are correct when you are not as qualified as them. So its all trial and error but as I said there are different opinions and interpretations and things are changing pretty fast with genetics. I am finding that there are more and more challenges to the long held beliefs with darwinian evolution as more data comes out.

Being religious has nothing to do with it. There are tons of christian scientists that accept evolution. The fact of the matter is that you ignore 99.9% of biologists, and then claim that you are following the experts.

Thats where you are wrong. I accept there is change in creatures where they need to adapt. There are new types of insects and plants that are discovered and to a less extent animals. But I dont automatically accept that this is because of the ToE as Darwin states and many believe.

Then you disagree with 99.9% of biologists and experts. Why?

Evolutionists can also have a faith in the theory and just believe its so because that has been the long held position. But like I said evidence is coming out more and more to challenge that.

It would be refreshing if you actually did look at the evidence instead of parroting empty assertions made on lying creationist sites like Uncommon Descent.

Of all the time and expert engineering with bacteria in a lab they havnt been able to show anything more than some changes of existing genetics. The bacteria can get some new ability but its still bacteria after all this time. You would think there would be some sort of new forms besides bacteria happening. So it has its limits and that seems to be what the evidence is showing.

Why would you expect billions of years of evolution to play out in a few decades in a lab? This is yet another example of your extreme efforts to ignore the science.

Thats a bit of a misconception and simplification. If you look at the experts that agree on evolution you will find many disagree on many aspects of it.

99/9% of biologists agree that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see around us.

The actual evidence is inconsistent and very patchy and often disagreed. There is more and more evidence coming out on many fronts now that is disagreeing with the traditional view of evolution. Look at all the recent evidnece about darwins tree being wrong and what has stemmed from that. There have been many papers and write ups on incongruent trees and individual animals that dont conform to the standard way that evolution is presented. What was thought as junk DNA is now being found to have use. That in itself is creating some big questions. Its giving more complexity and use to the genome so therefore it has inplications of the relationship between animals.

Where is Darwin's tree wrong for complex life? Where is anything to back your continued assertions?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok heres some more I found on mutation rates.
Assuming 15 trillion cells, if each cell carried 3 independent mutations it would add up to a total of 45 trillion somatic mutations.

None of which are passed on to the next generation. Only mutations in the germ line cells are passed on to the next generation. A mutation that occurs in a skin cell will not be passed on to your children. A mutation that occurs in a sperm cell will be passed on. Also, a woman produces all of the eggs she will ever produce while still in the womb.

As for somatic mutates, the mutation rate is given per cell, or per cell lineage.

 

[stevevw]

I see a lot of claims, but zero evidence to back any of them.

The fact of the matter is that you can determine if life falls into a nested hierarchy without any assumption of common ancestry or evolution. You claim that evolution can't account for something, but can't name what it is. You claim there are inconsistencies, but can't show how they are a problem for evolution. You claim there are limits, but can't demonstrate a single limitation.

What we can demonstrate is that the observed pattern of shared similarities in both morphology and DNA matches what we would expect to see from evolution. That is why it is evidence for evolution.

That could all be attributed to common design as well. So its a matter of interpretation of the evidence and therefore its not concrete. Science has not been able to prove evolution with tests in a lab or observe it. What they claim for evolution with the observation is not solid evidence and can be argued against just as easy. There are very little if any real transitional fossils where there should be millions as transitions should happen even more than fully formed creatures. What we do see as Darwin himself said was not species all blending into each other but well defined creatures who seem to be separate. As I have said before and linked with evidence the tree of life that Darwin and evolutionists use is being dismantled through the genetic evidence that evolution say proves their case. Even so any links could also be argued for a common design.

The thing is the info in our genomes is complex. It is more complex that the greatest super computer program. What many wanted to call junk DNA is turning out to be useful and making our genetics even more complex and amazing. The total info if put side by side could wrap around the world 3 1/2 million times. Now no amount of claims can account for that amount of complexity and organized information coming from a random accident.

And those papers are . . . ?

I have already linked these twice now.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

Knowing how to shoot DNA into plant cells does not make you an expert in population genetics. I shoot DNA into bacterial cells, and I wouldn't count myself as an expert in population genetics.

So wait a minute, your saying that you know better as a lay person that these people who are university trained experts in genetics that they dont know what they are talking about. So I am to take your word for it above theirs. This is what I mean by evidence and interpretation. You are claiming to be right yet you dont even have a peer reviewed paper nor have cited one. I am at least citing some and your saying without any qualification that they are wrong. How am i suppose to believe that.

Why do you have to boost the credentials of creationists in order to pretend that they have a point? At the end of the day, Sanford's claims were not peer reviewed, and they are not supported by any experimental data. In fact, if you plug data from rabbit populations into his calculations, you will find that rabbits should have gone extince in a few hundred years. His claims don't match reality.

But then your asking me to believe your word and you havnt got any peer reviewed papers or even the credentials that Dr Sanford has who is a well respected scientists. Or do you want to degrade the man because hes a christian. See your asking me to discount a expert in genetics because hes associated with religion and then believe a person who is just telling me I'm wrong without any evidence or qualifications in a debate forum. If thats not biased I dont know what is.

I have found several pieces of info now on what Sanford is saying and one of them is from Micheal Lynch who is a well respected biologists. He has published twice as many papers as Dawkins and he is not religious. His work is also supported by Professor Larry Moran who is also a well respected non religious scientist in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
Sandwalk: Mutations and Complex Adaptations
Sandwalk: Mutation Rates

Then why do you go to creationist sites like Uncommon Descent? Why do you make claims that are found nowhere in the peer reviewed literature?

Thats what I have noticed with some people that they get fixated on any religious sites that people quote. In case you didn't realize I also linked non religious sites. Michael Lynch who more or less said the same thing is not religious. Other sites I have linked for showing info like pnas, new scientists, nature, ncbi are all non religious.

Why would you expect billions of years of evolution to play out in a few decades in a lab? This is yet another example of your extreme efforts to ignore the science.

Thats why they were doing the tests to show evolution in the lab. If they thought it wasn't going to work then why do it. The fruit flies and bacteria are faster at evolving.

99/9% of biologists agree that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see around us.

No one is disagreeing that evolution can produce some variety and change in creatures. Its the extent to which darwinian evolution claims it to go where it creates new creatures out of existing ones. That all living creatures came from a bacteria that was a simple form of life and evolved into more complex life. As I said that complexity is being discovered all the time. To think that it all came by chance and what is basically a very rare mistake which primarily is either corrected or weeded out seems unbelievable.

Where is Darwin's tree wrong for complex life? Where is anything to back your continued assertions?

Well first of all all life started as simple life where genetics could be transferred to and fro horizontally. So it already allowed vast amounts of info to be in organisms from the start if evolution is true. There is a lot of evidence for complex life both having more cross breeding early in the history of animals and through other forms of HGT like viruses.
Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies ... - PubMed - NCBI
But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization.

Read more at: Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile.
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | The Guardian
The discovery that large blocks of genetic instructions can be swapped and transferred among creatures is a clue that the insertion of new genes could be the mechanism behind evolutionary advances. If viruses can transfer eukaryotic genes across species boundaries, and can install their own genes into their hosts, the case for the new mechanism is even stronger. As we will see, viruses do just that.
Viruses and Other Gene Transfer Mechanisms. by Brig Klyce
“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

Ive put a few because some are show a different aspect of how HGT can happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

That could all be attributed to common design as well.

Why would a common designer be limited to a nested hierarchy? Why couldn't the common designer of birds and mammals combine features from those two groups to produce a mammal-bird intermediate species? Why do we ONLY see dino to bird and reptile to mammal intermediates, the transitionals that evolution predicts we should see?

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings done by the same artist do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Common design can not explain why we only see the pattern expected from evolution.

Science has not been able to prove evolution with tests in a lab or observe it.

You don't observe the hypothesis. Why is it that creationists can't seem to understand the difference between observations and hypotheses?

What they claim for evolution with the observation is not solid evidence and can be argued against just as easy. There are very little if any real transitional fossils where there should be millions as transitions should happen even more than fully formed creatures.

Please show why we should have millions of transitional fossils after searching such a tiny fraction of the fossil record.

This is yet another baseless assertion that you make, and never even try to back it up. The fact of the matter is that EVERY fossil we have fits the predictions made by the theory of evolution. They all fall into the predicted nested hierarchy.

As I have said before and linked with evidence the tree of life that Darwin and evolutionists use is being dismantled through the genetic evidence that evolution say proves their case. Even so any links could also be argued for a common design.

You have made yet another baseless assertion. Show me a real scientific source that says that complex life does not come close to fitting into a nested hierarchy.

The thing is the info in our genomes is complex. It is more complex that the greatest super computer program.

Yet another baseless assertion. First, you have not shown that our genome is more complex than a super computer. Second, you have not demonstrated that a complex genome is a problem for evolution.

What many wanted to call junk DNA is turning out to be useful . . .

Yet another baseless assertion. I am aware of no such reference. Please cite this reference in which they find previous junk DNA that turns out to be useful. The only references that I am aware of come from the ENCODE group who claimed that 80% of the human genome is functional. The problem for you is that their definition of "functional" includes useless DNA.

The total info if put side by side could wrap around the world 3 1/2 million times. Now no amount of claims can account for that amount of complexity and organized information coming from a random accident.

Evolution operates through natural selection which is not random accidents.

So wait a minute, your saying that you know better as a lay person that these people who are university trained experts in genetics that they dont know what they are talking about.

I am telling you as someone who is a published scientist in the field of genetics and microbiology that someone who publishes on gene guns is not a qualified expert in population genetics. Inventing technology capable of getting DNA past plant cell walls does not make you an expert in population genetics.

This is what I mean by evidence and interpretation. You are claiming to be right yet you dont even have a peer reviewed paper nor have cited one.

Where is Sanford's peer reviewed paper from a biological journal for genetic entropy?

I am at least citing some and your saying without any qualification that they are wrong. How am i suppose to believe that.

99.9% of the qualified experts say that evolution is correct. You are the one ignoring the experts.

But then your asking me to believe your word and you havnt got any peer reviewed papers or even the credentials that Dr Sanford has who is a well respected scientists.

Show me a single peer reviewed paper from Sanford on the topic of population genetics.

Or do you want to degrade the man because hes a christian. See your asking me to discount a expert in genetics because hes associated with religion and then believe a person who is just telling me I'm wrong without any evidence or qualifications in a debate forum. If thats not biased I dont know what is.

An expert in gene gun technology does not make you an expert in population genetics.

I have found several pieces of info now on what Sanford is saying and one of them is from Micheal Lynch who is a well respected biologists. He has published twice as many papers as Dawkins and he is not religious. His work is also supported by Professor Larry Moran who is also a well respected non religious scientist in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
Sandwalk: Mutations and Complex Adaptations
Sandwalk: Mutation Rates

Peer reviewed papers, please.

Thats what I have noticed with some people that they get fixated on any religious sites that people quote. In case you didn't realize I also linked non religious sites. Michael Lynch who more or less said the same thing is not religious. Other sites I have linked for showing info like pnas, new scientists, nature, ncbi are all non religious.

It has nothing to do with religious vs. non-religious. It has to do with not peer reviewed and peer reviewed. Please cite the peer reviewed papers, not the tripe from lying creationist cites where the authors have done none of the science that is being described.

Thats why they were doing the tests to show evolution in the lab. If they thought it wasn't going to work then why do it. The fruit flies and bacteria are faster at evolving.

You can't produce billions of years of evolution in just a few years. Why is this so hard to understand?

Also, you reject the idea of mammals evolving into mammals when it involves bears, humans, and their common ancestors. So much for consistency on your part.

No one is disagreeing that evolution can produce some variety and change in creatures. Its the extent to which darwinian evolution claims it to go where it creates new creatures out of existing ones. That all living creatures came from a bacteria that was a simple form of life and evolved into more complex life. As I said that complexity is being discovered all the time. To think that it all came by chance and what is basically a very rare mistake which primarily is either corrected or weeded out seems unbelievable.

That is an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy.

You need to show why evolution can not produce complexity.

Well first of all all life started as simple life where genetics could be transferred to and fro horizontally. So it already allowed vast amounts of info to be in organisms from the start if evolution is true. There is a lot of evidence for complex life both having more cross breeding early in the history of animals and through other forms of HGT like viruses.
Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies ... - PubMed - NCBI
But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization.

HGT is swamped by VGT in complex organisms. The paper you link to is quite clear that deep branches in the tree of life are hard to figure out because of lack of data, not because the data we have contradicts such a tree.

Read more at: Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

For simple life, there is a lot of HGT. For complex life, VGT is the dominant mechanism, and we see the expected nested hierarchy.

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile.

Show me a fruit fly passing fruit fly DNA to humans.

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | The Guardian

Not for complex life, he wasn't. He got it right for the species he was trying to describe.

 

[DerelictJunction]

There are very little if any real transitional fossils where there should be millions as transitions should happen even more than fully formed creatures.

Biologists have claimed that there are many transitional fossils, yet you claim that there are few or none. So their's are not real transitional fossils.

Please describe what a real transitional fossil should look like. Let's take a specific case and consider the possibility of a transitional fossil between an ape ancestor and a human. Since you appear to disagree that such a transition occurred, you should be able to describe the physical appearance of a hypothetical transitional fossil and use that hypothetical to show how the currently-accepted transitional fossils should be rejected.

 

[stevevw]

Biologists have claimed that there are many transitional fossils, yet you claim that there are few or none. So their's are not real transitional fossils.

Please describe what a real transitional fossil should look like. Let's take a specific case and consider the possibility of a transitional fossil between an ape ancestor and a human. Since you appear to disagree that such a transition occurred, you should be able to describe the physical appearance of a hypothetical transitional fossil and use that hypothetical to show how the currently-accepted transitional fossils should be rejected.

Thats the problem what they describe as transitional fossils are open to interpretation. Sometimes the evidence is based on the angle of a thigh bone which may indicate that the create walked upright. But that is also based on the way the fragmented fossils are put together. Thats if there is enough left to do so. There is often disagreement with scientists as to what the bone structures represent and then new discoveries come along and change everything again. There is no clear line of transitional evidence to say that apes evolved into humans. What maybe presented as human like traits in apes can be variation of apes and the same for humans. But some evolutionists try to elevate apes into humans and demote humans down to apes.

A good example is the skulls found at Georgia recently. The variations between the 5 skulls was enough to cover several species of ape man that evolutionists have claimed to be different species when they were just variations of the same species. In fact that discovery shows that there may just be the one human species with great variation and then the ape like creatures with great variations. You have to look at the many different ape like creatures around such as baboons, orangutangs, Chimps, Gibbons, Gorillas ect. That shows a great amount of variation in apes and monkeys. Then there will be more variation in amount those individual groups. Then you have the great amount of variations in humans that we see today. Some with broad faces and big jaws, some with high sloped foreheads, some with bigger skulls and others with elongated skulls. There is vast differences in all these shapes that can cover all the different shapes we have discovered in the fossil records.

[FONT=&quot]The research team suggests that this diversity among a single group of Homo erectus means many other fossils may be misidentified as separate species[/FONT]
Ancient skull could change the story of human evolution | Natural History Museum

this link shows how with just one discovery it lopped 1/2 a million years off one species and pushed the species gaps closer together and into less species.
Discovery of 1.4 million-year-old fossil human hand bone closes human evolution gap -- ScienceDaily
[FONT=&quot]The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]prevailing evolutionary explanations about how upright walking supposedly evolved in humans, confidently taught in countless college-level anthropology classes, were basically wrong[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>

There are many more examples of disagreemnets between scientists on what constitutes a ape man fossil. So it just shows that it can easily be misinterpreted and some evolutionists are to quick to make an ape a new species of ape man.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Thats the problem what they describe as transitional fossils are open to interpretation. Sometimes the evidence is based on the angle of a thigh bone which may indicate that the create walked upright. But that is also based on the way the fragmented fossils are put together. Thats if there is enough left to do so. There is often disagreement with scientists as to what the bone structures represent and then new discoveries come along and change everything again. There is no clear line of transitional evidence to say that apes evolved into humans. What maybe presented as human like traits in apes can be variation of apes and the same for humans. But some evolutionists try to elevate apes into humans and demote humans down to apes.

A good example is the skulls found at Georgia recently. The variations between the 5 skulls was enough to cover several species of ape man that evolutionists have claimed to be different species when they were just variations of the same species. In fact that discovery shows that there may just be the one human species with great variation and then the ape like creatures with great variations. You have to look at the many different ape like creatures around such as baboons, orangutangs, Chimps, Gibbons, Gorillas ect. That shows a great amount of variation in apes and monkeys. Then there will be more variation in amount those individual groups. Then you have the great amount of variations in humans that we see today. Some with broad faces and big jaws, some with high sloped foreheads, some with bigger skulls and others with elongated skulls. There is vast differences in all these shapes that can cover all the different shapes we have discovered in the fossil records.

[FONT=&quot]The research team suggests that this diversity among a single group of Homo erectus means many other fossils may be misidentified as separate species[/FONT]
Ancient skull could change the story of human evolution | Natural History Museum

this link shows how with just one discovery it lopped 1/2 a million years off one species and pushed the species gaps closer together and into less species.
Discovery of 1.4 million-year-old fossil human hand bone closes human evolution gap -- ScienceDaily
[FONT=&quot]The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]prevailing evolutionary explanations about how upright walking supposedly evolved in humans, confidently taught in countless college-level anthropology classes, were basically wrong[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>

There are many more examples of disagreemnets between scientists on what constitutes a ape man fossil. So it just shows that it can easily be misinterpreted and some evolutionists are to quick to make an ape a new species of ape man.

The first two articles show no disagreement that the fossils in question are "ape man" fossils. The last article questions that the fossil being discussed is an "ape man" fossil, but the person expressing doubt is not a paleontologist (he's a lawyer), nor does he reference any papers from paleontologists. So, your claim that there are disagreements between scientists on what constitutes an ape man fossil is not supported by anything you have presented thus far.

Also, that lengthy post did not actually address my request, which was,

Biologists have claimed that there are many transitional fossils, yet you claim that there are few or none. So their's are not real transitional fossils.

Please describe what a real transitional fossil should look like. Let's take a specific case and consider the possibility of a transitional fossil between an ape ancestor and a human. Since you appear to disagree that such a transition occurred, you should be able to describe the physical appearance of a hypothetical transitional fossil and use that hypothetical to show how the currently-accepted transitional fossils should be rejected.

If your criteria for rejecting a fossil as a transitional is not based on what it looks like, then what criteria are you using?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats the problem what they describe as transitional fossils are open to interpretation.

Then tell us what the correct interpretation is. You are telling us that there are no transitional fossils. What criteria are you using to arrive at this conclusion? When you look at a fossil, what are the features you are looking for in order to determine if it is transitional or not? Or are you using any criteria at all? Is it a matter of blanket denial on your part?

Sometimes the evidence is based on the angle of a thigh bone which may indicate that the create walked upright. But that is also based on the way the fragmented fossils are put together. Thats if there is enough left to do so. There is often disagreement with scientists as to what the bone structures represent and then new discoveries come along and change everything again. There is no clear line of transitional evidence to say that apes evolved into humans. What maybe presented as human like traits in apes can be variation of apes and the same for humans. But some evolutionists try to elevate apes into humans and demote humans down to apes.

There is zero doubt that Australopithecines have a mixture of ape and human features. All scientists agree that Australopithecines have a mixture of ape and human features. If that isn't transitional, then what would be?

A good example is the skulls found at Georgia recently. The variations between the 5 skulls was enough to cover several species of ape man that evolutionists have claimed to be different species when they were just variations of the same species.

That species was H. erectus which is a transitional species. Those fossils are still transitional. They STILL have a mixture of ape and human features.

In fact that discovery shows that there may just be the one human species with great variation and then the ape like creatures with great variations.

That is exactly what we would expect in a transitional human. We would expect variations of ape and human features. No scientist is classifying those skulls as H. sapiens. You always seem to forget that part.

You have to look at the many different ape like creatures around such as baboons, orangutangs, Chimps, Gibbons, Gorillas ect. That shows a great amount of variation in apes and monkeys. Then there will be more variation in amount those individual groups. Then you have the great amount of variations in humans that we see today. Some with broad faces and big jaws, some with high sloped foreheads, some with bigger skulls and others with elongated skulls. There is vast differences in all these shapes that can cover all the different shapes we have discovered in the fossil records.

Why don't we see any variations that have ape and dog features, or ape and bird features? Why do we only see variations that have a mixture of ape and human features, just as evolution predicts?