Snakes with hind legs lasted 70 million years

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You have two problems:

1. Macroevolution has been directly observed.
   
2. Nothing in scripture in any way rules out the evolution of new kinds.

Not really.

Yep. Demonstrably so. Speciation has been directly observed. "Macroevolution" as you might know, is evolution of new kinds of species. And that's what we see happening.

But that's not what I was thinking a moment ago looking at the title of this thread.

"Snakes with hind legs lasted 70 million years "

Try to explain and show ANYTHING that has lasted even a thousand years, or ten thousand years would be better.

Coelacanths with lobed fins, lasted for hundreds of millions of years. Not the same individuals, or the same species, or even the same genus. But because they found an environment that was unchanging, they could continue to exist for all that time, relatively unchanged. Which was Darwin's prediction. He wrote about such things in his book.

At the zoo, the oldest snake they have is under 200 years old.

Ah, you thought he meant individuals? No. But snakes with legs existed for a very long time, since they reproduced, and the offspring survived long enough to also reproduce.

 

[The Barbarian]

Macro-evolutionism has not been directly observed.

But macroevolution has been directly observed. "Macroevolutionism" is your baby; your problem.

Regarding scripture....evolutionism doesn't support original sin.

Neither does evolution. Gravity doesn't, either. Or genetics. But none of them rule it out, either. Thought you knew.

 

[-57]

TO be honest, some of the 'ideas'/'teachings' that go along with so-called 'original sin' are not found in the Bible at all either, apparently.

Are you one of those who claim Adam never fell?

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes...
Coelacanths with lobed fins, lasted for hundreds of millions of years. Not the same individuals, or the same species, or even the same genus.

reference please.

 

[-57]

Neither does evolution. Gravity doesn't, either. Or genetics. But none of them rule it out, either. Thought you knew.

Yet another who denies the fall of Adam in the garden....in favor of evolutionism

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet another who denies the fall of Adam in the garden....in favor of evolutionism

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Adam was a real person and there was a real fall. Sorry that your attachment to evolutionism keeps you from accepting that. As you know, evolutionary theory does not deny Adam's existence or the Fall.

Apparently your doctrine of "evolutionism" does. One more reason for you to let go of it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What's the big deal? I know a few snakes that walk upright on their hind legs in the present time.

 

[-57]

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Adam was a real person and there was a real fall. Sorry that your attachment to evolutionism keeps you from accepting that. As you know, evolutionary theory does not deny Adam's existence or the Fall.

Apparently your doctrine of "evolutionism" does. One more reason for you to let go of it.

Eve must not have been real..as she was formed from Adams rib. This is in direct contradiction of evolutionism.

 

[The Barbarian]

reference please.

The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia

Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22; 273(1583): 245–250.
A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade
Matt Friedman1,* and Michael I Coates2
Abstract
Previously considered an actinopterygian or an osteichthyan incertae sedis, the Devonian (Givetian–Frasnian) Holopterygius nudus is reinterpreted as a coelacanth. This genus is among the oldest coelacanths known from articulated remains, but its eel-like morphology marks a considerable departure from the conventional coelacanth body plan. A cladistic analysis places Holopterygius as the sister taxon of the Carboniferous (Serpukhovian) genus Allenypterus. Despite the specialized morphology of these genera, they occupy a surprisingly basal position in coelacanth phylogeny; only Diplocercides and Miguashaia are further removed from the crown. A morphometric analysis reveals that coelacanths were anatomically disparate early in their history. Conflicts between this result and those of previous studies challenge the adequacy of systematic character sets for describing historical patterns of morphological variety. Coelacanths have long had an iconic place in the study of vertebrate evolution for their apparent anatomical conservatism over geological time, but Holopterygius provides clear evidence for rapid morphological evolution early in the history of this clade.

 

[The Barbarian]

Eve must not have been real..

Evolutionary theory doesn't say so. This is another reason you should reconsider your doctrine of "evolutionism."

 

[-57]

The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia

Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22; 273(1583): 245–250.
A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade
Matt Friedman1,* and Michael I Coates2
Abstract
Previously considered an actinopterygian or an osteichthyan incertae sedis, the Devonian (Givetian–Frasnian) Holopterygius nudus is reinterpreted as a coelacanth. This genus is among the oldest coelacanths known from articulated remains, but its eel-like morphology marks a considerable departure from the conventional coelacanth body plan. A cladistic analysis places Holopterygius as the sister taxon of the Carboniferous (Serpukhovian) genus Allenypterus. Despite the specialized morphology of these genera, they occupy a surprisingly basal position in coelacanth phylogeny; only Diplocercides and Miguashaia are further removed from the crown. A morphometric analysis reveals that coelacanths were anatomically disparate early in their history. Conflicts between this result and those of previous studies challenge the adequacy of systematic character sets for describing historical patterns of morphological variety. Coelacanths have long had an iconic place in the study of vertebrate evolution for their apparent anatomical conservatism over geological time, but Holopterygius provides clear evidence for rapid morphological evolution early in the history of this clade.

They found another fossil...so what?

 

[-57]

Evolutionary theory doesn't say so. This is another reason you should reconsider your doctrine of "evolutionism."

Your version of evolutionism says Adam and Eve evolved. The bible doesn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your version of evolutionism says Adam and Eve evolved.

That's your story. In reality, individuals don't evolve. Populations do. "Evolutionism" is apparently the sum of all the misconceptions creationists have about science.

You reject God's creation. The bible doesn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes...
Coelacanths with lobed fins, lasted for hundreds of millions of years. Not the same individuals, or the same species, or even the same genus.

reference please.

Sure:

The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia

Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22; 273(1583): 245–250.
A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade
Matt Friedman1,* and Michael I Coates2
Abstract
Previously considered an actinopterygian or an osteichthyan incertae sedis, the Devonian (Givetian–Frasnian) Holopterygius nudus is reinterpreted as a coelacanth. This genus is among the oldest coelacanths known from articulated remains, but its eel-like morphology marks a considerable departure from the conventional coelacanth body plan. A cladistic analysis places Holopterygius as the sister taxon of the Carboniferous (Serpukhovian) genus Allenypterus. Despite the specialized morphology of these genera, they occupy a surprisingly basal position in coelacanth phylogeny; only Diplocercides and Miguashaia are further removed from the crown. A morphometric analysis reveals that coelacanths were anatomically disparate early in their history. Conflicts between this result and those of previous studies challenge the adequacy of systematic character sets for describing historical patterns of morphological variety. Coelacanths have long had an iconic place in the study of vertebrate evolution for their apparent anatomical conservatism over geological time, but Holopterygius provides clear evidence for rapid morphological evolution early in the history of this clade.

They found another fossil...so what?

As your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise says, it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." In this case, it demonstrates that the two species of Coelacanths alive today are much evolved from earlier ones, and that the group has evolved considerably over time.

 

[-57]

That's your story. In reality, individuals don't evolve. Populations do. "Evolutionism" is apparently the sum of all the misconceptions creationists have about science.

You reject God's creation. The bible doesn't.

True, populations are said to evolve....which creates issues with the fall and original sin.
Your whole foundation for your faith is at stake.

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes...
Coelacanths with lobed fins, lasted for hundreds of millions of years. Not the same individuals, or the same species, or even the same genus.



Sure:

The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia

Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22; 273(1583): 245–250.
A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade
Matt Friedman1,* and Michael I Coates2
Abstract
Previously considered an actinopterygian or an osteichthyan incertae sedis, the Devonian (Givetian–Frasnian) Holopterygius nudus is reinterpreted as a coelacanth. This genus is among the oldest coelacanths known from articulated remains, but its eel-like morphology marks a considerable departure from the conventional coelacanth body plan. A cladistic analysis places Holopterygius as the sister taxon of the Carboniferous (Serpukhovian) genus Allenypterus. Despite the specialized morphology of these genera, they occupy a surprisingly basal position in coelacanth phylogeny; only Diplocercides and Miguashaia are further removed from the crown. A morphometric analysis reveals that coelacanths were anatomically disparate early in their history. Conflicts between this result and those of previous studies challenge the adequacy of systematic character sets for describing historical patterns of morphological variety. Coelacanths have long had an iconic place in the study of vertebrate evolution for their apparent anatomical conservatism over geological time, but Holopterygius provides clear evidence for rapid morphological evolution early in the history of this clade.



As your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise says, it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." In this case, it demonstrates that the two species of Coelacanths alive today are much evolved from earlier ones, and that the group has evolved considerably over time.

I've been trying to follow your logic...once again, so what?

All you have done is present an article based upon evo-bias.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows extensive evidence for macroevolution)

I've been trying to follow your logic...once again, so what?

As even honest YE creastionists admit, there is very good evidence for macroevolution. Didn't you read it?

All you have done is present an article based upon evo-bias.

Dr. Kurt Wise is a YE evolutionist. I thought you knew.

 

[The Barbarian]

True, populations are said to evolve....which creates issues with the fall and original sin.

Nope. As you learned, evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with us descending from two humans, who disobeyed God.

Your whole foundation for your faith is at stake.

As most Christians realize, none of this has any problems for our faith.

 

[-57]

Nope. As you learned, evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with us descending from two humans, who disobeyed God.



As most Christians realize, none of this has any problems for our faith.

How is that possible?

(Barbarian shows extensive evidence for macroevolution)



As even honest YE creastionists admit, there is very good evidence for macroevolution. Didn't you read it?



Dr. Kurt Wise is a YE evolutionist. I thought you knew.

Then produce your evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that evolutionary theory is consistent with humans today having descended from two individuals)

How is that possible?

Humans leave descendants. What makes you think that's impossible?

(Barbarian shows extensive evidence for macroevolution)

As even honest YE creastionists admit, there is very good evidence for macroevolution. Didn't you read it?

Then produce your evidence.

You want to see it again? Write it down, this time. From your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Keep in mind, most of these aren't single fossils, but entire transitional series of fossils, perhaps dozens of transitions each.

Wise even notes that whale fossils are a particularly difficult problem for creationism:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
ibid

Wise expresses hope and some possible future explanations for whale fossils, but presently, there is nothing; this massive amount of evidence is currently a major problem for creationists.