The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[loveofourlord]

Which is why it doesn't relate to natural selection type mutation; or disprove evolution for that matter.

Yeah, it's a common tactic, they hint that it's normal mutation rates untill you realize that the rates are far higher then natural and try to say, "See mutations after a few generations fail." Except...if that was true then nothing could live, because we all die out after a few generations....it doesn't even work if they got it right.

 

[loveofourlord]

thank you for some alleged evidences, well first of all

australopithecus is ape like (has a shovel face which all apes have, and also is missing a predominant nose ridge that all humans have)

next

neanderthal is human like.

so basically you have an ape like example

and a human like example, no transitions.

What do you think evolution would produce? Yes it's ape like,but has features that are human like, such as knee and other such features, heanderthals are human like, but their DNA is fairly different from our own, enough we can tell they were not our ancestor, but we had a common ancestor that we both share and are more likly a sister species. Akin to gorilla's and chimpanzee's.

Funny how they fit exactly what we would expect, and even funnier how creationists can't agree which is ape and which is human yet claim they know for a fact which are which.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your guy's math just doesn't work. , but all cats can evolve from a couple of species in just a few hundred years.....yeah tell me why we should accept your guy's claims?

where did you get a few hundred years, thats a false claim.

I said 6000 years. (but that technically is the era of creation),

if you talking noahs arc, we are talking about 4600 years ago.

so thats plenty of time for micro evolution to work from 16000 species.

all they would need is founding parents taken from separate areas, in order to increase their diversity.

"many birds transplanted within Australia have been started by single pairs of innoculi (see appendix 1 in Newsome and Noble 1986)"

"The introduce Laysan Finch on one of the Hawaiian Islands may have descended from a single pair of birds (Conant 1988, p256; Pimm 1988, pp. 290-291)

"Likewise, a population of American Gray Squirrel, started by one pair of founders, fourishes in Victoria, Australia (deVos et al, 1956, p.179)

"the rock wallaby introduced to Hawaii (Tomich 1986,p17.)"

racoons introduced to the Bahamas (Sherman 1954, p. 126)

"elk introduced to california" (McCullogh 1978, p. 174)

"Hence, a founder population of two lizards collected from different local populations would display more genetic variation for all diversity measures withe the possible exception of N than a sample of 50 lizards from a single local population (Templeton 1994, p 62)

and there are dozens more cited in the reference book:
pg177 of Noahs Ark A feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe

 

[createdtoworship]

What do you think evolution would produce? Yes it's ape like,but has features that are human like, such as knee and other such features, heanderthals are human like, but their DNA is fairly different from our own, enough we can tell they were not our ancestor, but we had a common ancestor that we both share and are more likly a sister species. Akin to gorilla's and chimpanzee's.

Funny how they fit exactly what we would expect, and even funnier how creationists can't agree which is ape and which is human yet claim they know for a fact which are which.

neanderthal was human like, not ape like. Astralopithecus was ape like, not human like from the evidences given. Unless you have some reference material as I already cited my evidences,

I guess this discussion is over.

 

[createdtoworship]

The embryo guy? His methods were wrong, but despite that, after actually being able to observe embryos for ourselves, he wasn't all that far off.

heckel is a good example of what is happening now in our textbooks, many textbooks and schools have not recanted of heckels works. This just goes to show how a fraud like piltdown went so far before it was finally rebuffed.

 

[createdtoworship]

we have plenty of evidence, australopithecus, neanderthal, among many other species, and not just one fossil but multiple including some DNA from a couple like neanderthal.

already rebuffed, got any other evidences?

 

[loveofourlord]

where did you get a few hundred years, thats a false claim.

I said 6000 years. (but that technically is the era of creation),

if you talking noahs arc, we are talking about 4600 years ago.

so thats plenty of time for micro evolution to work from 16000 species.

all they would need is founding parents taken from separate areas, in order to increase their diversity.

"many birds transplanted within Australia have been started by single pairs of innoculi (see appendix 1 in Newsome and Noble 1986)"

"The introduce Laysan Finch on one of the Hawaiian Islands may have descended from a single pair of birds (Conant 1988, p256; Pimm 1988, pp. 290-291)

"Likewise, a population of American Gray Squirrel, started by one pair of founders, fourishes in Victoria, Australia (deVos et al, 1956, p.179)

"the rock wallaby introduced to Hawaii (Tomich 1986,p17.)"

racoons introduced to the Bahamas (Sherman 1954, p. 126)

"elk introduced to california" (McCullogh 1978, p. 174)

"Hence, a founder population of two lizards collected from different local populations would display more genetic variation for all diversity measures withe the possible exception of N than a sample of 50 lizards from a single local population (Templeton 1994, p 62)

and there are dozens more cited in the reference book:
pg177 of Noahs Ark A feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe

Except that realisticly were not talking about 4500 years or even 6000 years, as we know of many of the species that currently exist, exiting in their current form back then, hyroglyphics and such of lions, and statues of tigers and things to shortly before and after the story of the flood. So no you don't get to say 4500 years, heck you don't even get at best 2500 years since you have christians fed to lions back during roman times. So your talking about decades to centuaries at best. Which you have to explain how do you get massive species from 6000 to what we have now.

Your looking at quadrupling the number of species on the planet within a few hundred years without breeding. Also even young species having 12, 000 + animals on the ark wouldn't work, you still need food for a year, shovelign out of everything unless your going to stack the animals worse then the meat production plants do. Even then it's doubtful.

 

[loveofourlord]

already rebuffed, got any other evidences?

No you didn't rebuff you just went, "NAHHHHAHHH." without actually providing any evidence to back up your claim. Show they were just either human or apes, because the evidence shows they were not. They have features that are neither fully ape or fully human, so try again, unless you can't.

 

[loveofourlord]

heckel is a good example of what is happening now in our textbooks, many textbooks and schools have not recanted of heckels works. This just goes to show how a fraud like piltdown went so far before it was finally rebuffed.

Can you provide a real example of a modern text book that doesn't mention they were fradulent in how they were portrayed? BUt he wasn't completly false, there are parts that are analagous, such as gill arches and such which has been shown by science to be analagous and fit within what be expected for evolution.

 

[lasthero]

This just goes to show how a fraud like piltdown went so far before it was finally rebuffed.

Not a good example. There was skepticism for a long time about Piltdown Man, and many people suspected there was something up with it - however, they lacked the methods to figure out it was a fraud for a long time. A big part of the reason for Piltdown's acceptance was out of Britain's rivalry with Germany, which had uncovered neanderthals. When such methods were developed and employed, Piltdown was exposed.

Note that it was exposed by actual scientists. Not creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

heckel is a good example of what is happening now in our textbooks, many textbooks and schools have not recanted of heckels works. This just goes to show how a fraud like piltdown went so far before it was finally rebuffed.

I have yet to see a creationist that makes this claim no how Haeckel was supposedly fraudulent.

The fact is that he was not fraudulent.

He was incorrect in some of his claims. There is no reason to pull his illustrations from books.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have yet to see a creationist that makes this claim no how Haeckel was supposedly fraudulent.

The fact is that he was not fraudulent.

He was incorrect in some of his claims. There is no reason to pull his illustrations from books.

Fakery: Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryos in Donald Prothero's Textbook - Evolution News & Views

 

[createdtoworship]

Can you provide a real example of a modern text book that doesn't mention they were fradulent in how they were portrayed? BUt he wasn't completly false, there are parts that are analagous, such as gill arches and such which has been shown by science to be analagous and fit within what be expected for evolution.

gill slits are fraudulent as well

 

[createdtoworship]

Except that realisticly were not talking about 4500 years or even 6000 years, as we know of many of the species that currently exist, exiting in their current form back then, hyroglyphics and such of lions, and statues of tigers and things to shortly before and after the story of the flood. So no you don't get to say 4500 years, heck you don't even get at best 2500 years since you have christians fed to lions back during roman times. So your talking about decades to centuaries at best. Which you have to explain how do you get massive species from 6000 to what we have now.

Your looking at quadrupling the number of species on the planet within a few hundred years without breeding. Also even young species having 12, 000 + animals on the ark wouldn't work, you still need food for a year, shovelign out of everything unless your going to stack the animals worse then the meat production plants do. Even then it's doubtful.

a few hundred years is a false claim, and even if we did only have a few hundred years it doesn't matter most of the population studies especially in hawaii have shown it only takes a few hundred years to populate the islands with animals from 2 founders. Did you even read the information given? I suggest checking out some of the books referenced from your local library and doing a case study on it, since you obviously are not buying what was said, and sourced in my last post.

 

[Riberra]

What came first, the egg or the chicken?

Since chickens are a species the correct answer is neither.

So, you are saying that chickens came into existence as a species.No evolution needed.
Gen 1
.24 -And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
.25- And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (KJV)

That's "kind after kind ," not 'one kind evolving into another kind'(species)!

 

[createdtoworship]

No you didn't rebuff you just went, "NAHHHHAHHH." without actually providing any evidence to back up your claim. Show they were just either human or apes, because the evidence shows they were not. They have features that are neither fully ape or fully human, so try again, unless you can't.

negative criticisms don't need evidence, only the possitive statements do like yours "australopithicus was a human transitionary form", or neanderthal was an ape like transitionary form. I then gave two or more examples even though I didn't have to. I said australopithicus has an ape like feature that humans don't, a shovel face. and neanderthal had a human like feature that apes didn't and that was a predominant nose ridge. So no, I didn't say "Naahh" this is another of your false claims that are predominant in the thread for your false views of unscientific evolutionary claims.

goodnight

 

[loveofourlord]

gill slits are fraudulent as well

Note I never said slits, I said arches, which they in fact are, because the arches that become gills in fish, become the jaw and inner ear I believe in humans, the same effective anatomy which can be traced the fossil and living record to show the movement of the parts that repersent the gill arches going from gills to current parts of mamals and humans.

 

[loveofourlord]

negative criticisms don't need evidence, only the possitive statements do like yours "australopithicus was a human transitionary form", or neanderthal was an ape like transitionary form. I then gave two or more examples even though I didn't have to. I said australopithicus has an ape like feature that humans don't, a shovel face. and neanderthal had a human like feature that apes didn't and that was a predominant nose ridge. So no, I didn't say "Naahh" this is another of your false claims that are predominant in the thread for your false views of unscientific evolutionary claims.

goodnight

Except that is what you would expect in transitional forms, to have a mix of both so not sure what your saying. The things you point out are the very thigns that show them as transitional forms. So ummm whats your point?

 

[loveofourlord]

So, you are saying that chickens came into existence as a species.No evolution needed.
Gen 1
.24 -And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
.25- And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (KJV)

That's "kind after kind ," not 'one kind evolving into another kind'(species)!

Since there was never a "first" chickenthere was never a chicken that came from a none chicken, species is a snapshot, of either a fossil or living creature. BUt if you could look at again every single mother from modern dinosaurs like chickens back to ancient ones you could never find the one point where anything gave birth to something it wasn't, but if you look every 500 generation or so you will notice differences between them.

 

[createdtoworship]

Except that is what you would expect in transitional forms, to have a mix of both so not sure what your saying. The things you point out are the very thigns that show them as transitional forms. So ummm whats your point?

they would have features on the opposite side of where they started transitioning from.

for example lucy (who's an ape) would have a pelvis of a human, but there is no evidence of that either.

or neanderthal (who is humanlike) would have some feature of a ape but thats not found either.

what you have is either an ape or a human but nothing in the middle.

And you still have shown no evidence to the contrary. Just opinions.

So this is still not considered a theory (of evolution) and definately not science.