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

[createdtoworship]

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.

I assume you mean embryonic arches?

well then evolutionists have retreated as well from the idea that there are slits after being rebuffed by creationists.

if you still think there are slits (as many textbooks still say): here is an article for you:
Do People Have 'Gill Slits' in the Womb?

 

[bhsmte]

I assume you mean embryonic arches?

well then evolutionists have retreated as well from the idea that there are slits after being rebuffed by creationists.

if you still think there are slits (as many textbooks still say): here is an article for you:
Do People Have 'Gill Slits' in the Womb?

Do you ever post anything from a non-creationist or ID website?

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you ever post anything from a non-creationist or ID website?

it's the competition, and in many ways more honest.

 

[bhsmte]

it's the competition, and in many ways more honest.

Nope, don't think so. I know confirmation bias when I see it.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

ummmm...what are you talking about? What part of anything to do with evolution would say that lucy would require X feature? There is nothing in evolution that say some feature must form at any given time. And the pelvis is already on it's way between human and ape, it's not fully either but in the middle, which again is what you would expect. And it's your opinion that they don't fit evolution and that they are fully ape, the facts say otherwise so you have to show that your idea is more correct then all of science.

 

[loveofourlord]

I assume you mean embryonic arches?

well then evolutionists have retreated as well from the idea that there are slits after being rebuffed by creationists.

if you still think there are slits (as many textbooks still say): here is an article for you:
Do People Have 'Gill Slits' in the Womb?

sorry what I get for posting at night :> Pharyngeal arch's are what become gills in fish, and larynx and such in humans.

Also how about the development of the human kidney which actually does go through forming our ancestral kidney's before ending at the mamilian one, in the proper order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMli4xpm8c

 

[Riberra]

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.

The search of the origins of the domestic
chickens is definitively an interesting subject for science.
Link 1
Investigating the Global Dispersal of Chickens in Prehistory Using Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Signatures

....The paper also states that the earliest undisputed domestic chicken remains are bones associated with a date of approximately 5400 BC from the Chishan site, in the Hebei province of China. In the Ganges region of India, Red Junglefowl were being used by humans as early as 7,000 years ago. No domestic chickens older than 4,000 years have been identified in the Indus Valley, and the antiquity of chickens recovered from excavations at Mohenjodaro is still debated.

The study showed that chickens were likely domesticated from wild Red Junglefowl,
but this is in dispute from the study below see link 2...

Other points in the first paper...
Hybridisation

The other three members of the genus — Sri Lanka Junglefowl (Gallus lafayetii), Grey Junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii), and the Green Junglefowl (Gallus varius) — do not usually produce fertile hybrids with the Red Junglefowl, suggesting that it is the sole ancestor of the domestic chicken. However, recent research has revealed the absence of the yellow skin gene in the wild Red Junglefowl found in domestic birds, which suggests hybridisation with the Grey Junglefowl during the domestication of the species.[2] A culturally significant hybrid between the Red Junglefowl and the Green Junglefowl in Indonesia is known as the Bekisar.
Purebred Red Junglefowl are thought to be facing a serious threat of extinction because of hybridization at the edge of forests where domesticated free ranging chickens are common.


Other study
Link 2
"Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken"

Excerpts quoted from ...
Red Junglefowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[createdtoworship]

sorry what I get for posting at night :> Pharyngeal arch's are what become gills in fish, and larynx and such in humans.

Also how about the development of the human kidney which actually does go through forming our ancestral kidney's before ending at the mamilian one, in the proper order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMli4xpm8c

fish also have a mouth, but just because fish and humans have a common part such as the mouth does not mean that they are related at all. I am unsure what you are trying to say.

 

[createdtoworship]

ummmm...what are you talking about? What part of anything to do with evolution would say that lucy would require X feature? There is nothing in evolution that say some feature must form at any given time. And the pelvis is already on it's way between human and ape, it's not fully either but in the middle, which again is what you would expect. And it's your opinion that they don't fit evolution and that they are fully ape, the facts say otherwise so you have to show that your idea is more correct then all of science.

what is your evidence that lucy walked upright, lets start with that. Because I believe she was a knuckle walker.

 

[Smidlee]

sorry what I get for posting at night :> Pharyngeal arch's are what become gills in fish, and larynx and such in humans.

Also how about the development of the human kidney which actually does go through forming our ancestral kidney's before ending at the mamilian one, in the proper order.

Sounds like something Jerry A. Coyne would write.

Here from wiki:
"Despite this transient appearance in mammals, the pronephros is essential for the development of the adult kidneys. "

Pronephros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[loveofourlord]

Sounds like something Jerry A. Coyne would write.

Here from wiki:
"Despite this transient appearance in mammals, the pronephros is essential for the development of the adult kidneys. "

Pronephros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks :> That would explain a few things, why would we retain earlier forms such as it, likly there are functions to do with land and such that the original kidney could do, but the body still needs it for a short time or if I understand it right, it gets co-opt'd into the immune system.

Evolution can only work with what is already there, if evolution could completly start over, then we only need one kidney.

Though it's still interetsing that the kidney's follow the evolutionary line of the three kidney's our ancestors use, rather then like every other organ be the modern form. And if those early kidney's are still important to the body after absorbedthen it would make more sense to have them built from the start in their future form.

 

[loveofourlord]

what is your evidence that lucy walked upright, lets start with that. Because I believe she was a knuckle walker.

First her species has knees which we have more then a few examples of, second of all, knuckle dragging at times, doesn't preclude walking upright at other times, being transitional it make sense if she did both rather then all one or the other. I don't htink you know what a transitional species actually is as you seem to be complaining about the things we would expect to see.

 

[Kylie]

how about these:

Okay.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the link: "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales." So macro and micro are the same thing. Just for a longer time. So anyone who claims that they are different is like saying that walking down your hallway is a fundamentally different concept than walking down the street.

Macroevolution | Define Macroevolution at Dictionary.com

And this doesn't quite make sense in a scientific context, because any individual is going to be the same species as its parents.

Can you give me a valid scientific source rather than a layman's source which objectively defines the difference between macro and micro evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

Can you give me a valid scientific source rather than a layman's source which objectively defines the difference between macro and micro evolution?

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcbc245/MCBC245PDFs/Erwin.pdf

"....macroevolution as a source of morpho-logic novelty."
"Yet the greatest opportunities for progress in macroevolution may come from comparative developmental biology (Gilbert et al. 1996)."

Exactly. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135751/

"No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay.



From the link: "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales." So macro and micro are the same thing. Just for a longer time. So anyone who claims that they are different is like saying that walking down your hallway is a fundamentally different concept than walking down the street.



And this doesn't quite make sense in a scientific context, because any individual is going to be the same species as its parents.

Can you give me a valid scientific source rather than a layman's source which objectively defines the difference between macro and micro evolution?

smidlee gave some links that suite your question quite well, I don't know for sure but they look peer reviewed.

but it's everywhere. It's not a creationist term.

but I find it odd that you sourced a quote from wikipedia, while in the same post questioning about laymans sources. Do you not recognize that wikipedia is a laymans source? Why quote it to prove your point then?

 

[Riberra]

KJV is a good translation but there are problems with it.

that the NKJV fixes.

not to mention numerous revisions to the 1611, I think five:
"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

but when debating cults I always use the KJV.

But I am growing more and more fond of the NKJV as I study evolutionary attacks against the literal Bible, especially in genesis.

Below is just one of hundreds of examples of how the corrupt New International Version (the best selling Bible version today world-wide) butchers God's Word. Here they denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ with the stroke of their pen:

The below Scripture is speaking of Adam (from the Garden of Eden) and Jesus Christ the Saviour.​

Compare how the newer version attacks the Lord, look what they cut out of the Scripture; the NIV omits that Jesus is the Lord from Heaven. This is foundational Christian belief they have tread upon!​

The Time-tested and trusted King James Version:
1 Cor 15:47
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (KJV)​

The so-called "easier to understand" New International Version:
1 Cor 15:47
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. (NIV)​

This is only one example the shocking omissions in the new "easier to understand" Bible versions. We ask this: "Easier to understand" what?!? Get a King James Bible version or you're spinning your wheels. Don't worry, you can handle all the thee's thou's and thy's; it's not difficult at all. For a detailed study including many side by side verse comparisons, see our: Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...); Proof that the King James Bible (KJV) is the True Word of God​

Scholar work on the subject:

• Let's Weigh the Evidence:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by barry Burton:[/FONT]Reviewer: Allen W. Waldo: This book shows evidence why the RSV, ASV, NIV, NEV and others are attacks on the Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, Atonement and The Virgin Birth. It shows why the KJV c.1611 should be the Gold Standard. (Approx. $4-$5)
• The Language of the King James Bible:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by G. A. Riplinger: Reviewer[/FONT]: John Pearson et al: A most incredible look at the built in tools in the King James Bible (and only the KJV) left by God for its understanding. Though word usage has changed, word meaning has not. The word definitions of the King James are "fixed" or set as is promised in Psalms 119:89. Truly a scholarly work by the best kind of scholar, a Bible believer. In this book, Riplinger reminds the reader of the nuances of the English language. I was surprised to discover how much English grammar is not taught today. For instance, Riplinger points out that there are specific differences between the words "shall" and "will", and between "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you". The part of the book that does deal with the language of the King James Bible is very interesting, and demonstrates the superiority of that translation. (Approx. $10-$11)

• Old Bibles - An Account of the Various Versions of the English Bible:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by J.R. Dore: [/FONT]New reproduction of the 1876 book using the same printing plates. Hard to find!: The Old Bibles book by Dore provides a chronological account of Biblical scripture from Gildas, AD 546 through translations into English concluding with King James Version of 1611. "The hole byble was long before Wycliffe's days by vertuous and well learned men, translated into the English tong; and by good and godly people with devotion, and soberness, wel and reverendly red." (Misspelling in the original) This fascinating account reflects Dore's painstaking research to authenticate the historical origin of the various English language Bibles. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Dimensions (in inches): 0.31 x 8.32 x 5.45[/FONT](Approx. $15-$16)

​

 

[createdtoworship]

Below is just one of hundreds of examples of how the corrupt New International Version (the best selling Bible version today world-wide) butchers God's Word. Here they denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ with the stroke of their pen:

The below Scripture is speaking of Adam (from the Garden of Eden) and Jesus Christ the Saviour.​

Compare how the newer version attacks the Lord, look what they cut out of the Scripture; the NIV omits that Jesus is the Lord from Heaven. This is foundational Christian belief they have tread upon!​

The Time-tested and trusted King James Version:
1 Cor 15:47
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (KJV)​

The so-called "easier to understand" New International Version:
1 Cor 15:47
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. (NIV)​

This is only one example the shocking omissions in the new "easier to understand" Bible versions. We ask this: "Easier to understand" what?!? Get a King James Bible version or you're spinning your wheels. Don't worry, you can handle all the thee's thou's and thy's; it's not difficult at all. For a detailed study including many side by side verse comparisons, see our: Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...); Proof that the King James Bible (KJV) is the True Word of God​

Scholar work on the subject:

• Let's Weigh the Evidence:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by barry Burton:[/FONT]Reviewer: Allen W. Waldo: This book shows evidence why the RSV, ASV, NIV, NEV and others are attacks on the Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, Atonement and The Virgin Birth. It shows why the KJV c.1611 should be the Gold Standard. (Approx. $4-$5)
• The Language of the King James Bible:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by G. A. Riplinger: Reviewer[/FONT]: John Pearson et al: A most incredible look at the built in tools in the King James Bible (and only the KJV) left by God for its understanding. Though word usage has changed, word meaning has not. The word definitions of the King James are "fixed" or set as is promised in Psalms 119:89. Truly a scholarly work by the best kind of scholar, a Bible believer. In this book, Riplinger reminds the reader of the nuances of the English language. I was surprised to discover how much English grammar is not taught today. For instance, Riplinger points out that there are specific differences between the words "shall" and "will", and between "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you". The part of the book that does deal with the language of the King James Bible is very interesting, and demonstrates the superiority of that translation. (Approx. $10-$11)

• Old Bibles - An Account of the Various Versions of the English Bible:[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] by J.R. Dore: [/FONT]New reproduction of the 1876 book using the same printing plates. Hard to find!: The Old Bibles book by Dore provides a chronological account of Biblical scripture from Gildas, AD 546 through translations into English concluding with King James Version of 1611. "The hole byble was long before Wycliffe's days by vertuous and well learned men, translated into the English tong; and by good and godly people with devotion, and soberness, wel and reverendly red." (Misspelling in the original) This fascinating account reflects Dore's painstaking research to authenticate the historical origin of the various English language Bibles. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Dimensions (in inches): 0.31 x 8.32 x 5.45[/FONT](Approx. $15-$16)

​

NIV is a thought for thought translation, and KJV is a word for word, thats the difference. I personally use the NKJV, which has some changes from the KJV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NIV is a thought for thought translation, and KJV is a word for word, thats the difference. I personally use the NKJV, which has some changes from the KJV.

Shh, don't tell AV

 

[createdtoworship]

Shh, don't tell AV

they are very close in translation, modern translations are the real problem.

 

[Riberra]

NIV is a thought for thought translation, and KJV is a word for word, thats the difference.

Lets see...
The good old Authorized King James Version Bible (also called the 'KJV' or the 'AV') -was- translated from the Received Text or Textus Receptus
WHILE
The NEW King James Version Bible NKJV... NIV(as well as all other newer versions(1881-1990's to this day) are utilizing the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts.
-It is a fact that the NEW King James Version Bible (as well as all other newer versions or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible..) were prepared from DIFFERENT manuscripts than the regular King James Version (which used the Received Text - Textus Receptus) was translated from. They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement.

What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?:Back to Table of Contents at top of page
There has been a fraud perpetrated on the Bible reader. What many of the newer Bible versions do is to place the correct reading into the Scripture but they refer the reader to the margin or a foot note that says something like " This verse (or word) does not appear in any of the best manuscripts, or (not in the oldest manuscripts), or (not in the majority of Manuscripts)." When they do that they are basically telling the reader to disregard that particular verse or word.
However, what they are really saying is that the verse or word is in the Manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated from (in 1611), but it is not in the manuscripts that they are translating their newer version from (in 1881-1990's). They had to make mention of this because in fact the newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NIV version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible! So instead of admitting that their Bibles have gross omissions, they make it look like the King James Bible added a bunch of stuff about Jesus Christ, God, The Trinity, salvation by faith...
It is a fact that the NEW King James Version Bible (as well as all other newer versions) was prepared from DIFFERENT manuscripts than the regular King James Version (which used the Received Text - Textus Receptus) was translated from. They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement. Let me explain.
The New King James Version (NKJV) footnotes erroneously point to a 'majority of texts', when they are in fact only referring to the faulty Greek Text According to the majority by Hodge and Farstad. It falls far short of a full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts! So when they say the majority, what they are in essence saying is the majority of 414 texts, not the majority of the over 5000 Texts available. And if you guessed that their 414 are all from the same corrupt tree out of Alexandria Egypt you would be correct. They are corrupt copies of corrupt copies.
The percentage of extant (existing) Manuscripts in pyramid graph at right:

• Original autograph (the actual first manuscript) - None Extant.
• Light colored blocks = Accurate copies - 95% of 5,309 manuscripts.
• Dark colored blocks = Corrupted copies - 5%of 5,309 manuscripts.

ACCURATE COPIES (Light colored blocks)
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the 'Textus Receptus' or the Received Text, was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
CORRUPTED COPIES (Dark colored blocks)
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Manuscripts, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time with the Received text of the King James Version. The other 5% (Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus...) accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus readings in many places because their corrupt manuscripts were incomplete. The problem is that when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts PLUS the Textus Receptus. That accounts for the 5%corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (A.D. 120-160), Origin (A.D. 184-254), Westcott & Hort (1853), and others CORRUPTED them.
And it is just not that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus (newer Bible version manuscripts) disagree with the Textus Receptus (King James version manuscript). But they do not agree with EACH OTHER either! In just the four Gospels alone (Matthew - John) the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus disagree with EACH OTHER in over 3,000 places! Let's take a closer look at these two Manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions are based upon.
The dubious origin of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus:Back to Table of Contents at top of page
The Vaticanus:
It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9: 14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose.
Besides all that - in the Gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places. Something is not right here!
The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible in 1611, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable.TheVaticanus also contains the Apocrypha. Which are pre-New Testament writings that do not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apocrypha cannot be considered realiable Scripture as a whole, but it is included in the Catholic Bible to this very day.
The Sinaiticus:
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was 'found' in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherines Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the to the New Testament, the "Shepherd of Hermes" (which reads that we are to take the mark of the beast!) and the "Epistle of Barnabas."
As stated, in the Sinaiticus Manuscript (newer Bible version Manuscripts) there appear two spurious books that do not appear in the Textus Receptus (King James Bible manuscripts), they are the: "Shepherd of Hermas," and the "Epistle of Barnabas."

• In the Shepherd of Hermas, it states: "I gave myself up to the beast", and in another place it says: "Receive his name".
• In the Epistle of Barnabas, it states: "Satan...is Lord".

There is an effort underway to remove the book of "Revelation" in the newer Bible versions (the vaticanus does not have it) and replace it with "Shepherd of Hermas." need anymore be said on that? Christian beware! Our own so-called people are selling us out to satan!
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
​

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied (probably in the 4th Century), but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Source:
Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...); Proof that the King James Bible (KJV) is the True Word of God