Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[keith99]

Its hilarious that you creationists smugly bring up the platypus so often, as if it strikes a blow against evil evolution. In fact, it supports the theory that mammals evolved from reptiles, because it is a mammal with reptilian traits. This is evidenced even at the DNA level.

Because of the early divergence from the therian mammals and the low numbers of extant monotreme species, the platypus is a frequent subject of research in evolutionary biology. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY),[66] although given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.[67] The platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilisation.[35][68] Since the platypus lacks the mammalian sex-determining gene SRY, the mechanism of sex determination remains unknown.[69] A draft version of the platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008, revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians, and fish. More than 80% of the platypus' genes are common to the other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced.[35]
​

Platypus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes this is funny. They scream for a missing link and then when they have one they complain because it does not fit nicely into either box.

 

[EternalDragon]

Its hilarious that you creationists smugly bring up the platypus so often, as if it strikes a blow against evil evolution. In fact, it supports the theory that mammals evolved from reptiles, because it is a mammal with reptilian traits. This is evidenced even at the DNA level.

I did not at all bring it up as a blow against evolution. If you look back someone gave an example of something that would disprove evolution. I produced an possible candidate for an example.

What you posted about it would have it not fit in with a nest hierarchy. This is true with other creatures as well. Someone said disproving the nested hierarchy would disprove evolution. Yet you guys just seem to try to explain all of the rather obvious evidence away.

 

[Skaloop]

I did not at all bring it up as a blow against evolution. If you look back someone gave an example of something that would disprove evolution. I produced an possible candidate for an example.

What you posted about it would have it not fit in with a nest hierarchy. This is true with other creatures as well. Someone said disproving the nested hierarchy would disprove evolution. Yet you guys just seem to try to explain all of the rather obvious evidence away.

But the platypus does fit within the nested hierarchy. Methinks you don't know exactly what the nested hierarchy actually is. Are you able to describe it in your own words?

Also keep in mind that you will eventually need to address the double-nested hierarchy, which accounts for both morphological and genetic nesting.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But the platypus does fit within the nested hierarchy. Methinks you don't know exactly what the nested hierarchy actually is. Are you able to describe it in your own words?

Also keep in mind that you will eventually need to address the double-nested hierarchy, which accounts for both morphological and genetic nesting.

Yet the nested hierarchy was originally based upon the belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. It is now believed they were warm-blooded mammals, but you still use the same nested hierarchy that you did when you thought they were reptiles.

What nested hierarchy? The one based on the incorrect assumption dinosaurs were reptiles? You have never changed the hierarchy previous to the dinosaurs, or after them, one based upon incorrect data.

Like I said, revision is always talked about, but never done, just new words and phrases added to the mix to confuse the issue.

 

[Skaloop]

Yet the nested hierarchy was originally based upon the belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. It is now believed they were warm-blooded mammals, but you still use the same nested hierarchy that you did when you thought they were reptiles.

No, it's not. They may now be considered warm-blooded, but certainly not mammals. Even if they were warm-blooded, that does not violate a nested hierarchy.

What nested hierarchy? The one based on the incorrect assumption dinosaurs were reptiles? You have never changed the hierarchy previous to the dinosaurs, or after them, one based upon incorrect data.

No, the one based on morphology and genetics. Can you offer a definition of the nested hierarchy in your own words or not?

Like I said, revision is always talked about, but never done, just new words and phrases added to the mix to confuse the issue.

How is that not revision?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Top 1 problem with evolution:

1. The people who attempt to criticize it have not the slightest clue what they're talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes this is funny. They scream for a missing link and then when they have one they complain because it does not fit nicely into either box.

I am still trying to figure out where they get mammals from reptiles, since it is now believed dinosaurs were not cold-blooded reptiles, but mammals. Yet birds are not mammals nor reptiles, but aves. Which tells me it is likely half the foregoing creatures they labeled as reptile, are more than likely a mistake, just as calling dinosaurs reptiles was.

That's what got them in a pickle, believing dinosaurs were once reptile, which made them class birds as non-mammal or reptile, since they were not cold-blooded. Then they realized they messed the entire dinosaur evolutionary tree up since they are actually mammals, not reptiles, but use the same evolutionary tree they did when they thought wrongly they were reptiles.

So in all likelihood, the ones they are claiming are reptile that the dinosaur came from, are in reality mammals as well. Which means they no longer have any evidence any mammal evolved from a reptile, because in reality they have no clue as to what was once reptile and what was once mammal. They are simply guessing, like they guessed with the dinosaur, and incorrectly at that.

 

[EternalDragon]

But the platypus does fit within the nested hierarchy. Methinks you don't know exactly what the nested hierarchy actually is. Are you able to describe it in your own words?

Also keep in mind that you will eventually need to address the double-nested hierarchy, which accounts for both morphological and genetic nesting.

I suppose one could come up with the triple nested hierarchy and the crossed over nested hierarchy or the quadruple nested hierarchy to account for the problems with it.

The real problem is that evolution has to do leaps, jumps and cross weaving explanations just to try to make the theory work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am still trying to figure out where they get mammals from reptiles, since it is now believed dinosaurs were not cold-blooded reptiles, but mammals. Yet birds are not mammals nor reptiles, but aves. Which tells me it is likely half the foregoing creatures they labeled as reptile, are more than likely a mistake, just as calling dinosaurs reptiles was.

Please, get a clue. Dinosaurs were warm blooded. They were not mammals. None of us have claimed that they are mammals. Are you being purposefully dense? Are birds warm blooded? I seriously hope you know the right answer. Birds are not mammals either, but they are ..... (see if you can fill in the blank).

That's what got them in a pickle, believing dinosaurs were once reptile, which made them class birds as non-mammal or reptile, since they were not cold-blooded. Then they realized they messed the entire dinosaur evolutionary tree up since they are actually mammals, not reptiles, but use the same evolutionary tree they did when they thought wrongly they were reptiles.

Please, you really can't be this lacking in intelligence, you have to be putting on an act. Since dinosaurs resembled reptiles in many ways, there are major differences too, at first scientists thought they were cold blooded, like reptiles. Of course for large ones this was always a problem. Once the information started to come in that they were warm blooded, for example the existence of feathers on dinosaurs they had a moment and realized of course they were warm blooded. That gets rid of the problem of apatosaurus being able to move for a short part of the day under ideal conditions. It explained the internal bone structure they found on the few fossil bones that they dared to cut open.

Science does not have all of the answers at once, they have to work for answers.

So in all likelihood, the ones they are claiming are reptile that the dinosaur came from, are in reality mammals as well. Which means they no longer have any evidence any mammal evolved from a reptile, because in reality they have no clue as to what was once reptile and what was once mammal. They are simply guessing, like they guessed with the dinosaur, and incorrectly at that.

No, again, just no. Have all of the creationists lost at least ten IQ points today? All of their arguments have taken a huge step down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose one could come up with the triple nested hierarchy and the crossed over nested hierarchy or the quadruple nested hierarchy to account for the problems with it.

The real problem is that evolution has to do leaps, jumps and cross weaving explanations just to try to make the theory work.

Again, wrong just wrong. Why do you keep making these foolish unsupported claims?

 

[EternalDragon]

Again, wrong just wrong. Why do you keep making these foolish unsupported claims?

From science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From science.

Wrong again. You misread science. Don't blame science for your shortcomings.

 

[Skaloop]

I suppose one could come up with the triple nested hierarchy and the crossed over nested hierarchy or the quadruple nested hierarchy to account for the problems with it.

Perhaps. But not so far. And the double-nested hierarchy was not developed to account for problems with the single-nested hierarchy; it was to expand on it. The single-nested hierarchy was in existence before modern genetics was even a thing. Then modern genetics was a thing, so they checked that nested hierarchy. And it matched up with the forst hierarchy, so it became a double nested hierarchy.

The real problem is that evolution has to do leaps, jumps and cross weaving explanations just to try to make the theory work.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it's not. They may now be considered warm-blooded, but certainly not mammals. Even if they were warm-blooded, that does not violate a nested hierarchy.

It violates it totally, because you believed pre-dinosuar reptiles became dinosaur reptiles, then suddenly those dinosaur reptiles were no longer reptile. This means what went before was likely not reptile, or what went before that. Because the dinosaur evolved from nothing, but is fully formed in every fossil you have.

No, the one based on morphology and genetics. Can you offer a definition of the nested hierarchy in your own words or not?

So now you have dinosuar DNA? Jurrasic Park fantasies. Some samples that might be hemin, but none can be tested genetically. You have NEVER tested a dinosaur genetically, so do not even use the word genetics when you discuss dinosaurs. And do not even use the word morphology because all dinosaurs are fully formed, kind after kind after kind.

You people got a lot of nerve to claim as evidence things based on no evidence at all.

How is that not revision?

Your entire hierarchy is based upon false reasoning, upon the incorrect belief dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. You required a complete different timeline to go from reptile to mammal. Now the dinosaurs have thrown off that timeline by hundreds of millions of years, because now they are not reptiles.

This calls into question their claimed ancestor, as to whether they are actual reptiles or mammals, further blurring your timeline of evolutionary change. You have never observed a reptile become a mammal, a mammal become a reptile, or either of them become an aves. You have never observed a dog become anything other than a dog, despite your claim of evolution. Genetic tests only confirm that all dogs are of the same species, as all cats are of the same species.

You have no genetic claims to evolution any more than you have a fossil claim, or a hierarchy claim. Except ones based upon false assumptions from the start. Your entire hierachy has already fallen, you just fail to recognize the facts, instead prefering to play with Fairie Dust, in your evolution and your cosmology.

 

[Skaloop]

It violates it totally, because you believed pre-dinosuar reptiles became dinosaur reptiles, then suddenly those dinosaur reptiles were no longer reptile. This means what went before was likely not reptile, or what went before that. Because the dinosaur evolved from nothing, but is fully formed in every fossil you have.





So now you have dinosuar DNA? Jurrasic Park fantasies. Some samples that might be hemin, but none can be tested genetically. You have NEVER tested a dinosaur genetically, so do not even use the word genetics when you discuss dinosaurs. And do not even use the word morphology because all dinosaurs are fully formed, kind after kind after kind.

You people got a lot of nerve to claim as evidence things based on no evidence at all.




Your entire hierarchy is based upon false reasoning, upon the incorrect belief dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. You required a complete different timeline to go from reptile to mammal. Now the dinosaurs have thrown off that timeline by hundreds of millions of years, because now they are not reptiles.

This calls into question their claimed ancestor, as to whether they are actual reptiles or mammals, further blurring your timeline of evolutionary change. You have never observed a reptile become a mammal, a mammal become a reptile, or either of them become an aves. You have never observed a dog become anything other than a dog, despite your claim of evolution. Genetic tests only confirm that all dogs are of the same species, as all cats are of the same species.

You have no genetic claims to evolution any more than you have a fossil claim, or a hierarchy claim. Except ones based upon false assumptions from the start. Your entire hierachy has already fallen, you just fail to recognize the facts, instead prefering to play with Fairie Dust, in your evolution and your cosmology.

 

[lasthero]

You have NEVER tested a dinosaur genetically

Yes, we have.

This means what went before was likely not reptile

No, it was a reptile.

because all dinosaurs are fully formed

All animals are fully formed. No one ever said any different. Each animal is complete in itself.

You people got a lot of nerve to claim as evidence things based on no evidence at all.

There is evidence. That you don't like the evidence or disagree is inconsequential.

Your entire hierarchy is based upon false reasoning

No, it's not.

Now the dinosaurs have thrown off that timeline by hundreds of millions of years, because now they are not reptiles.

No, they're still reptiles. What else would they be, fungi?

This calls into question their claimed ancestor

No, it doesn't.

You have got to be the most rambling poster I've ever met on the net. I've never met anyone who said so much and yet still managed to say so little. Brevity is the soul of wit, you know.

 

[EternalDragon]

Wrong again. You misread science. Don't blame science for your shortcomings.

Same to you.

 

[Split Rock]

I did not at all bring it up as a blow against evolution. If you look back someone gave an example of something that would disprove evolution. I produced an possible candidate for an example.

Which was an attempt to use it as an example that evolution was wrong.

What you posted about it would have it not fit in with a nest hierarchy. This is true with other creatures as well. Someone said disproving the nested hierarchy would disprove evolution. Yet you guys just seem to try to explain all of the rather obvious evidence away.

Oh but it does fit into the nested hierarchy. As I said, mammals evolved from reptiles. Here is its place in the nested hierarchy: (see: "Evolution") Platypus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose one could come up with the triple nested hierarchy and the crossed over nested hierarchy or the quadruple nested hierarchy to account for the problems with it.

Non sequiter. Your facts are uncoordinated.

The real problem is that evolution has to do leaps, jumps and cross weaving explanations just to try to make the theory work.

No, it the facts all fit together quite well with evolution. Its kind of like a large puzzle. Some pieces are still missing, but you can tell it is Mount Rushmore and not the Eiffel Tower. It explains the panda's thumb. It explains why there are unique species on isolated island chains. It explains why embryos have tails and legs when the adults do not. It explains the fossil record. Your creationism/I.D. explains nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same to you.

Wrong. To a sane person I can explain evolution. At least half of your problem is that your explanation for the theory of evolution comes from lying creationist sites. You still refer to them even after you have been shown some of their open lies. They even openly admit that they will ignore the truth if necessary.

AiG, Creation.com, and other sites openly admit that they are not scientific. Most Christians can't see it, but that is exactly what they do. You can't do science that way.

 

[Split Rock]

From science.

No. You didn't do any science to come to the conclusions that you have concerning the age of the earth, or the diversity and distribution of life on earth. At least admit that much.