What Horses?

[Naraoia]

See what I mean..already going around in circles.

You say "By the way by the way: do you mind if I hazard a guess as to why early horse/tapir ancestors look superficially more tapir-like than horse-like?'"

You see this kind of comment will get us nowhere. What is observed is huge variety in many species such as mankind, dogs and horses. Yet they are not only the same kind they are also the same species, despite the differences. Evolutionists have to use words like race and breed to cover over would ultimately be 'different species' if found in strata only a few millions years old. The strawman is obvious.

Species, race, breed, the terms are irrelevant. What is important is the variation itself, not the labels we stick on it.

Whatever is your point anyway? Yes, dogs (one biological species) show more morphological variation than many entire genera. Yes, if we found modern dog breeds as fossils, we'd likely classify them into dozens of species - if not genera. Is this huge amount of variation somehow supposed to disprove evolution?

Given your propensity to latch onto any sort of disagreement in the scientific community, I'm sure you are aware that "species" is hardly a well-defined, universal constant of nature.

Changes in beak size and colour do not demonstrate how some Hyrax type creature became a horse and rhino at all...

Nope, that's for the fossils. Do you seriously expect hyraxes to turn into, I don't know, elephants, over the duration of recorded human history? I think your sense of scale needs some calibration, then.

...and neither does the allele frequency changes prevalent in an adaptive expression of genes.

I don't even know what this means.

What is observed in breed and races supports huge variety in the same kind and even species. Dog breeding and what we see in nature today supports limits to adaptation.

Variety supports limits to adaptation?

Species become extinct they do not waddle back to the sea and many are not adapting fast enought to survive climate change no matter how fit they are, and nor will humans with rising oceans.

(1) Fitness is context-dependent.
(2) Fitness in one environment doesn't equal adaptability. In fact, specialisation can be detrimental to adaptability. (Example: polar marine fauna. Brilliantly adapted to near-freezing seas, often die if you heat them up even slightly. If their habitats started warming [ha-ha...], they'd be much less likely to last long enough to adapt than a generalist with greater thermal tolerance.)
(3) Saying that species go extinct therefore evolution didn't happen is kind of nonsensical. If evolution from protocells to dragonflies did happen, you wouldn't classify all the steps as a single species, would you?

Catastrophes support the lucky not the fittest.

Quite true. Not all of earth history is catastrophes, though.

Do you think some of mankind will split off and become mermaids in time with rising oceans?????

No. Your point?

The point is this...

The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth.

"The horse" being Equus caballus.

Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, determined through a method of analysis called cladistics, which has shown evolution to be a more complex, branching history, much like the genealogical history of your own family.

The Evolution of Horses

There were other horse lineages that didn't survive into the present? Horse evolution was not a linear march of progress towards one and only one goal?

I still don't understand why that is supposed to shock me or invalidate evolution.

While evolutionists offer any evolving scenario to align with whatever you find that falsifies your previously 'irrefuteable evidence' for horse ancestry, I'd say you are wasting your time and are only offering flavour of the month.

How does the existence of other horse lineages falsify the evolution of genus Equus from small, many-toed, forest-dwelling creatures?

Evolutionary researchers never let observation or science get in the way of a great story.

If only it were that easy.

There are many traits that are homoplasic and convergent.

Homoplasy and convergence do not make sense except in the light of evolution. Don't rely on concepts you don't believe in

Mammary glands are the best identifier of a mammal. Fossils cannot demonstrate this.

Best, but not the only

However since you mentioned hair, let's just take a look at just what suggests that hair is actually a mammalian trait.

From the Cover: Identification of reptilian genes encoding hair keratin-like proteins suggests a new scenario for the evolutionary origin of hair

"Our data show that cysteine-rich α-keratins are not restricted to mammals and suggest that the evolution of mammalian hair involved the co-option of pre-existing structural proteins."

It is assumed that the 'common ancestor' had this a-keratin but did not express it as hair. Can you please refute these statements: The supposed common ancestor of lizards, chickens and humans had hair this is why e-keratins are present in such distant species and retained in mankind, and could not possibly be homoplasic.

I cannot, other than making an argument from extant phylogenetic bracketing. And neither can you, or anyone, support it unless they find a stem-amniote with fossilised hair or something.

Having one of the genes for making hair doesn't mean squat, by the way. Hair is not just cysteine-rich alpha-keratins, it's a whole developmental program deployed in a specific context. Does having distal paired appendages patterned by inverse collinear expression of posterior Hox genes mean your ancestors had hands and feet? This was only discovered in fish a few years ago, after all! And it's not just one gene, it's a whole battery of them expressed in a specific way!

Heck no. And bony skeletons fossilise rather better than hair.

That's the difference between having some genes for a trait and having a trait.

Therefore hair means nothing as far as being an indication of inclusion in the clade of mammals, unless the common ancestor of humans and lizards was also a mammal.

I missed the part where hair keratin implies a hairy Ur-amniote.

Lizards, chickens and humans have this e-keratin for Hair. The story goes that these were expressed more strongly in the digits in lizards. Do whales have this e-keratin? Have a guess.

Yes? (Your point?)

Of all whales only some have hair. So can you please define for the forum just how much hair one needs to have to meet the criteria of mammal?

It doesn't need a single hair. It merely needs to be demonstrably descended from animals with it.

Can you also explain why the whales that do not have hair are still classified as mammals.

It's that pesky "cladistics" thing you brought up WRT horses. You do understand what clades are, don't you?


Loudmouth, you still crack me up. Great to come back to this after my extended Christmas break

 

[Woden84]

Astrid, thanks for demonstrating so thoroughly that creationists are just as ridiculous as someone asking for proof that horses exist.

 

[Astridhere]

Species, race, breed, the terms are irrelevant. What is important is the variation itself, not the labels we stick on it.

No what is important is that if evos called races different species they would be laughed at. Yet the difference in races is often more than what you class as a different species eg Beak size.

Whatever is your point anyway? Yes, dogs (one biological species) show more morphological variation than many entire genera. Yes, if we found modern dog breeds as fossils, we'd likely classify them into dozens of species - if not genera. Is this huge amount of variation somehow supposed to disprove evolution?
Again the point is that the genetic variation in dogs will not allow breeding as large as an elephant. yet a bacteria poofed in to an elephant. Yours is a nonsense that does not align with observation
Given your propensity to latch onto any sort of disagreement in the scientific community, I'm sure you are aware that "species" is hardly a well-defined, universal constant of nature.
I have plenty of disagreement to choose from. The only thing your reserchers agree on is 'it all evolved'.
Nope, that's for the fossils. Do you seriously expect hyraxes to turn into, I don't know, elephants, over the duration of recorded human history? I think your sense of scale needs some calibration, then.
You think a bacteria turned into an elephant. If a princes kisses a frog that turns into a man you call it a fairytale. If a bacteria turns into an elephant you call it evolution but I still call it a fairytale
I don't even know what this means.

Variety supports limits to adaptation?

No observation supports limits to variation

(1) Fitness is context-dependent. Rubbish. An erv is indicated in sustaining mammalian preganacy.A virus generally reduces fitness. It is that simple
(2) Fitness in one environment doesn't equal adaptability. In fact, specialisation can be detrimental to adaptability. (Example: polar marine fauna. Brilliantly adapted to near-freezing seas, often die if you heat them up even slightly. If their habitats started warming [ha-ha...], they'd be much less likely to last long enough to adapt than a generalist with greater thermal tolerance.) says flavour of the month.,,and so what?
(3) Saying that species go extinct therefore evolution didn't happen is kind of nonsensical. If evolution from protocells to dragonflies did happen, you wouldn't classify all the steps as a single species, would you?
Too bad habilis did not know they should have died out because they did not have the advantage erectus supposedly did.
Quite true. Not all of earth history is catastrophes, though.

No. Your point?

"The horse" being Equus caballus.

There were other horse lineages that didn't survive into the present? Horse evolution was not a linear march of progress towards one and only one goal?
So say you now after 150 years
I still don't understand why that is supposed to shock me or invalidate evolution.
I am not falsifing evolution. Evolution may be true it is just that flavour of the month will never be evidence for it. I am arguing that crearionist theories canot be worse than the convoluted changing mess you offer as support. that is a different argument. Neither creation nor evolution are falsifiable. However evolutionary supports themselves are falsified leaving only 'it all evolved because evolutionists say so'.
How does the existence of other horse lineages falsify the evolution of genus Equus from small, many-toed, forest-dwelling creatures?
Again I am not saying it falsified anything. I am saying that the new paradigm should not be shoved into crearionist faces like as if anyone that does not accept any new flavour of the month is an idiot or ignorant.
If only it were that easy.

Homoplasy and convergence do not make sense except in the light of evolution. Don't rely on concepts you don't believe in
Design due to the one creator does not require such nonsense terms
Best, but not the only

I cannot, other than making an argument from extant phylogenetic bracketing. And neither can you, or anyone, support it unless they find a stem-amniote with fossilised hair or something.

Having one of the genes for making hair doesn't mean squat, by the way. Hair is not just cysteine-rich alpha-keratins, it's a whole developmental program deployed in a specific context. Does having distal paired appendages patterned by inverse collinear expression of posterior Hox genes mean your ancestors had hands and feet? This was only discovered in fish a few years ago, after all! And it's not just one gene, it's a whole battery of them expressed in a specific way!
Darls Jelly fish have neural networks and it means nothing. I have already posted the differences apparent between a chimp and a human and that comparisons are futile, unless you pick and choose what you compare and ignore the differences. Hence any comparison is biased straw grabbing
Heck no. And bony skeletons fossilise rather better than hair.
If you look in the mirror and see a hairy ape, I give you my sincere best wishes. hair does not fosssilize well. Hence there is no reason to suggest that a hugely sexually dimorphic erectus, comparative to a gorilla, was not carrying a fur coat just like any other ape. Your researchers speculate this was the case..
That's the difference between having some genes for a trait and having a trait.
Your researchers have no idea what they are talking about. They would be thankfull they do not get fired for previous falsification or there would not be many of them left in the lab.
I missed the part where hair keratin implies a hairy Ur-amniote.

Yes? (Your point?)

It doesn't need a single hair. It merely needs to be demonstrably descended from animals with it.

It's that pesky "cladistics" thing you brought up WRT horses. You do understand what clades are, don't you?
Horses are a kind and it about time your researchers gave away the linnaeus system and followed creationsist ideas.

Loudmouth, you still crack me up. Great to come back to this after my extended Christmas break
Loudmouth cracks me up also. Especially when he suggested Turkana Boy may be a combination of individuals, of course going right against the flavour of the month evo researchers are suggesting. Loudmouth actually agreed with me even though he does not realise it.

You are not getting the point at all. Re horses for example you lot cannot shove your old pictures of gradual increase in size in creationsts faces one day and suggest it is solid evidence that only a fool would deny, then change your mind and suggest this new paradign above is any more credible


Cladistics are more in line with kind, a creationist notion, than species and I am glad to see evos are finally paying attention.

Your theory is chaotic and contradictory and anything goes. Single fossils change current thinking and have done so on more than one occasion. That is fine with you and you call this further clarity. However to suggest that evolutionary theory is more credible than any creationist paradign is an outright misrepresentation.

Flavour of the month will never be evidence in my eyes. Neither will a plethora of flavours of the month strung together ever be credible.

Creationist theories and interpretations simply cannot be worse that the flavours of month presented by evolutionists many of which reside in the great rubbish bin of evolutionary falsifications past. Maybe one day you will actually start to find evidence that supports the status quo without new surprises popping up and changing your thinking. At the moment that is not the case.

I suggest that evolutionists have no basis to ridicule creationists. Creationist theories simply cannot be worse that evolutionary ones. That does not mean you should go and start clapping hands. However it does mean creationists are worthy of respect and are no more ignorant than evolutionists consider themselves to be.

 

[Astridhere]

Astrid, thanks for demonstrating so thoroughly that creationists are just as ridiculous as someone asking for proof that horses exist.

Thankyou for resorting to nonsense as means of demonstrating you have nothing of value to add to the conversation

 

[Psudopod]

I suggest that evolutionists have no basis to ridicule creationists. Creationist theories simply cannot be worse that evolutionary ones. That does not mean you should go and start clapping hands. However it does mean creationists are worthy of respect and are no more ignorant than evolutionists consider themselves to be.

So what's the creationist explaination for nested heirachy? For the fact all vertebrate are tetrapod? For atavisitic traits like tails in humans and legs in whales? For the human 2 chromosome? If creationism is going to be considered an equal explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, it needs to have equivalent explaining power.

 

[CabVet]

So what's the creationist explaination for nested heirachy? For the fact all vertebrate are tetrapod? For atavisitic traits like tails in humans and legs in whales? For the human 2 chromosome? If creationism is going to be considered an equal explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, it needs to have equivalent explaining power.

It's easy, "God did" all that. That's why it is a lot easier to understand creationism than it is to actually think about evolution and really understand it.

 

[Naraoia]

You are not getting the point at all. Re horses for example you lot cannot shove your old pictures of gradual increase in size in creationsts faces one day and suggest it is solid evidence that only a fool would deny, then change your mind and suggest this new paradign above is any more credible

You do not get the point. I can shove those same pictures - perhaps with slightly different species at each stage - in your face, because the evolutionary history of the horse, i.e. genus Equus, didn't change just because people realised it wasn't the only horse lineage around. There is still a line of transitional forms connecting something palaeothere-like to the beasts people ride today.

The point of showing creationists the horse transitional series is not to prove that evolution is linear. It is to show them transitional forms, which those creatures continue to be.

Cladistics are more in line with kind, a creationist notion, than species and I am glad to see evos are finally paying attention.

We may be, but you are certainly not if you think cladistics have anything to do with "kinds". One of the most important outcomes of doing cladistics is that there are no discrete boundaries, no boxes like in Linnaean taxonomy. The tree of life is a fractal. You can't pick a level and say, here's the limit of evolution.

I don't get what sort of twisted logic could make a "kindist" favour this over good old kingdoms and families.

Your theory is chaotic and contradictory and anything goes.

You have yet to show enough understanding of it for such a statement to carry any weight.

Single fossils change current thinking and have done so on more than one occasion. That is fine with you and you call this further clarity. However to suggest that evolutionary theory is more credible than any creationist paradign is an outright misrepresentation.

Why? Because we are capable of correcting our mistaken ideas based on evidence?

You seem to conflate levels here, by the way. There are absolutely fundamental things about evolutionary theory that hardly changed since Darwin. The fact that evolution occurs - and has occurred since life began - has been confirmed and confirmed again. Natural selection is still considered one of its most important mechanisms, although we now have a much better theoretical underpinning of it thanks to population genetics. The common ancestry of all or nearly all life forms has withstood the test of time. This is the gist of evolutionary theory. None of the changing details - the histories of specific clades, their detailed interrelationships, the new mechanisms we've discovered - affected the basic truths that evolution occurs, and it is the most likely cause of the diversity of life on earth.

Compare that with the history of evidence for special creation.

Creationist theories and interpretations simply cannot be worse that the flavours of month presented by evolutionists many of which reside in the great rubbish bin of evolutionary falsifications past. Maybe one day you will actually start to find evidence that supports the status quo without new surprises popping up and changing your thinking. At the moment that is not the case.

Depends what you mean by "status quo", as I pointed out above.

I suggest that evolutionists have no basis to ridicule creationists. Creationist theories simply cannot be worse that evolutionary ones.

Yes they can. At least we do ****loads of research and try to base our conclusions on data, not an old holy book. I'm sorry, but the two are not equivalent in any way, shape or form.

That does not mean you should go and start clapping hands. However it does mean creationists are worthy of respect and are no more ignorant than evolutionists consider themselves to be.

Creationists may be worthy of respect. Creationism, at least in the forms I've encountered it, isn't.

As for ignorance, many of us - myself included - have degrees in the life sciences, and several users on this forum work with evolution for a living. I don't doubt there are at least as many ignorant evolutionists in the wider world as creationists, but you are not talking to them here. If you wanna prove that creationists are just as knowledgeable? Perhaps if your creationist sources showed an appreciable understanding of evolution, that'd go a long way.

By the way, if you expect some sort of respect for your beliefs, it would perhaps be good practice to give others' the same. Just sayin'.

I seem to remember that our history with each other started with a fairly polite and well-intentioned post on my part. Even in this thread, I mostly held back the snark.

But sometimes, it's hard to see a point any more.

 

[Naraoia]

So what's the creationist explaination for nested heirachy? For the fact all vertebrate are tetrapod?

All the fishies are feeling kind of excluded now

 

[Astridhere]

So what's the creationist explaination for nested heirachy? For the fact all vertebrate are tetrapod? For atavisitic traits like tails in humans and legs in whales? For the human 2 chromosome? If creationism is going to be considered an equal explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, it needs to have equivalent explaining power.

I did not think and evolutionist could maange to discern a simple point.

There is no use going on and on and on and speaking to anything your theory has to offer.

I do not have to come up with better than you and you have a mess.

Your hierarchies are an evolutionary construct where you initially tied the sharing of traits to common ancestry. Now you know that is not correct and have invented terms to resolve annomolies.

Do you know the ends of the two chromosomes that make up Ch2 are not identical at all? say No..and I'll find you the research.

Re tetrapods..whales and snakes are included and have no legs at all. Frogs have legs like mankind..so what? You invent a taxonomic system based on common ancestry then use a self invented classification as evidence and hand wave away annomolies. God had to give legs and verterbra to species and many traits supposedly evolved independently in various lineages, much to evolutionists dismay. Your classification system does not prove anything in relation to evolution.

Further to that the tree of life is being buried by many researchers as discussed yesterday in favour of cladistics that are in line with creationist kinds than species. As I said yesterday it is about time evos looked to creationism for some good ideas.

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

Baleen Whale Phylogeny and a Past Extensive Radiation Event Revealed by SINE Insertion Analysis

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf


Whale phylogeny is a mess and researchers are having to come up with all sorts of nonsense and straw grabbing to resolve it. You have evo researchers doubting the dino to bird thing. You have found that really the chimp genome has stuff all similarity to the human genome and comparisons are almost impossible... and really new flavours of the month resolve nothing. After your evo history why should anyone believe anything that is offered up that could be falsified tomorrow.

I cannot explain how God created but neither can you demonstrate how dead elements poofed into a complex and living factory.

You say a half witted ape could make fire, a complex task. I say this is a delusion because fire lighting is a complex task that requires higher reasoning ability that erectus simply did not have. I feel I have the upper hand but still my theory is unfalsifiable and in line with observation more than your assertion that dim wits can perform complex tasks.

What you have is a mess and I have no intention of facing off theory against theory because nothing in evolutionary theory is unchallenged except 'it all evolved', which is no better than 'God did it'.

I do not have to demonstrate creationist theories are better than yours, although I think they are. For my point to be made I just have to demonstrate that your evo supports are delusionary, and ever changing, with single fossils changing the status quo, (eg, knuclewalking ancestry gone as well as 150 years of evidence for it) which I have. Therefore creationists assertions and supports can be no worse than evolutionists and we are free to hand wave away anything like you lot do, and cherry pick research that I choose to align with.

You lot will never be able to understand my point because if you do many of you evos, especially atheists, will loose the basis for why you get about on Christian forums, which is to pass your time ridiculing creationists and feeling superior which is a myth.

 

[Naraoia]

I did not think and evolutionist could maange to discern a simple point.

Bam, there goes any right you might have had to "respect".

There is no use going on and on and on and speaking to anything your theory has to offer.

I do not have to come up with better than you and you have a mess.

You do have to come up with at least as good if, you know, you want to claim than your theory is no worse than ours...

Your hierarchies are an evolutionary construct where you initially tied the sharing of traits to common ancestry.

My hierarchies were invented by creationists classifying God's creation.

Now you know that is not correct and have invented terms to resolve annomolies.

Whatever are you talking about?

Do you know the ends of the two chromosomes that make up Ch2 are not identical at all? say No..and I'll find you the research.

Why should the ends of two chromosomes be identical? Wha'?

(In case anyone needs a nice, concise, visual demonstration of the chromosome 2 situation - here is how obvious the relationship is. Feel free to play with the synteny tool, it's quite instructive.)

Re tetrapods..whales and snakes are included and have no legs at all. Frogs have legs like mankind..so what? You invent a taxonomic system based on common ancestry then use a self invented classification as evidence and hand wave away annomolies.

It's official: you really do not get cladistics.

Individual traits are data points for inferring phylogeny. They, aside from the rare exception of apomorphy-based clades, do not define clades, and they are NEVER required for membership of a clade.

Also, have you ever seen the inside of a flipper?

God had to give legs and verterbra to species and many traits supposedly evolved independently in various lineages, much to evolutionists dismay. Your classification system does not prove anything in relation to evolution.

This is all I can say.

Further to that the tree of life is being buried by many researchers as discussed yesterday in favour of cladistics that are in line with creationist kinds than species.

*Channels Inigo Montoya*

As I said yesterday it is about time evos looked to creationism for some good ideas.

Last time they did, it wasn't looking so good for creationism.

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

Because the Telegraph is a calmly factual, reliable source of science news.

In this case, it is actually quite far behind the times. Hybrid speciation, endosymbiosis and horizontal gene transfer have been on the table for decades, even if we didn't quite realise how common they were. And to say that this renders the tree of life "obsolete" and "wrong" is a gross overstatement. The tree of life is about as obsolete as Newtonian mechanics after relativity. In other words, still a decent approximation and incredibly useful in many circumstances.

Baleen Whale Phylogeny and a Past Extensive Radiation Event Revealed by SINE Insertion Analysis

The problem being???

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

Ah, is the second one the press release in which John Ruben blatantly misrepresents his own paper? If you read the paper, IIRC it doesn't even mention the origin of birds. Also, by their logic, birds couldn't have evolved from anything. (In any case, shortly after that paper someone discovered that alligators have flow-through lungs. Without the fancy air-sac system or the fixed thighs. Oops?)

You have evo researchers doubting the dino to bird thing.

You have nutcases in every field.

You have found that really the chimp genome has stuff all similarity to the human genome and comparisons are almost impossible...

Whaaat?

I cannot explain how God created but neither can you demonstrate how dead elements poofed into a complex and living factory.

It may be time for you to start reading into abiogenesis. I particularly recommend Jack Szostak's stuff (protocells! From simple lipids! Grow and divide on their own! Self-replicating nucleic acids inside!), but if you look around the world of ribozymes, you'll see some pretty neat discoveries as well.

Oh, and space is full of organic matter. Murchison meteorite, anyone?

You say a half witted ape could make fire, a complex task. I say this is a delusion because fire lighting is a complex task that requires higher reasoning ability

Does it?

that erectus simply did not have.

Didn't it?

I feel I have the upper hand but still my theory is unfalsifiable and in line with observation more than your assertion that dim wits can perform complex tasks.

I don't think you give other species enough credit.

You can read this paper if you want, but if it's tl;dr, just read the description of video S1 and watch the video (which is where my link leads). Are these birds dimwits incapable of doing complex tasks?

You lot will never be able to understand my point because if you do many of you evos, especially atheists, will loose the basis for why you get about on Christian forums, which is to pass your time ridiculing creationists and feeling superior which is a myth.

Terribly sorry about that giant chip you have on your shoulder.

Let me remind you again that I didn't start by ridiculing you. I started by trying to explain my side in the best of faith.

 

[Woden84]

Thankyou for resorting to nonsense as means of demonstrating you have nothing of value to add to the conversation

How is it nonsense? You've used the same tactics as Loudmouth has when he's asking for proof that horses exist. And yeah, I have nothing of value to add since others have already addressed your points, and they've probably done it better than I could.

 

[Naraoia]

By the way, the tree/web of life problem seems to highlight a common dilemma I face as a trainee scientist trying to communicate with people with, er, less than stellar science educations.

If you're talking to a person outside your field - including other scientists! - you've got to simplify. There is no way Bill from Pickletillum is going to appreciate all the nuances and caveats that you are intimately familiar with. If he isn't a scientist or a statistician, he's probably not going to have a grasp of degrees of (un)certainty and stuff like that. He might think you either know something or don't, and if you know X, why doesn't every data point line up? Chances are, all he's going to get out of the long-winded explanation is that you don't really know what you claim to know.

So how much do you simplify?

Do you stick with the tree? Do you mention non-tree-like evolution but brush it aside as just a little noise (which, frankly, it mostly is in my field*)? Is there a point in getting into all the weird twists and explaining why they don't falsify evolution?

*Exceptions, as always. This one is kind of important, for example.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore...

 

[Naraoia]

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore...

Not horses

 

[Psudopod]

There is no use going on and on and on and speaking to anything your theory has to offer.

I do not have to come up with better than you and you have a mess.

Yes you do. If you are going to claim creationism is as worthwhile as evolution, then it has to have at least the same explainatory powers. And no, Goddidit isn't an explanation.

Your hierarchies are an evolutionary construct where you initially tied the sharing of traits to common ancestry. Now you know that is not correct and have invented terms to resolve annomolies.

Examples of things genetically out of place in the hiearchy? Morphology sometimes isn't enough, because similar phenotypes can appear from different genotypes.

Do you know the ends of the two chromosomes that make up Ch2 are not identical at all? say No..and I'll find you the research.

Did I say they should be identical?

Re tetrapods..whales and snakes are included and have no legs at all. Frogs have legs like mankind..so what? You invent a taxonomic system based on common ancestry then use a self invented classification as evidence and hand wave away annomolies. God had to give legs and verterbra to species and many traits supposedly evolved independently in various lineages, much to evolutionists dismay. Your classification system does not prove anything in relation to evolution.

Not generally visible legs (though atavisms do happen) but if you look at the skeletal structure...

[/quote=astridhere]Further to that the tree of life is being buried by many researchers as discussed yesterday in favour of cladistics that are in line with creationist kinds than species. As I said yesterday it is about time evos looked to creationism for some good ideas.
[/quote]

Cladistics is nothing to do with kinds. Creationists cannot even give a decent definition for what a kind is and how you tell what kind a creature belongs to. And the tree of life has not been falsified by cladistics, it was always a metaphore more than a map.

I cannot explain how God created but neither can you demonstrate how dead elements poofed into a complex and living factory.

A switch of topics, but anyways... We might not have the full story on abiogenesis, but there's internesting work being done - look into the formation of protocells for example. Amino acids have been found in space, so the building blocks of life are already out there. Not that abiogenesis is anything to do with evolution, and even if it was shown to be false there would be no consequences for ToE.

You say a half witted ape could make fire, a complex task. I say this is a delusion because fire lighting is a complex task that requires higher reasoning ability that erectus simply did not have. I feel I have the upper hand but still my theory is unfalsifiable and in line with observation more than your assertion that dim wits can perform complex tasks.

Tool use is common in apes (as well as some birds), fire can happen quite with out intervention, but if you believe what you like. Just don't think the rest of us will consider your incredulousness as evidence.

What you have is a mess and I have no intention of facing off theory against theory because nothing in evolutionary theory is unchallenged except 'it all evolved', which is no better than 'God did it'.

Except evolution explains things, whereas creationism has to resort to "Godjustdiditlikethat".

 

[Astridhere]

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore...

It is about Loudmouth being unsure and confused why an ape, rabbit, human, dog, mouse and a cow can't be mammals unless they are closely related.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes you do. If you are going to claim creationism is as worthwhile as evolution, then it has to have at least the same explainatory powers. And no, Goddidit isn't an explanation.

I should not have to but indeed I have. You either have no memory retention or choose to ignore it. That is your problem. You lot just go on and on and on saying we produce nothing when indeed I have produced much. From my interpretations of erectus, to whales, birds all demonstrating no intermediates, supposed ancestors predating decendants, all of which support no intermediates which is a creationist prediction.

I think when evos have nothing left to say in refute they just start at the beginning again.....


Examples of things genetically out of place in the hiearchy? Morphology sometimes isn't enough, because similar phenotypes can appear from different genotypes.

How can you possibly classify ancient species when you have no idea even what they are. Do you seriously think that the twoddle evolutionary researchers come up with means anything. Lovey, these researchers ignore differences and assume huge stretches of deletions and insertions, rearrangements, and more and more differences arising every day supports ancestry, on the back of actually having no ancient DNA from a common ancestor.

You do not even know what this assumed common ancestor looked like much less what its' DNA was composed of.

Morphologically the orang shares more morphology with mankind than a chimp. Where are your hierarchies now?

Seriously algorithmic magic and excuses will never be science,

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist

Your hierarchies are a nonsense and so are your tetrapod whales and modern birds that predate their supposed ancestors.



Did I say they should be identical?

You mentioned chromosome 2 in an example. It is a rubbish and misrepresented comparison like the rest.

TOE has no predictive capability. You can say what ever you want that suits. There is a plethora of controversy to choose from to support anything you want.

Not generally visible legs (though atavisms do happen) but if you look at the skeletal structure...

Is that so. Well here is one evo researcher that disagrees with you by finding precambrian tiny footprints.

"Scientists once thought that it was primarily microbes and simple multicellular animals that existed prior to the Cambrian, but that notion is changing, explained Loren Babcock, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University."
Earliest Animal Footprints Ever Found Show Animals Walking 30 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought


Cladistics is nothing to do with kinds. Creationists cannot even give a decent definition for what a kind is and how you tell what kind a creature belongs to. And the tree of life has not been falsified by cladistics, it was always a metaphore more than a map.
Oh and I suppose you can give a decent definition of species here today let alone extinct ones you have no real idea about.

A kind are the descendents of the initial creation of God.

A kind is separated from another kind by discontinuity of morphology and holistic genomic differences. eg Chimps are knucklewalkers and therefore have a major discontinuity with mankind and are therefore not the same kind. All apes have a thick fur coat, mankind does not, therefore apes are discontinuous with mankind and apes have continuity between them and hence are the same kind, the same for the Y chromosome, and so on and so forth. I get to choose my own criteria that suits me just like evolutionists do to turn man into an ape.

You lot do not have all the answers so to keep trying to pin me is not going to get you anywhere. Expecting more that you can provide is hypocritical and to rest your credibility on 150 years of change and falsifications is not going to get you anywhere either.



A switch of topics, but anyways... We might not have the full story on abiogenesis, but there's internesting work being done - look into the formation of protocells for example. Amino acids have been found in space, so the building blocks of life are already out there. Not that abiogenesis is anything to do with evolution, and even if it was shown to be false there would be no consequences for ToE.
Of course evos had to separate abiogenesis because it is so ridiculous. The point being 'primitive cells' have never been observed. That, my dear, is the fact...and complex factories have never assembled themselves as far as I have observed.


Tool use is common in apes (as well as some birds), fire can happen quite with out intervention, but if you believe what you like. Just don't think the rest of us will consider your incredulousness as evidence.

However, you lot are suggesting intervention. That is exactly what fire lighting ability means. Non human apes run from fire. Fire is made either by stick rubbing or the use of flint, both require higher reasoning ability and complex thought that a half wit cannot negotiate. Erectus is hugely sexually dimorphic and you lot reckon he could perform complex tasks instead running away. Good for you. However my theory is also unfalsifiable and I have to say appears to be more plausible and in line with observation than a half wit performing complex tasks.

Hence, if you actually have evidence of use of fire, rather than a nonsense straw grab, what you have found is evidence of modern mankind being around with erectus, but in too few a minority to be found as yet. modern mankind is the only species capable of performing the complex task of fire lighting and control of fire.

So here is another way I can interpret the data to suit my creationist paradigm. That interpretation is also called evidence.

Except evolution explains things, whereas creationism has to resort to "Godjustdiditlikethat".
Actually I think many evolutionists are hypocrites that demand a higher level of substantiation from creationists than they can provide themselves with their flavour of the months and continual changes.

I have provided as good an interpretation as evidence as your nonsense where the only thing evo researchers agree on is "It all evolved". That is no better than "God did it" as far as I am concerned.

Darls, you have played with me on enough threads to know what I have had to say.

I have been over and over my interpretations and they are as unfalsifiable as yours.

You cannot falisify anything I say. The best you can do is provide your own flavour of the month as a refute that may be tossed aside tomorrow and is likely challenged by some creative evolutionary story teller..

For example if I say the huge disimilarity found between the chimp and human genome, including the Y chromosome is evidence of mankind not being related to chimps. It is as unfalisifaible as your saying that regardless of what percentage similarity is found you will assert ancestry be it 1%, 6%, 30% or 70% difference.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

If I suggest that erectus with the huge sexual dimorphism, your researchers have found, and the resulting ape like behaviour that goes along with it, means these were simply apes without chins, without sophisticated language and abstract thought and higher reasoning ability, that is my theory. You cannot falsify it with any of your flavour of the months. I have produced research to sugget Lucy is not human and neother is Ardi. I am free to cherry pick the research I want to use and that which I ignore just like evos. Hence no intermediates is a creationist prediction and my theory or any other could be no worse that evolutionists 150 years of falsifications.

You also cannot evoke what is or is not common scientific knowledge because this has been wrong plenty of times before eg knuckle walking ancestry, apey Neanderthal, LUCA, Junk DNA, bipedalism tied to brain size etc etc.

If I say

Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus’ ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus that evos assert in desperation. You cannot falsify this with any more than straw grabbing.

When we look at what evos are proposing it can be seen that in any case such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantagious. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.

So there are no intermediates and whales apper in the fossil record as a creationist would expect.

So here again is evidence of creation. The first whale with no intermediates, just other kinds of terrestrial mammals.

If I invent my own criteria for kinds I am as free to do so as you lot.

So, my dear, in fact I can and have produced supportive theories and interpretations as evidence, just as good as yours. Just because you do not like them means little and is of course expected.

This thread is a spoof and based on Loudmouths inability to discern a non human ape from an ape nor a mammal from an ape or horse. Poor lad.

Creationist theories and interpretations cannot possibly be worse than evolutionary theories and interpretations.

Evolutionary scientists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[Tiberius]

It is about Loudmouth being unsure and confused why an ape, rabbit, human, dog, mouse and a cow can't be mammals unless they are closely related.

Well, a rabbit is more closely related to a cow than it is to a lizard...

 

[Astridhere]

How is it nonsense? You've used the same tactics as Loudmouth has when he's asking for proof that horses exist. And yeah, I have nothing of value to add since others have already addressed your points, and they've probably done it better than I could.

I have presented evidence. You have presented an opinion which in the grand scheme of things is nonsense. Bla bla really means nothing. Not liking my interpretations also means nothing. Saying I am wrong means nothing without backing.

Lets look at whales. I say what you lot produce is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever heard. I say there are no transitionals and that supoports creation. Below are my reasonings. Evolutionary researchers have found three distinct kinds and misrepresented them as whale intermediates. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Basilosurus are distinct kinds. Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are not transitional whales. My reasonings are included in the impossibility of the situation.

Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus’ ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus that evos assert in desperation. You cannot falsify this with any more than straw grabbing.

When we look at what evos are proposing it can be seen that in any case such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantagious. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.

So there are no intermediates and whales appear in the fossil record as a creationist would expect.

So instead of offering opinion or saying you are right and I am wrong because evos say so, how about doing something really novel for a change and actually refute me with scientific evidence?

 

[CabVet]

I have presented evidence. You have presented an opinion which in the grand scheme of things is nonsense. Bla bla really means nothing. Not liking my interpretations also means nothing. Saying I am wrong means nothing without backing.

Lets look at whales. I say what you lot produce is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever heard. I say there are no transitionals and that supoports creation. Below are my reasonings. Evolutionary researchers have found three distinct kinds and misrepresented them as whale intermediates. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Basilosurus are distinct kinds. Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are not transitional whales. My reasonings are included in the impossibility of the situation.

Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus’ ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus that evos assert in desperation. You cannot falsify this with any more than straw grabbing.

When we look at what evos are proposing it can be seen that in any case such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantagious. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.

So there are no intermediates and whales appear in the fossil record as a creationist would expect.

So instead of offering opinion or saying you are right and I am wrong because evos say so, how about doing something really novel for a change and actually refute me with scientific evidence?

Show me where the Bible says that Basilosaurus having an ear is support of creationism.