What proof would you need? (2)

cupid dave said:

The fact that Neanderthals genes are carried in our own bodies, as science has recently confirmed, seems to indicate that these lower forms of humanoids were instrumental in our own evolution.

Click to expand...

I disagree as does science that there can in fact be anything that qualifies as a "lower form" hominid or otherwise, the label is both misleading and homo-centric and adds little to discussion.

The evidence shows that we appeared just about 100,000 years before the 40,000 year "flood" out-of-Africa that spread Modern man over "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven."

Click to expand...

The Flood if it is any sort of metaphor is a metaphor for God's judgement, promise, and the safety found under his care. There is no need to read some pseudoscientific claptrap into the Bible, this is what you are doing because you have about as much of a grasp on science as you do theology. You say this will help Christianity, just about everyone else believes that your strange form of creationism doesn't even do better than YEC

I see that Consol is just as good at creating strawmen as any good Creationist

CabVet said:

Your post 314 is quoted above for reference. NOTHING in it is evidence for creation. The two very short times that you claim to provide evidence for creation (bolded for reference) you go on and provide alternative evolutionary scenarios, NOT evidence for creation.
Scenarios are all that evolutionists present eg the rubbish in relation to whales. You have fossils. This is data. You then have ridiculous scenarios to turn the data into an evolutionary theory. I do the same. Mine are as good as yours.
If you could somehow prove (which by no means you do), that evolution is 100% wrong, that would not be evidence for creation.
I do not have to falsify evolution. I am demonstrating that creationist interpretations of the data cannot possibly be worse than yours. You simply cannot grasp this at all, and continue to make silly posts that appear desperate and have no substance to them.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect, sidewiding and elluding. Actually you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about, really. You just make posts for the sake of it without being able to articulate an appropriate response.

Let's take one thing at time so you can keep up

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.

Your opinion means nothing to me. You will need to refute the above. However you cannot because it is unfalsifiable just like evo supports.

Refute this above, or stop bothering me with your many words that say nothing.

Astridhere said:

You are incorrect, sidewiding and elluding. Actually you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about, really. You just make posts for the sake of it without being able to articulate an appropriate response.

Let's take one thing at time so you can keep up

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.

Your opinion means nothing to me. You will need to refute the above. However you cannot because it is unfalsifiable just like evo supports.

Refute this above, or stop bothering me with your many words that say nothing.

Click to expand...

And you are saying the above is evidence for creationism? In what planet? I don't need to refute anything as you are presenting nothing. Basilosaurus possessing a typical ear is not support for creationism.

I will ask again, stop behaving like a child and present one evidence of creation by the Judeo-Christian God.

Yavash said:

When you don't have an answer, attack.

Click to expand...

Well it's always worked for you ...

CabVet said:

And you are saying the above is evidence for creationism? In what planet? I don't need to refute anything as you are presenting nothing. Basilosaurus possessing a typical ear is not support for creationism.

I will ask again, stop behaving like a child and present one evidence of creation by the Judeo-Christian God.
You are evading. No transitional fossil evidence is evidence of a creative event and exactly what creationists expect to find in the fossil evidence, pal. Sidewinding and evasion will never amount to a refute let alone a falsification of my interpretation.

Click to expand...

Darls, one of your supports for evolution is transitional fossils. So your own researchers suggest that Basilosaurus, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are the evidence for transiton from land to sea in the whale.

I have put a challenge to you, which is this...

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.

I say it is impossible due to disadvantge.

I also suggest that these are not ancestral to each other, but are very different kinds.


Above is the Pakicetus update from 2006.

There is no evolution. Indeed a chevrotain or mouse deer also has aquatic adaptations to hide from predators, the skeleton of a mouse deer looks just like Indohyus and is not closely related to whales. Go figure!

Now you have offered nothing other than your opinion. Hence you have not refuted my interpretation of the evidence. Calling me names just makes me pleased because I can see your anger and frustration at not being able to mount a suitable scientific reply. You have never ever given me an appropriate reply, ever.

I actually think you have no idea what evidence looks like, nor what you are talking about. Evos have fossils they make interpretations about, Creationists have their own interpretations. This is what evidence is all about champ. You can like it or lump it but your evasion will never amount to a refute.

What you need to do is firstly give me your flavour of the month that supports the selection of a disadvantage that renders a mid species inept at either hearing through the ear or jaws. You are unable to do it.

You can also try to find some creature in the whale line that is actually transitional and not clearly two different kinds.

In actual fact Cabvet you will be unable to refute, let alone falsify, my argument, because my interpretation of the evidence is unfalsifiable, just like evo assertions on the ridiculous possibility that an inept trait was selected for in line with all the rhetoric of selection of advantageous traits. Go ahead and try your best.

Do not come back with nothing more than insults and your non valuable opinion. If you are unable to back your own evidence for evolution against my challenge, you may as well go and play in the kids section and stay clear of your big evolutionist friends that actually have something to say.

I am bored with you, as denial, simplistic nonsense and insults appears to be all you've got to offfer,

Astridhere said:

Darls, one of your supports for evolution is transitional fossils. So your own researchers suggest that Basilosaurus, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are the evidence for transiton from land to sea in the whale.

I have put a challenge to you, which is this...

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.

I say it is impossible due to disadvantge.

I also suggest that these are not ancestral to each other, but are very different kinds.


Above is the Pakicetus update from 2006.

There is no evolution. Indeed a chevrotain or mouse deer also has aquatic adaptations to hide from predators, the skeleton of a mouse deer looks just like Indohyus and is not closely related to whales. Go figure!

Now you have offered nothing other than your opinion. Hence you have not refuted my interpretation of the evidence. Calling me names just makes me pleased because I can see your anger and frustration at not being able to mount a suitable scientific reply. You have never ever given me an appropriate reply, ever.

I actually think you have no idea what evidence looks like, nor what you are talking about. Evos have fossils they make interpretations about, Creationists have their own interpretations. This is what evidence is all about champ. You can like it or lump it but your evasion will never amount to a refute.

What you need to do is firstly give me your flavour of the month that supports the selection of a disadvantage that renders a mid species inept at either hearing through the ear or jaws. You are unable to do it.

You can also try to find some creature in the whale line that is actually transitional and not clearly two different kinds.

In actual fact Cabvet you will be unable to refute, let alone falsify, my argument, because my interpretation of the evidence is unfalsifiable, just like evo assertions on the ridiculous possibility that an inept trait was selected for in line with all the rhetoric of selection of advantageous traits. Go ahead and try your best.

Do not come back with nothing more than insults and your non valuable opinion. If you are unable to back your own evidence for evolution against my challenge, you may as well go and play in the kids section and stay clear of your big evolutionist friends that actually have something to say.

I am bored with you, as denial, simplistic nonsense and insults appears to be all you've got to offfer,

Click to expand...

You can prove evolution is wrong 100 times (what you do not do), and that would not provide support for creationism. The only person that is insulting others here is you.

CabVet said:

You can prove evolution is wrong 100 times (what you do not do), and that would not provide support for creationism. The only person that is insulting others here is you.

Click to expand...

Clearly, I have produced evidence for creation. Creation predicts there will be no intermediates. You have no intermediates between land and sea. It is that simple.

I am not just chllenging the fossil evidence in whales and rrying to falsify evolution. My argument is musch deeper than that, and this you are unable to deal with.

If there are no transitional fossils, then there is no evolution. This is one example in whales. I can maintain a similar argument for any taxa.

You have been unable to speak to how one trait morphing into another trait can be an advantage as challenged. Indeed this is a mystery that your best researchers cannot explain. However, I thought at least you could provide some flavour of the month to maintain and support an evolutionary theory. Clearly, you haven't.

Not only that but you have also supported my theory, in that transition from land animal to a fully aquatic animal is impossible. How have you done so? By not providing some plausible explanation for HOW? Anyone can make up fairytales but you cannot suport this one.

Therefore, the sudden appearance of whales, Basilosaurus, in the fossil record confirms life was created and there was no transition from one kind into another. This is evidence for creation and just what all creationists look for.

As for DNA..Let's not forget that the pig is morphologically closer to the hippo than the whale.

Seeing as you refuse to defend your fossil evidence, let's look at DNA.

Theodor's rebuttal of Thewissen's work will appear in Nature on Thursday, March 19.

The controversy began after the new fossil of Indohyus, was discovered and written about by Thewissen and his group. This animal lived around 48 million years ago, lived in the water and fed on land.

When biologists study family trees, they traditionally rely on morphology, in other words, the shape of bones. More recently, the DNA revolution means that scientists can use DNA data as another tool to reconstruct family trees, but DNA data can't be used all the time because DNA is not available for most fossils.

"In order to get the best understanding, researchers combine the two sources of data in a single analysis. But what Thewissen and his group did, was leave one of the major ones out," says Theodor.

Before the widespread use of DNA data, hippos had been thought to be closely related to pigs, but DNA data show that whales are closely related to hippos
Is The Hippopotamus The Closest Living Relative To The Whale?

So above we see the circular reasoning, very clearly. Similar morphology demonstrates ancestry, except when it doesn't. This is a classic example of the algorithmic magic I often refer to. If it doesn't fit, make it fit, if you need to. No researcher disputes that the morphological data suggests that pigs have more in common with hippos than whales, but the DNA contradicts this. The same as in orangs and humans versus chimps.

So not only do you not have any transitional whales you also have contradictory DNA and morpholoical comparisons. What is it you look for in whale fossil evidence? Do you look for hippo traits to seek whale ancestors? Indeed you do not. Do you look for pig or whale traits in finding hippo ancestors?

I suggest that all this you evolutionists present is nothing more than straw grabbing nonsense without even one straw to grab.

Clearly evo DNA comparisons are questionable at best. They are based on the presumption of ancestry. Quite clearly you have presented the ancestors of totally different kinds not related to whales at all. The transition is also impossible according to your own advantageous alleles and traits extrapolations and convolutions. There are no transitional fossils, and there are no transitional whales and this is evidence for creation

The evidence in the fossil record is supportive of the creation of many kinds that have remained within their kind since their creation.


The best point is ....that nothing I, as a biblical creationist, present as evidence, could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to offer.

Astridhere said:

Clearly, I have produced evidence for creation. Creation predicts there will be no intermediates. You have no intermediates between land and sea. It is that simple.

Click to expand...

Amphibian - meaning "life on both sides". Example: frog.
Most amphibians in their early life are water breathing and after metamorphosis in their adult form they start breathing air.

Open your eyes. The intermediates exist even now.

Upisoft said:

Amphibian - meaning "life on both sides". Example: frog.
Most amphibians in their early life are water breathing and after metamorphosis in their adult form they start breathing air.

Click to expand...

this is a good example of "its an intermediate because we say it is"

naming something an Amphibian - meaning "life on both sides" proves this

frogs breath both through their skin and through their lungs to absorb oxygen. Frogs breathe by taking air in through the nostrils (which often have valves which close when the frog is submerged)
just because an animal is capable of this you have made the connection that this is an intermediate between water and land animals.

you haven't proven anything.

"Open your eyes. The intermediates exist even now."
yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with you somehow has their eyes closed.

MrMoe said:

frogs breath both through their skin and through their lungs to absorb oxygen. Frogs breathe by taking air in through the nostrils (which often have valves which close when the frog is submerged)
just because an animal is capable of this you have made the connection that this is an intermediate between water and land animals.

Click to expand...

I've never seen a tadpole with nostrils or lungs. That early stage of frog life is wholly aquatic. Thus amphibian it is not arbitrary name.

Upisoft said:

I've never seen a tadpole with nostrils or lungs. That early stage of frog life is wholly aquatic. Thus amphibian it is not arbitrary name.

Click to expand...

well obviously I was referring to adults frogs since I never mentioned the word tadpole.
tadpoles can only survive in water since they have not developed these lungs yet.

so why are you using the frog as an example of an intermediate

MrMoe said:

so why are you using the frog as an example of an intermediate

Click to expand...

Obviously because it is both a fish (when juvenile) and a terrestrial animal (when adult).

Yavash said:

we are all part of the same ecosystem as the frog, during our own embryonic stage we have gill slits so you imagining you're somehow different means nothing, we are all animals.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed that anyone still believes in gill slits in embryos even thought this as been disproven and uniformly rejected by scientist
this is yet another evolutionary myth that refuses to die.

they are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That’s when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a “throwback to the fish stage,” then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don’t have the DNA instructions for forming gills.


"Despite evidence to the contrary some books on evolution still use the supposed gill slits as evidence for evolution" Wikipedia - gill slits

MrMoe said:

I'm amazed that anyone still believes in gill slits in embryos even thought this as been disproven and uniformly rejected by scientist
this is yet another evolutionary myth that refuses to die.

they are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That’s when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a “throwback to the fish stage,” then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don’t have the DNA instructions for forming gills.


"Despite evidence to the contrary some books on evolution still use the supposed gill slits as evidence for evolution" Wikipedia - gill slits

Click to expand...

From the same wikipedia article that you quote above (emphasis mine):

The term "gill slits" has also been used to refer to the folds of skin in the pharyngeal region in embryos. The true gill slits in embryonic fish develop into gills. However, the "slits" in vertebrate do not, so a better modifier for the vertebral structures is pharyngeal, as in pharyngeal slits and pharyngeal arches. In the 19th century, "pharyngeal slits" of vertebrate embryos were erroneously thought to be actual gills or precursor slits to gills, so thought then to be support for the recapitulation theory.

Click to expand...

We, as all other vertebrates, develop pharyngeal, or branchial arches when we are developing. Note the similarity among early stage embryos:

MrMoe said:

I'm amazed that anyone still believes in gill slits in embryos even thought this as been disproven and uniformly rejected by scientist
this is yet another evolutionary myth that refuses to die.

they are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That’s when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a “throwback to the fish stage,” then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don’t have the DNA instructions for forming gills.

Click to expand...

In fish, these structures develop into gills. We thus have gill slits (or pharyngeal archs) in common. The theory of evolution explains why. Our ancestors had gills. During evolution, these developmental structures were co-opted for structures involving the jaw and neck.

MrMoe said:

"Despite evidence to the contrary some books on evolution still use the supposed gill slits as evidence for evolution" Wikipedia - gill slits

Click to expand...

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by adding citations to reliable sources. Tagged since August 2009.
Its factual accuracy is disputed"

See the real Wikipedia article here: Pharyngeal arch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CabVet said:

From the same wikipedia article that you quote above (emphasis mine):



We, as all other vertebrates, develop pharyngeal, or branchial arches when we are developing. Note the similarity among early stage embryos:

Click to expand...

Oh my... those aren't Haeckel's drawings... are they?

Split Rock said:

Oh my... those aren't Haeckel's drawings... are they?

Click to expand...

Oh, why did you spoil my trickery? I was betting he wouldn't know what they were LOL They often criticize stuff without knowing what it is. Real human embryos:

Astridhere said:

You are incorrect, sidewiding and elluding. Actually you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about, really. You just make posts for the sake of it without being able to articulate an appropriate response.

Let's take one thing at time so you can keep up

Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear...

Click to expand...

Hello? Is this thing on?

me just 3 posts earlier said:

You must have read this on a Creationist site because that's not what a recent paper says. It notes that the Basilosaurid ear is functionally modern, but does not say it has a "typical" whale ear. For one thing, it retains an ear canal with an external opening.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7001/full/nature02720.html
--- The outer, middle and inner ear of basilosauroids is well-known4, 13, 23, 24, 25 and is functionally modern. A major functional innovation with respect to remingtonocetids and protocetids is that basilosauroid ears are acoustically isolated by the insertion of air-filled sinuses between the ear and the skull13, 23. Unlike modern cetaceans, basilosauroids have a large external auditory meatus that may have been patent. However, these whales were obligately marine22 and airborne sound was probably unimportant for them.

Additionally, Basilosaurid ears fit right in a developmental cladegram of cetaceans.

Finally, one cannot look at a single characteristic. This is something you, like profressional Creationists, do all the time - myopically focus on one aspect of a transitional while pretending all the other characteristics don't exist. In this case your (?) assertion is incorrect, but one needs also look at other cranial morphology. In the case of Basliosaurids, they too fit into a developmental cladegram. The mandibular foramen (space between the upper and lower jawbones) is on it's way to that of a modern cetacean, but not quite. And the nostrils are futher up the snout than Rhodocetids, but not located on top of the skull yet.

Click to expand...

Did you miss this, or did you choose to ignore it and keep repeating your false assertion.

USincognito said:

Hello? Is this thing on?



Did you miss this, or did you choose to ignore it and keep repeating your false assertion.

Click to expand...

Oh darls, your big enough to know pretty pictures don't prove anything.

Indeed Ambulocetus natans neither had good land hearing like a deer, nor good aquatic hearing. It is speculated that Natans put his jaw to the
ground as its way of hearing the poor thing. What a ridiculous creature you have had to create. It had fur. Natans has also morphed from its
initially fragmentary discovery and will eventually morph right out of the whale ancestry as they all inevitably do. Webbed feet were sketched
in based on myth not evidence, Natans was reconstructed as a holotype from fragments and skulls not colocated. Indohyus is very similar to
a mouse deer alive today. Pakicetus has also been morphed with the usual land mammal nose and is now seen as a land mammal. It is stange
how the mouse deer that dive to escape prey and stay there for a long time have not 'evolved' this so called cretacean ear with predators in the
water!!!






Oh dear, does my pretty picture demonstrate a mouse 'evolved' into a cat, then 'evolved' into a dog? Of course not.

Evolution is truly nothing more than a picture and a misrepresentative story.

We have all seen how one fossil can erase an entire evolutionary story, such is the amount of misrepresentation in TOE.

You present totally unrelated species as being closely connected based on a few morphological traits that are usually contradictory to DNA
findings. eg Orang/human/chimp, whale/hippo/pig. Then suggest that DNA overides morphology whilst morphology is all you have in fossil evidence.

Evolutionists seem to think that God should have created every kind using a totally unique best design in each one. This is a ridiculous assumption
and base to place your common ancestry assertions on.

Indeed once the idea of evolution was put forward any shared, like, close, similiar traits will be used to sprooke to common ancestry. Therefore,
the overarching theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. It is founded on mini theories that never hold up and change like the wind, sometimes with one
single find.

If all other non human primates went extinct it would have been something else held up as the sister species.

Your fossil evidence does not demonstrate graduation. It demonstrates punctuation. The punctuations are sufficient to endorse and support
the actual presentation of a nonrelated kinds in most cases.

Most of your fossil evidence is fragmentary, based on a single bone, or made from non colocated, sometimes deeper and shallower dirt to reconstruct
a species and its entire life. Some are holotypes. These are often heralded as "the most complete fossil of bla" ever found. This is often a lie and
misrepresentation. eg Turkana Boy, Erectus, Lucy, Ardi, Ambulocetus natans, and many more.

You have found huge differences between mankind and chimps in DNA, which contradicts morphology, with all apes being 'close', depending on what is
counted and ignored.

Indeed you, a male, have at least a 30% difference in Y chromosome, 10% smaller genome, huge chunks of deletions and insertions (remembering research
on the fatality of major mutations), and duplications on top. Then, you have protein expression. The comparison is unquantifiable, and you have researcher
that agree with me on the unquantifiability of the genomic comparisons. Duplication is an evolutionary term implying ancestry. Indeed the design of
duplicated genomic material demonstrates initself huge differences. You cherry pick 'similar' insertions that are not really similar at all and are usually ghosts and
relics, then totally negate differences and call that evidence, where 1% 6%, 30%, 80% difference, does not matter. This huge difference reflects in what you
allege are close sister species. The truth be known the holistic differences between man and other non human-ape species must be astonomical and even
more unquantifiable.

For me the overall huge differences in DNA between kinds, the punctuations in the fossil record that support the sudden appearance of different kinds, supports
my creationist paradigm better then it does your evolution.

Listen up champ. It is your right to believe what you want and weigh interpretations as you wish. However, do not make out that any biblical
creationist interpretations of data and observation, is worse than yours.

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