When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[AV1611VET]

Hundreds of skeletons, some with DNA, all with consistent morphology and time lines with the modern genetic evidence linking humans to other living primates.

You comment was reductive to the point of dishonesty.

We've got "hundreds of skeletons" right here in the town where I live.

Not one of which says its father was another species.

Many of them are daisy chained for many generations; i.e., father, son, grandson, greatgrandson, etc.

By comparison, museums have nothing.

 

[rjs330]

There are,some serious problems with the retrovirus assumption. One there is strong evidence that they had function. Of they were indeed retrovirus they should be ridden with,apotosis. They are also different than the ancestral genomes. One of the interesting things for me is how did all these viruses and mutations required not kill the hosts? There just are too many problems with this including these things being found in non similar creatures like baboons and cats.

But let's not let contrary evidence get in the way of the Myth of evolution. Once again assumption rules the day because evolution is a dogma and we can't have anything get in the way of the myth because we have to have something that disproves the bible.

http://evolutiondismantled.com/ervs

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/02/15/endogenous-retroviruses-as-evidence-for-evolution/



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[46AND2]

We've got "hundreds of skeletons" right here in the town where I live.

Not one of which says its father was another species.

Many of them are daisy chained for many generations; i.e., father, son, grandson, greatgrandson, etc.

By comparison, museums have nothing.

Av, as long as you have been on this board, you really should know that we NEVER have claimed that any fossil's father was a different species. In fact, we have stated the exact opposite, that EVERY organism's father was the same species as that of it's children. (with the possible exception of hybridization between two separate species.)

We also do not claim to know that one fossil was an ancestor of another. Indeed, we readily admit that we cannot know that.

 

[46AND2]

One there is strong evidence that they had function.

No there isn't.

 

[rjs330]

-_- I've done evolution experiments myself. I just don't think you understand evolution well enough to realize that, when I expose a bacterial colony to an antibiotic, which kills off most of its population, and I let the survivors reproduce, add the antibiotic, and find that almost none of the bacteria are killed by it, that it demonstrates evolution. If you're going to say "no, that's adaptation", then why did so many die at the start of the experiment, and why can we pick out GENES directly connected with antibiotic resistance? The only way it wouldn't be evolution is if they survived because of a NONGENETIC trait, or if the survival rate never changed. Obviously, that isn't what I preserved. If you doubt me, if you think I am lying about the results, buy a petri dish, swab your mouth, let the bacteria grow, and expose the established colonies to an antibiotic of your choice, and see if you can get the same results as me.


1. As if you are not making a ton of assumptions to believe the bible is true, such as assuming that the supposedly "witnessed" events actually happened, because those "witnesses" certainly aren't the authors.
2. Not all assumptions are equal. I assume that the sun is going to rise and set every day, and you wouldn't consider me stupid for it. Yet, there is a chance, albeit a very small one, that I am in fact wrong, and I willfully acknowledge that. However, all of the alternative propositions are exceedingly less likely than the sun not rising and setting, so I retain my stance that the sun will in fact continue to rise in set for the rest of my life. We directly witness retroviruses leave behind their DNA in cells that do not proceed to die or become virus factories, including reproductive cells, and we witness that these insertion points are pretty darn random and such events are rather infrequent. Give the size of the human genome and that of other apes, it is so statistically improbable that these shared ERV placements are by random chance than through a shared evolutionary history that I would rather place my bets on the sun going out next week, because the odds of that happening are better than any of the alternative explanations for the ERVs being right.


Reproduce the entire evolutionary history of our planet? No. Demonstrate evolution in the lab? Yes, I've done it myself. That you don't like the evidence sounds like a personal problem.


No, because we don't live in the world of Pokemon. Species and other taxonomic labels are a human invention, and it is not uncommon for the evolutionary relationships of organisms to make shoving them into these categories rather difficult. Basically, the process is too gradual to ever pinpoint an exact place in which a population has become a different species than it started out as after a number of generations have come and gone. Furthermore, the majority of traits are retained, such that no living thing is so alien from any other as to be entirely different. Yes, even between a bacteria and a human, there are many similar traits retained.


Actually, that's universal ancestor theory, and it's just often coupled with evolution rather than being an inherent part of the theory. I personally contend that stance myself, so I won't defend it.


Actually, we did it with Italian wall lizards. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/ in just 36 years after the species was introduced to an island, it changed completely. Their digestive tract is nothing like that of the original lizards introduced anymore. Basically, it was a combination of severe bottleneck (five pairs, for a total of 10 individuals, gave rise to the entire population of this lizard on the island), extreme differences in environment, few predators, and fast reproductive rate.


All fossils are and are supposed to be of complete animals. Arm evolution in humans did not start with a fully developed wrist with no fingers or any other such nonsense. Crocoduck and other crazy combos are not only not required to demonstrate evolution, but they would actually defy it.


The fact that they can change our physiology does demonstrate that over time, mutations can build up and make a modern population a distinct species from its ancestral population.


The fact that populations change is not the assumption, but the OBSERVATION that lead to the development of the theory of evolution in the first place. You heard me right, that observation PREDATES evolutionary theory. WHY and HOW these populations change is the theory; a theory which has been challenged and tested since its inception, and never been disproven.

You are talking about adaptation not evolution. Call it evolving all you want but those lizards are still lizards and always will be,lizards. They may have adapted to their environment to survive just like your bacteria but it still is what it is.

I don't care what evolutionist claim. They love to look,down their noses at us unenlightened bible thumpers. But it remains the same theory. We all came from a common ancestor. Which means ONLY one thing. Something evolved into something else. And that something through mutations evolved into something else. Primates, fish birds insects trees grass flowers were all something else at one time. THAT IS the bottom line of evolution. You cannot deny that. If you do then you are saying that in the beginning there was a,myriad of things that evolved into what we have today. Then the question still remains where did that myriad of life come from?

No it is all,assumption. Those lizards and bacteria you,mentioned are all proof of God's amazing power to create creatures who can adapt to survive. They are not proof that we all evolved from one thing.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Av, as long as you have been on this board, you really should know that we NEVER have claimed that any fossil's father was a different species. In fact, we have stated the exact opposite, that EVERY organism's father was the same species as that of it's children. (with the possible exception of hybridization between two separate species.)

We also do not claim to know that one fossil was an ancestor of another. Indeed, we readily admit that we cannot know that.

Then you have no problem with creation. Because creation says exactly that.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[-57]

That would only be true if the evolutionary process was targeted to a particular outcome. As it is, the "right" place is any place which improves the fitness of the creature in any way.

In many ways? Hows that? How much is many?

 

[-57]

If you knew anything about evolution you would see how ridiculous your objections really are, your beliefs are getting in the way of your understanding.

When you have the ability to explain to us how mutations can accumulate and form something like the dolphins echo=location system...get back to me. Until then...

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, parents and offspring who are still the same,creature.

Just as chimps, macaques, and humans are still the same creature, and the same creature that our common ancestor was. We are all primates.

Do you still not understand how evolution works?

Quite frankly I think the whole idea of all these mutations are hogwash. Im not saying there are not any differences that take place between creatures of the same kind. But the interpretation is what I take issue with. Again evolution assumes these differences are evidence of evolution.

No, it doesn't. No such assumption is made. Again, you are making stuff up. You can't just throw out the word "assumption" and pretend as if you have addressed the evidence.

We conclude that these differences are due to mutations because of 2 factors.

1. The differences fall into a nested hierarchy, the exact pattern that we should see if evolution is true.

2. When we compare the genomes of species, we see conservation of sequence in coding regions compared to non-coding regions such as introns. Dr. Collins speaks about this in a really great essay that you should read:

https://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

Introns diverge more quickly than exons, and it correlates with evolutionary distance. That is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution is true, and no ID/creationist can explain it.

Whereas all they are are proof of the great variety amongst creatures of a kind. These mutations are nothing more than nature proclaiming the greatness of God in not making everything exactly the same. They also can be evidence ( when the mutation is harmful) that the world was cursed at the fall of man.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Preaching is not a replacement for reason and evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you have the ability to explain to us how mutations can accumulate and form something like the dolphins echo=location system...get back to me. Until then...

I already started a thread on this very topic and showed you exactly how they accumulate. Did you already forget?

The process that causes mutations to accumulate is called biological reproduction. You see, when you have a mutation you pass it on to your offspring. Those offspring will also have mutations of their own, and they will pass those on to their offspring, along with the mutations they inherited from their parents. Rinse and repeat. What results is the accumulation of mutations in every single generation.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are,some serious problems with the retrovirus assumption. One there is strong evidence that they had function.

Of course they had function. They were a functional part of a viral genome.

Also, none of the ERV evidence requires ERVs to be non-functional. They are evidence for common ancestry because they are found in the same exact spot the genomes of multiple species, among other evidence.

Of they were indeed retrovirus they should be ridden with,apotosis.

The human genome has over 200,000 ERVs and our cells are not ridden with apoptosis. Your claim is refuted by the facts.

They are also different than the ancestral genomes.

And? Being different is what allows us to identify them as being viral in origin.

One of the interesting things for me is how did all these viruses and mutations required not kill the hosts?

The same way they are not killing the host now.

There just are too many problems with this including these things being found in non similar creatures like baboons and cats.

How do non-orthologous ERVs in distantly related species refute the evidence for common ancestry that relies on orthologous ERVs? Apparently, you don't understand the evidence. Are the similar viruses found in cats and baboons found at the same spot in each genome? If not, then it isn't a problem.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

It is the location of the ERV that matters.

Once again assumption rules the day because evolution is a dogma and we can't have anything get in the way of the myth because we have to have something that disproves the bible.

What assumptions?

http://evolutiondismantled.com/ervs

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/02/15/endogenous-retroviruses-as-evidence-for-evolution/



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It looks like their arguments are thoroughly defeated in this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Av, as long as you have been on this board, you really should know that we NEVER have claimed that any fossil's father was a different species.

I know you haven't.

How do you guys put it?

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

How does that change what I said?

 

[HitchSlap]

They love to look,down their noses at us unenlightened bible thumpers.

 

[46AND2]

I know you haven't.

How do you guys put it?

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

How does that change what I said?

It makes what you said trivial. Hundreds of fossils near you, none of which say that it's father was a different species? So what? We wouldn't expect them to say that.

 

[Speedwell]

In many ways? Hows that? How much is many?

Lots. The point is that the only important step in evolution is the next step. What all those steps add up to over a long period is highly contingent. You are right in that the odds against any particular long term outcome are enormous, but the odds of some favorable outcome are reasonably good.

 

[Speedwell]

But let's not let contrary evidence get in the way of the Myth of evolution. Once again assumption rules the day because evolution is a dogma and we can't have anything get in the way of the myth because we have to have something that disproves the bible.

The theory of evolution doesn't "disprove the Bible." It undermines a particular interpretation of the Bible popular with certain groups of conservative Evangelical Protestants largely confined to the US.

Most evolutionary biologists don't know about it and those who do don't care very much. It's just not the motivation you would like to think it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution doesn't "disprove the Bible." It undermines a particular interpretation of the Bible popular with certain groups of conservative Evangelical Protestants largely confined to the US.

And who "confined" us?

Wasn't our "popular interpretation" held by Jesus Christ as well?

You make it sound like creationism "broke out" in America, when creationism has been the norm since 4004 BC.

Starting with the garden of Eden.

(Actually before that, when the angels celebrated the creation of the earth.)

 

[rjs330]

Just as chimps, macaques, and humans are still the same creature, and the same creature that our common ancestor was. We are all primates.

Do you still not understand how evolution works?


No, it doesn't. No such assumption is made. Again, you are making stuff up. You can't just throw out the word "assumption" and pretend as if you have addressed the evidence.

We conclude that these differences are due to mutations because of 2 factors.

1. The differences fall into a nested hierarchy, the exact pattern that we should see if evolution is true.

2. When we compare the genomes of species, we see conservation of sequence in coding regions compared to non-coding regions such as introns. Dr. Collins speaks about this in a really great essay that you should read:

View attachment 174338

View attachment 174339
https://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

Introns diverge more quickly than exons, and it correlates with evolutionary distance. That is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution is true, and no ID/creationist can explain it.



Preaching is not a replacement for reason and evidence.

No we are not all primates. Monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans and we have always been what we are. Primates are a man created idea that puts things with certain similarities into a category. We are Primates because man decided we are. Just cause man decided to lump things into a category of similarities doesn't mean we have common ancestor.

Again it is an assumption. We see what we want to see. Still without proof. We still have yet to find an actual evolving creature that is evolving into something else. Why? Well the quick answer is it happened so long ago. How convienent. So since we have no proof therefore we look for evidence. What do we find? Similarities. Whether it's similarities in genomes or physical similarities evolutionists use it as evidence because they assume evolution is true. Therefore all similarities are proof.

We still can't test it nor do we observe it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Shemjaza]

No we are not all primates. Monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans and we have always been what we are. Primates are a man created idea that puts things with certain similarities into a category. We are Primates because man decided we are. Just cause man decided to lump things into a category of similarities doesn't mean we have common ancestor.

Primates was a man created idea based on visible similarities.
Then came the fossil evidence that showed even more varieties of primate bridging the differences between the living primates.
Then came the genetic evidence that showed a pattern of similarities consistent with relatedness.

Again it is an assumption. We see what we want to see. Still without proof. We still have yet to find an actual evolving creature that is evolving into something else. Why? Well the quick answer is it happened so long ago. How convienent. So since we have no proof therefore we look for evidence. What do we find? Similarities. Whether it's similarities in genomes or physical similarities evolutionists use it as evidence because they assume evolution is true. Therefore all similarities are proof.

It's not that it happened a long time ago, it's that it takes a long time for large changes to build up.
Even in the very short period of human history we have demonstrated that selection acting on genetic mutation can cause large scale physical changes:

Can you actually define what you mean by proof?
Because while mathematical and logical proof might be absolute, they only exist within their own defined axioms. Proof in the sense of "proof of evolution" as a colloquial phrase means "beyond reasonable doubt" and evolution has certainly met that criteria.

We still can't test it nor do we observe it.

Do you not believe in paternity tests? How about finger prints? DNA? Fibers?

We have evidence, and we can observe its acquisition.

We can observe physical changes from mutations. We can examine trees of life forms for signs that mutations caused the variation. Finally, we can find no barrier to mutations be the source of the variation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

And who "confined" us?

Nobody "confined" you. For what amounts to historical reasons, YECism does not seem to have made much headway outside of the US.

Wasn't our "popular interpretation" held by Jesus Christ as well?

Unlikely. I don't know what Jesus believed about it, but I think it is reasonable to assume that people in those days generally took the Genesis stories as in some sense historical. However, that is not the same thing as literal inerrancy, a notion that is not more than a couple of hundred years old.

You make it sound like creationism "broke out" in America, when creationism has been the norm since 4004 BC.

YECism as a modern phenomenon dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in the early 1960s.

Of course, one must be careful of how the term "creationist" is used. It is apparent that you would like to pretend that anyone who does not subscribe to your brand of YECism is, in effect, denying Gods authorship of the Universe.