Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think you're a liar. I think you're so conditioned into your new doctrine that it's hard for you to even comprehend anything else.
But I think you are beginning to realize that there is truth that you haven't seen before; you're struggling against it, and I think that's why you often seem so angry with me. I don't resent it, but be careful; some things aren't permitted here. And I would miss conversing with you.
I don't think you're a liar. I think you're so conditioned into your new doctrine that it's hard for you to even comprehend anything else.
But I think you are beginning to realize that there is truth that you haven't seen before; you're struggling against it, and I think that's why you often seem so angry with me. I don't resent it, but be careful; some things aren't permitted here. And I would miss conversing with you.
WAIT A MINUTE!! YOU JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT WE EVOLED FROM PRIMATES!!
APES ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE SAME VITAL ORGANS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT HUMANS DO, WHICH IS IT?
YOUR LIES HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH YOU!
SAVE THAT SPEECH FOR THE NEXT TIME YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR.. IT WONT FLY HERE IN THIS CLASSROOM GRASSHOPPER..
NOBODY "SEES" ANY SUCH THING!
Yep.
Not all primates do. And they have organs we don't. Such as a functional tail. Old world monkeys lack an appendix which we have. The appendix is vestigial, but many vestigial organs have evolved other functions as they often have in humans.
And even chimps lack some anatomical functions that we have. We lack some of theirs, too. Neither humans nor chimps evolved from each other; both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor chimp.
For example. the abductor pollicis muscle flexes the thumb in chimpanzees but abducts it in humans, a function that makes us much more dextrous than chimps. And humans have a Broca's area in the brain, which accounts for language skills. Chiimps have a similar structure, but it is less developed and they have rudimentary language ability; some question if it can be called language at all.
You've just become confused again. Apes already have all those vital organs you mentioned. We are very much like other apes genetically and phenetically. That doesn't mean that speciation won't happen.
We see more and more complexity in integuments as chordates evolve into vertebrates and then into different classes, orders, and families.
NOBODY "SEES" ANY SUCH THING!
"I just showed you."
Sorry.. Drawings based on Frog to Prince Fairytales arent "Showing me" anything other than how much of a fool Oval-Earthers are... LOL
I think you're so conditioned into your new doctrine that it's hard for you to even comprehend anything else.
Remember when I told you orthogenesis is wrong? Here's another example of creationist misunderstanding. Whale evolution is itself a bush, with various lines going off in different directions. But early whales like Ambulocetus do explain some features of modern whales, such as why whales have horizontal flukes, while fish have vertical tail fins. Would you like to talk about that?
Nope. You still don't get it. No microbe ever evolved into a human, slowly or not. For two reasons. First, organisms don't evolve. Populations do.
Second, no sort of bacterium, by itself, could evolve into a eukaryote. Here's a hint: look up "mitochondrian." It might help you to understand.
I don't think you mean to be dishonest. It appears to me that you really don't understand why orthogenesis can't be true.
I don't think you mean to call God a liar. You're just having a lot of trouble accepting His creation as it is.
There's a lot to learn about integument. Here's a quick survey:
J Anat. 2009 Apr; 214(4): 407–408
The Integument Story: Origins, Evolution and Current Knowledge’
Matthew Vickaryous and Jean-Yves Sire
...
The issue begins with two broadly comparative contributions exploring the evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) of mineralized integumentary elements. Although highly reduced among most modern taxa, the integumentary skeleton was once the predominant skeletal system, and much of our knowledge of early vertebrates is almost entirely based on fossilized elements of the skin. Sire, Donoghue and Vickaryous begin with a comprehensive review of the integumentary skeletal system from its early origin among 450+ million-year-old stem-gnathostomes, the ‘jawless fossil fish’, to modern sharks and bony fish. Complementing this coverage of aquatic vertebrates, Vickaryous and Sire provide an up-to-date revision of this organ system among tetrapods, with the bulk of the contribution focused on osteoderms. These papers integrate histological and developmental data from extant and fossil taxa within a revised phylogenetic framework, and in doing so provide new scenarios for integumentary skeletal evolution and new hypotheses of skeletal tissue homology.
Teeth are one of most popular subjects in skeletal evo-devo, and receive coverage in three papers. Huysseune, Sire and Witten review the origin of teeth, beginning with a comparison of the two leading theories of dental evolution (‘outside in’, from ectoderm in conjunction with the jaws, or ‘inside out’, from endoderm independent of the jaws). Their findings are intriguing, and provide compelling support for teeth evolving before jaws but from ectoderm (modified ‘outside in’). They go on to discuss the evolution of tooth distribution and molecular regulation of tooth formation in bony fish. Continuing on the subject of teeth, Davit-Béal, Tucker and Sire review tooth and enamel loss in tetrapods. These authors compile the available comparative data, with an initial focus on birds for which molecular data are available. They tentatively trace back the origin of tooth and enamel loss in the various lineages and try to answer the question of how these taxa have survived tooth loss. In the final tooth paper, Caton and Tucker provide a comprehensive review of the current knowledge of tooth development in the mouse. They particularly focus on the genes, genetic pathways and epithelial–mesenchymal interactions that control dentition patterning (the homeobox code), tooth shape and tooth number.
The second part of the issue deals with topics related to the keratinized integument. Bragulla and Homberger set the stage by providing a detailed overview of keratin biology, including extensive coverage of the entire field. Continuing with the keratinized theme, Alibardi, Dalla Valle, Nardi and Toni review the evolution of hard structural proteins (keratin-associated proteins and their genes) in sauropsids (reptiles) and mammals. They suggest that a new class of small matrix proteins might have originated after mutation of an ancestral protein and that the original protein evolved differently in the various reptilian lineages, including birds. The contribution by Dhouailly revisits the origins of feathers in birds and hairs in mammals. This author proposes an exciting and well supported hypothesis in which hairs could have evolved from epidermal glands and feathers from granulated integument. Along the same lines she proposes that the scales on bird feet could be derived from feathers. In addition, regulation of the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway seems to play an important role in keratinized integument evolution....
As you probably have figured out by now, this didn't happen all at once. It started out pretty simply:
The cnidarian integument consists of a single-layered epidermis, the outer surface of which is coated with an extracellular material (see Chap. 7, this Vol.); the inner surface rests on a gelatinous mass, the mesoglea, which forms the core of the body wall. This epidermal cell layer covers the entire body of the polyp from the tentacles to the pedal disc, forming a boundary with the external medium.
Biology of the Integument pp 47-56
Nope. You still don't get it. No microbe ever evolved into a human, slowly or not. For two reasons. First, organisms don't evolve. Populations do.
Second, no sort of bacterium, by itself, could evolve into a eukaryote. Here's a hint: look up "mitochondrian." It might help you to understand.
I don't think you mean to be dishonest. It appears to me that you really don't understand why orthogenesis can't be true.
There's a reason why some militant atheists and some YE creationists find common ground in insisting that science and God are incompatible.
For the rest of us, the idea is laughable.
We have noted that your response to my request for you to name even one process of evolution that is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics was ignored, and you threw up a quote by an atheist denouncing religion instead.
We all understand why you didn't answer the question.
Actually, we can. Project Steve is a list of people named "Steve" or some variation of the name, with doctorates in biology or a related field, who accept evolutionary theory. This can be compared with the Discovery Institute's list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin." Turns out, they have less than 1% as many Steves as Project Steve. Last time I checked, about 0.3%. If you like, you can do your own research, but it will never go much over 1%.
Surprise.
(more endorsements of your position from atheists)
Yep. The usual.
"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races."
Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you...
The last world-classbiologist who opposed Darwnian theory (Agassiz) thought that black people did not even descent from Adam and Eve. And one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research wrote bit of racial slander:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
YE creationist and ICR director Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1991
As you know, evolutionary theory indicates that there are no biological human races, but as late a 1991, creationist leaders were blathering about the supposed racial inferiority of black people. This is one of the important differences between creationists and Christians who accept evolution.
Not that all creationists are racists. Many, probably most, are not. But to see such blatant and ridiculous racism from a creastionist leader in the 1990s, indicates a serious problem with YE creationism.
I believe you've been shown that Darwin differed from most creationists of his day by opposing slavery and considering all humans to be equally entitled to respect and rights. He scandalized many creationists of his day by insisting that if one took a group of "primitive" humans to England, within a few generations, their descendants would be just like Englishmen.
See above. You have it backwards. We see creationist leaders like Morris and William Tinkle, endorsing racism and eugenics, at the same time Darwinian geneticists were exposing it for the nonsense it is. Would you like me to show you, again?
I"m pretty sure you're not lying, and I don't want to call you "ignorant." You were clearly not aware of this, but creationist organizations aren't exactly proud of that history.
Yep. But that's a loser for you, too. "Races" is the term that biologists of the time used for classifying varieties of organisms within the same species. In fact, Darwin never mentions anything about human evolution in that book.
With Murray's persuasion, the title was eventually agreed as On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[3] In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning varieties within a species.[76][77] He used the term broadly,[78] and as well as discussions of "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants",[79] there are three instances in the book where the phrase "races of man" is used, referring to races of humans.
On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia
Most like likely you didn't know that. (Hence the benefit of the doubt)
If you accept evolution, you cannot consistently be a racist, since (as you learned earlier) evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand racists like Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research were still peddling foolish ideas about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. As I said, many, perhaps most creationists are not racists. But it's disturbing that it was present in the creationist leadership so recently.
In fact, the Darwinian geneticist Punnett (of Punnett square fame) showed that Hitler's eugenic and racial ideas were not only despicable (as Darwin wrote) but were also scientifically unsupportable.
Geneticist Reginald Punnet, who invented the Punnett Square, method of quantifying the inhertiance of genetic traits, showed that eugenics would not work. Punnet explained that even with the strongest negative eugenics, carried out against individuals who were homozygous for the inferior gene, it would take 22 generations (almost 500 years) to reduce the amount of feeblemindedness from 1 percent to 0.1 percent in a population, according to his calculations.
Encyclopedia of Evolution (p. 147)
Hitler pointed to another source for his "final solution."
The Nazis Exploited Martin Luther’s Legacy. This Berlin Exhibit Highlights How.
About 90% of Hitler's "final solution" can be found in Luther's work, On the Jews and Their Lies.
It's not an accident that creationism is most prevalent where segregation existed in the United State. Most people have moved past that dark period in our nation, but not everyone.
I don't think you're a liar. I think you're so conditioned into your new doctrine that it's hard for you to even comprehend anything else.
But I think you are beginning to realize that there is truth that you haven't seen before; you're struggling against it, and I think that's why you often seem so angry with me. I don't resent it, but be careful; some things aren't permitted here. And I would miss conversing with you.
Right... Just like you miss getting a root canal done at the dentist..
I am the Evolutionists worse nightmare. Like Freddy Kruger on steroids..
It's kind of my thing ya know? Exposing Satan's greatest lie of Evolutionism to people.. I love doing it, and there ain't no one better at it.. NO ONE.. .. Believe me on this one... If you dont believe me on anything else, believe me on this one... Get the idea?
I see..
Oh how convenient..
So the term Races actually DOESN'T really mean Races..
Ahahah. Just like those red blood cells found in Dinosaur samples arent REALLY red blood cells.
And the measurable C14 found in the SAME Dinosaur samples isnt REALLY C14.
Give it up.. You are being destroyed here..
Everyone can see it..
Humble yourself and repent for calling God a liar about HIS creation and his Son a liar about Noah's flood..
Why not become born again as well like Jesus commanded his followers to do?
LOL.... You DONT and CANT know whether they "accept the Slow microbes to man myth of Evolutionism or not..
.. A supposed "poll" of People who CLAIM to believe Satans lie of Evolutionism due to peer PRESSURE and threats of losing their tenure, funding, promotion, grants, etc etc... ARE NOT TRUTHFUL POLLING !!
Watch the movie "Expelled" for more education grasshopper...
APES ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE SAME VITAL ORGANS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT HUMANS DO, WHICH IS IT?
Really,?
Why dont you just end it all and completely convert to Atheism?
"I don't think you mean to call God a liar"
Because the only one calling God a liar is YOU!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?