Why Evolution is Impossible part II

[Mallon]

You are the one who isn't listening; most of all to God's Word.

Again, pastor, it isn't God's word I reject; it's your fallible interpretation of it. Luther once slammed Copernicus for not believing God's word when it said in Joshua that the sun goes about the earth, and I reject that accusation for the same reason that I reject your own. It demonstrates shallow thinking about the Scriptures.

Back to your examples, you're still not telling the whole truth. You mention a few amphibians that look similar to modern taxa, but why don't you mention fossils like Triadobatrachus or Gerobatrachus that are obviously transitional between frogs and salamanders?

When you refer to lizard fossils, why do you make no mention of things like Petrolacosaurus, which is so clearly transitional between modern diapsid lizards and more basal amniotes?

You also mention fossil plants, but you conveniently neglect to mention Runcaria, a species of fossil plant from the Devonian that perfectly shows a transitional morphology between seed plants and more primitive forms:

Indeed, it strikes me that your entire argument against evolution is one from incredulity -- you clearly aren't familiar with those excellent transitional fossils that provide some of the best evidence for evolution in the past. (Either that, or you are blatantly ignoring them.) You might take a lesson from the words of St. Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Honestly, as someone in the field of the biological sciences, myself, you come across as someone who has no idea what he is talking about. I get the distinct impression you don't care, though, because you think it's you and God against the world.

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[shernren]

Okay, let's assume that all these fossils are actually what you claim they are, Cal: evidence that life-forms don't change across Earth's history.

When were all those fossils laid down? According to most YECs (and I'm guessing you'd agree) they were laid down during the Flood, which means the fossilized life-forms were those alive before the Flood.

Now, if life has not changed between before and after the Flood, that must mean that all the species alive today were also alive before the Flood. Your own evidence supports such a view.

But the Bible gave very precise dimensions for Noah's Ark, and he could not possibly have fit all land-dwelling species onto the Ark.

You have just shown that the Biblical story of the Flood could not have happened, according to your own evidence.

... I love the smell of creationist self-contradiction in the morning; it smells like victory.

 

[USincognito]

And just what did the bat evolve from if not a rat/rodent of some kind? You don't have a clue from the fossil record because such a thing doesn't exist.

So we find fossils of rodents at the bottom of the chain seen above...and we find fossils of bats seen at the top...but nothing in between. Somehow you and those of your persuasion do not see this as a problem. But like the gentlemen who went on the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, sooner or later you are going to have to admit, "Houston, we've got a problem!" The reason is because this phenomena exists in virtually all organisms on earth.

The Creationist source you got that image from is incorrect. Bat's aren't rodents. They're Chiroptera and more closely related to flying lemurs and primates than to rodents.
Eutheria
esp.
Chiroptera

 

[Willtor]

Is this some kind of a joke? Are you serious? I quoted (1) Websters dictionary. (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, & (3) the Cambridge University dictionary. Now just what do you think the scholars who put those works together use as criteria?

Seriously, talk to a scientist in any field about entries regarding their fields in any and all of these sources. Talk to them about what they think of high school science texts. I'm not joking. We all feel like our fields are woefully misrepresented.

You are NOT the one who determines change in a definition that has been the commonly known, commonly accepted definition for 150 yrs. You are fast losing credibility with me by giving me this nonsense.

The common definition is not necessarily the same as the scientific definition. That's the problem. However people in general use terms -- it isn't necessarily how scientists use them. An analogy: consider the popular usage of "resurrection" -- many people (including Christians) will say that Jesus resurrected Lazarus. But he didn't. He resuscitated him. The resurrection deals with a new creation into which Jesus was the first to enter and the rest of us will enter at the end of time. The popular usage differs from the theological one. There's no way around it. And naturally, I can't be expected to defend the idea that Lazarus was resurrected from a non-Christian who points out that Lazarus died, again. Likewise, how can any of the TEs here defend the popular usage of evolution when we disbelieve it as much as you?

We are discussing Darwinian evolution as promoted by the devotees of Charles Darwin who wrote The Origin of the Species in 1859. If you have not been the subject of Orwellian brainwashing which has arbitrarily changed the meaning of evolution from what he and his protagonists thought then why are you having such a problem understanding this?

What you are arguing is not what Darwin thought. I can't very well defend what you are arguing because I don't believe it, myself. Darwin wouldn't defend it, either, if he were alive today.

You've done nothing in dealing with the evidence that I have presented to this point that reveals that either 'Darwinian' evolution or YOUR definition of 'evolution' has ever occured.

The 'up-dated' definition of evolution, i.e. (in short) 'a change in allele frequency' is woefully inadequate and dishonest for it misleads the student from understanding the issue and the practical outworking of what evolution is supposed to be doing in our world. It's like defining a souped-up 357 Chevrolet as 'an 8 cylinder engine with four wheels.'

I am not going to continue debating this particular point.[/QUOTE]

Okay.

The TE's don't care what God's Word says about the creation. To them, what skeptics say about origins and development is above the words of Moses and Jesus Christ.

I'm a TE, and I care what God's Word says about creation.

I'm afraid I can't find where you defined "kind." Is it defined in such a way that I could identify and distinguish "kinds" without asking you for each case? Would we find that we disagree on this particular boundary or that -- and would there be an objective way to choose between us? For instance, if you think that rabbits and hares are one "kind" and I think they are two, how would we decide in a way that is mutually agreeable?

You didn't look very hard. But I am not going to find it for you.

I found a number of examples, but I didn't find a way for me to decide. Anyway, we can stick to talking about evolution. That's okay with me.

 

[pgp_protector]

Bye.

...

 

[Calypsis4]

The Creationist source you got that image from is incorrect. Bat's aren't rodents. They're Chiroptera and more closely related to flying lemurs and primates than to rodents.
Eutheria
esp.
Chiroptera

I didn't say thay were. Please read carefully what I said above. They supposedly 'evolved' from a rodent-like organism. But I made it clear in more than one place that evolutionists don't KNOW exactly what bats evolved from. There is NO fossil evidence to substantiate that the bat 'evolved' from or 'evolved' into any other organism.

My, oh my, you are missing the point.

Best wishes.

 

[Calypsis4]

Seriously, talk to a scientist in any field about entries regarding their fields in any and all of these sources. Talk to them about what they think of high school science texts. I'm not joking. We all feel like our fields are woefully misrepresented.

YOU ARE NOT going to tell me that the classic definition of evolution according to the MOST popular and MOST used modern sources is in error. What you are saying after all was a joke.

The common definition is not necessarily the same as the scientific definition. That's the problem. However people in general use terms -- it isn't necessarily how scientists use them. An analogy: consider the popular usage of "resurrection" -- many people (including Christians) will say that Jesus resurrected Lazarus. But he didn't. He resuscitated him. The resurrection deals with a new creation into which Jesus was the first to enter and the rest of us will enter at the end of time. The popular usage differs from the theological one. There's no way around it. And naturally, I can't be expected to defend the idea that Lazarus was resurrected from a non-Christian who points out that Lazarus died, again. Likewise, how can any of the TEs here defend the popular usage of evolution when we disbelieve it as much as you?



What you are arguing is not what Darwin thought. I can't very well defend what you are arguing because I don't believe it, myself. Darwin wouldn't defend it, either, if he were alive today.



The 'up-dated' definition of evolution, i.e. (in short) 'a change in allele frequency' is woefully inadequate and dishonest for it misleads the student from understanding the issue and the practical outworking of what evolution is supposed to be doing in our world. It's like defining a souped-up 357 Chevrolet as 'an 8 cylinder engine with four wheels.'

I am not going to continue debating this particular point.

Okay.



I'm a TE, and I care what God's Word says about creation.

For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth...Exodus 20:11.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. Mark 10:6.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

But Adam was first formed then Eve. I Timothy 2:13

You claim to believe in scripture and evolution at the same time even though the scriptures are VERY clear about what God did and evolution is taught nowhere in the Bible. That is called Orwellian double-think.

I found a number of examples, but I didn't find a way for me to decide. Anyway, we can stick to talking about evolution. That's okay with me.[/quote]

Bye

 

[Calypsis4]

Again, pastor, it isn't God's word I reject; it's your fallible interpretation of it.

No. You are rejecting what the Lord said.

Luther once slammed Copernicus for not believing God's word when it said in Joshua that the sun goes about the earth,

I am not Luther. You will answer to the Lord for your unbelief.

and I reject that accusation for the same reason that I reject your own. It demonstrates shallow thinking about the Scriptures.

Back to your examples, you're still not telling the whole truth. You mention a few amphibians that look similar to modern taxa, but why don't you mention fossils like Triadobatrachus or Gerobatrachus that are obviously transitional between frogs and salamanders?

When you refer to lizard fossils, why do you make no mention of things like Petrolacosaurus, which is so clearly transitional between modern diapsid lizards and more basal amniotes?

You also mention fossil plants, but you conveniently neglect to mention Runcaria, a species of fossil plant from the Devonian that perfectly shows a transitional morphology between seed plants and more primitive forms:

Indeed, it strikes me that your entire argument against evolution is one from incredulity -- you clearly aren't familiar with those excellent transitional fossils that provide some of the best evidence for evolution in the past.

There are none. You are just pretending. Not only so but you didn't cite your source so I cannot check it out.

(Either that, or you are blatantly ignoring them.) You might take a lesson from the words of St. Augustine:

And you might start taking a lesson from Jesus Christ who affirmed all that Moses said in the pentateuch (including Genesis).

Lu 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus also called those who didn't believe what Moses wrote 'fools'.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Luke 24:25.

Honestly, as someone in the field of the biological sciences, myself, you come across as someone who has no idea what he is talking about. I get the distinct impression you don't care, though, because you think it's you and God against the world.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

You are rejecting God's word. There is no evolution taught in the Bible. Not even a hint.

Your point above: 'triadobatracus' & 'Gerobatrchus' is THE SAME salamander! Who are you trying to fool? There are no 'transitions' because evolution doesn't exist in the first place. Secondly...if you think that they are 'transitional' then demonstrate that they have made a genetic transition by revealing the DNA change of of one to the other.

That you know you can't do.

 

[Mallon]

You are rejecting God's word. There is no evolution taught in the Bible. Not even a hint.

I am rejecting what you say. Despite what you might think, you are not God. Like me, you are simply interpreting the words of God and we come to different conclusions about what they say.
And for the umpteenth time, simply because the Bible doesn't make mention of something does not mean that thing does not exist. The Bible doesn't make mention of the Internet, either, and yet here you are ranting and raving online.

Your point above: 'triadobatracus' & 'Gerobatrchus' is THE SAME salamander!

No, they are not the same, and no, they are not like modern salamanders. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you're making yourself (and the brand of Christianity you speak for) look foolish because of it. In fact, both Gerobatrachus and Triadobatrachus are more similar to frogs, but they retain salamander-like characteristics, including fused ankle bones and an odontoid process on the first vertebra. The number of presacral vertebrae is also transitional between that of modern frogs and salamanders (Gerobatrachus has 17 and the younger Triadobatrachus has 14).
Seriously, you should research this stuff before you speak so forcefully about it.

Who are you trying to fool? There are no 'transitions' because evolution doesn't exist in the first place.

And yet the fossils I've presented suggest otherwise, as do all lines of evidence from biostratigraphy, biogeography, developmental biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc. You are simply ignoring the evidence because you have convinced yourself of a particularly narrow interpretation of God's word and have shut yourself off completely to the evidence of His handiwork in nature (Psa 19, Rom 1:20). You're behaving just like Luther, who condemned Copernicus for thinking the earth goes about the sun, unthinkingly citing proof texts as evidence.

Secondly...if you think that they are 'transitional' then demonstrate that they have made a genetic transition by revealing the DNA change of of one to the other.

That you know you can't do.

You're right, I can't because the DNA is not preserved. Nor do I need to. In order to support a scientific theory, all that needs to be done is to show that the theory makes certain predictions and that these predictions be borne out by the evidence. In this case, evolution predicts certain transitional forms and we see these transitional forms in the fossil record (Tiktaalik is an excellent recent example of this). The predictions that follow from neocreationism about the fossil record are not borne out, on the other hand, and so it is rejected by the evidence of God's handiwork.
(If you're insistent on observing DNA-level transitions, though, I suggest you look at the ape family tree. There is excellent DNA evidence that man is closely related to chimps, gorillas, and pongos, successively.)

 

[Mallon]

Calypsis4, I should also point out the inconsistency in your position so far. You started this thread out by making the claim that no transitional fossils exist, posting many examples of fossils that look superficially like living species. Yet when myself and others here posted many examples of fossils that are clearly transitional in their morphology, you then moved the goalposts; rather than admitting to the transitional nature of these fossils, you demanded that they be shown to be related by DNA evidence. That's not very honest. You demanded transitional fossils and you got them. And we can provide more, if you so wish (assuming the mods don't give you the boot first for behaving in an unChristian-like manner). But at least be upfront and acknowledge that there do exist fossils that are transitional in their morphology. Even neocreationist organizations like AiG admit this.

 

[Calypsis4]

Calypsis4, I should also point out the inconsistency in your position so far. You started this thread out by making the claim that no transitional fossils exist, posting many examples of fossils that look superficially like living species. Yet when myself and others here posted many examples of fossils that are clearly transitional in their morphology, you then moved the goalposts;

You are NOT telling the truth. Those 'examples' are not transitionals. You used a fossil of an organism and then compare it to the SAME organism which only fills in the missing parts and call that a transition? I'll ask it again, 'who are you trying to fool?'

rather than admitting to the transitional nature of these fossils, you demanded that they be shown to be related by DNA evidence. That's not very honest. You demanded transitional fossils and you got them.

Another untrue statement. Neither God's Word nor the scientific facts support your belief in biological evolution. It isn't even close. You and those like you have to fabricate facts and/or deliberately misinterpret the facts by tortured logic to justify your position. It isn't right and it isn't honest.

I challenged you above to produce evidence that there has been a genetic change in the DNA in such transformations of one kind of organism to another. You did NOT do that. You can't. Furthermore, you have yet to admit that you can't.

There are no transitionals. You are just using a wild imagination and creating facts as you go. So it is with evolutionists. Almost none of them are honest in this matter.

I made mention of Niles Eldgredge at the U.S. Natural History Museum and Stephen J. Gould at Harvard who feelly admitted that the transitionals are missing from the fossil record. Colin Patterson of the London Natural History Museum echoed almost exactly the same problem. As strongly as I disagree with their 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, I do agree with their assessment of this matter. Stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers here because discerning people are going to see through it. I intend to help them until I am kicked off the forum.

And we can provide more, if you so wish (assuming the mods don't give you the boot first for behaving in an unChristian-like manner). But at least be upfront and acknowledge that there do exist fossils that are transitional in their morphology. Even neocreationist organizations like AiG admit this.

"Un-Christian" by your definition. The truth is that neither you nor your comrades in unbelief like being rebuked for error and heresy.

"O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:10

Not a very 'Christain' thing for Paul to do to that poor heretic, right?

 

[Mallon]

You are NOT telling the truth. Those 'examples' are not transitionals.

Of course they are, and I referred to the specific characters that make them transitional. You are simply avoiding the subject by accusing me of "fabricating facts" rather than actually dealing with the implications of said transitional morphologies. Now ask me if would expect anything less from a fundie preacher from the southern US.

I challenged you above to produce evidence that there has been a genetic change in the DNA in such transformations of one kind of organism to another. You did NOT do that. You can't. Furthermore, you have yet to admit that you can't.

Fossils don't normally preserve DNA, pastor, so of course I can't use DNA to show that Gerobatrachus is transitional between frogs and salamanders. As I've shown, we use morphology for that.
We can use genetic evidence to show that certain living species are related, though. Here's an example from Ken Miller concerning the relationship between humans and chimps:

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

And here's the transitional fossil series that supports such an interpretation:

There are no transitionals.

Of course there are, you just need to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.

I made mention of Niles Eldgredge at the U.S. Natural History Museum and Stephen J. Gould at Harvard who feelly admitted that the transitionals are missing from the fossil record. Colin Patterson of the London Natural History Museum echoed almost exactly the same problem.

No, you quote-mined them in typical neocreationist fashion. If you were familiar with any of their works, you would know that they do indeed accept transitional fossils but feel that they are rare given the discrepancy between the slow rate of sedimentary deposition and the fast rate at which adaptive radiation occurs. Please don't tell me I'm being dishonest when you clearly haven't read the works of the authors you are quote-mining.

I intend to help them until I am kicked off the forum.

Honestly, I suspect you are doing more harm for your case than good. You're coming across as a raving mad-man.

"Un-Christian" by your definition.

By the definition of the mods, evidently. If you were behaving in a Christ-like manner, you wouldn't be getting a slap on the wrist.

 

[Willtor]

Okay.

I'm a TE, and I care what God's Word says about creation.

For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth...Exodus 20:11.

The days aren't intended literally. This was known long before evolution came around.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. Mark 10:6.

Here's another good example. After all, the creation account says they were made on the sixth day, and if one took Mark too literally, here, one might think he was teaching that man was created on the first day. One has to interpret this as indicating not the beginning of creation of all things, but of the beginning of the creation of humanity. Jesus, here, is teaching about divorce and using the truth of the nature of humanity (as created by God) as a basis for marriage that is greater than what Moses permitted.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

Again, if you take this literally, it would seem that Eve bore no responsibility. This is a pretty strong indication that Paul understood the value of Genesis from the figurative interpretation.

But Adam was first formed then Eve. I Timothy 2:13

This is (by far) the most blatant figurative usage of the passage. Paul's reasoning is bogus unless man being created before woman is taken figuratively. If Eve doesn't represent all women in this chapter, then citing this passage is a non sequitur to his train of thought.

All this is not to say that it could not _also_ be literal -- but the value that is being drawn from it is figurative in nature. No literal interpretation is vindicated -- even the 20th century literal interpretation -- by these passages. In fact, I think a much stronger case could be made for arguing that the earth is flat from the Bible than that the earth is ~6000 years old.

You claim to believe in scripture and evolution at the same time even though the scriptures are VERY clear about what God did and evolution is taught nowhere in the Bible. That is called Orwellian double-think.

Orwellian double-think is where one holds a contradiction in ones mind. Evolution does not contradict Scripture. It _does_ contradict certain interpretations of Genesis. But I don't hold any of those interpretations.

 

[Calypsis4]

Of course they are, and I referred to the specific characters that make them transitional. You are simply avoiding the subject by accusing me of "fabricating facts" rather than actually dealing with the implications of said transitional morphologies. Now ask me if would expect anything less from a fundie preacher from the southern US.

No, they are not. Similarity of structure indicates a common Creator not a common ancestor. You still have the problem of dealing with the genetic change that would be required for organisms to change into different organisms. But that barrier neither you nor your unbelieving comrades will ever breach.

Fossils don't normally preserve DNA, pastor,

Gee, is that a fact? Are there other junior high school facts you wish to inform me about? Now why don't you try to figure out why I brought that matter to your attention in the first place.

so of course I can't use DNA to show that Gerobatrachus is transitional between frogs and salamanders. As I've shown, we use morphology for that.

Oh, then explain why one has 26 chromosomes and the other 24 and how they diverged millions of yrs ago. Do that if you can. Then demonstrate that nature can genetically alter them to merge into some other organism. Good luck.

We can use genetic evidence to show that certain living species are related, though. Here's an example from Ken Miller concerning the relationship between humans and chimps:

Ken Miller. Enough said. I left him behind when he made a fool of himself trying to explain how a mousetrap is not 'irreducibly' complex by removing a part or two from a mousetrap and using it as a tie clip. On a scale of ten that one rates about a 7 for laughter.

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

And here's the transitional fossil series that supports such an interpretation:

Of course there are, you just need to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.

Don't tell me to 'open my eyes' to your ridiculous interpretation of the facts when you have your eyes closed to Moses....and to Jesus and what they said about creation. Some of the most esteemed men of science, even men who believe in evolution have said that those fossils are not transitional and they gave their reasons publicly yrs ago. Need I bring them out also?

I could, in your fashion present fossils of great similarity to prove that they 'evolved'. Such an example is...

Compare this:

With this:

A dog compared to a thylacine. Should I conclude that they are related because of similarity? Problem. One is canine and the other is a marsupial.

Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans 46. Explain to the readers how that bridge was crossed genetically and then demonstrate how it was done by appeal to experiments in the lab. If you can then you can do something that no one else on earth can do. Tobacco also has 46 chromosomes. Are we therefore more closely related to cigarettes than to apes?

No, you quote-mined them in typical neocreationist fashion.

And you, sir, are lying in typical TE fashion. Not surprising at all among those who have accepted lies into their thinking process. I have read Colin Pattersons letter to Dr. Luther Sunderland on the subject in full. I have read Eldredge, Gould, et al many times and I did NOT 'quote mine' them. I didn't quote them at all in fact, I merely reported what their position was on the issue.

If you were familiar with any of their works, you would know that they do indeed accept transitional fossils but feel that they are rare given the discrepancy between the slow rate of sedimentary deposition and the fast rate at which adaptive radiation occurs. Please don't tell me I'm being dishonest when you clearly haven't read the works of the authors you are quote-mining.

Here is the letter from Patterson to Dr. Sunderland in toto:

Thanks for your letter of 5th March, and your kind words about the Museum and my book. I held off answering you for a couple of weeks, in case the artwork you mention in your letter should turn up, but it hasn't.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps not: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.
Thanks again for writing.
Yours sincerely, Colin Patterson
​

Sir, I dare you to reveal how I 'quote mined' the man. I can do the same thing with his other statements and that of Eldredge and Gould as well. I'll say it again, you are not telling the truth. You owe the readers of this website an apology.

Honestly, I suspect you are doing more harm for your case than good. You're coming across as a raving mad-man.

Your statement reminds me of what Festus said to Paul, "Much learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26:24. But you labor under the delusion that your opinion of me counts. But my interest here is only in those tender young Christians whose faith has been or could be destroyed by your unbelieving influence on this website.

By the definition of the mods, evidently. If you were behaving in a Christ-like manner, you wouldn't be getting a slap on the wrist.

What they do as it concerns me is not your concern.

This will be my final reply to you. The Lord rebuke you.

 

[Mallon]

No, they are not. Similarity of structure indicates a common Creator not a common ancestor.

No it doesn't. There is no rule that says a single creator must design according to the same principles, particularly an omnipotent one. Think about the implications of what you are saying: do the similarities shared by a cat and dog to the exclusion of a frog mean that the latter two share a creator apart from that of the frog? Does the fact that I look more like my dad than my uncle mean that my dad and I share a creator exclusive to my uncle? The "common creator" argument makes no sense. Different creators can make similar things and a single creator can make very different things.

Ken Miller. Enough said. I left him behind when he made a fool of himself trying to explain how a mousetrap is not 'irreducibly' complex by removing a part or two from a mousetrap and using it as a tie clip. On a scale of ten that one rates about a 7 for laughter.

You do know that ID advocate Michael Behe was the one who first used the mousetrap to illustrate irreducible complexity, right? What did you find laughable about Miller's refutation of it? And why have you avoided addressing Miller's argument that I linked you to? You appear more interested in attacking his character than his science.

A dog compared to a thylacine. Should I conclude that they are related because of similarity? Problem. One is canine and the other is a marsupial.

That's right, and evolution explains their superficial similarity on the basis of convergent evolution. Both forms face similar selection pressures on different continents, and so they have both evolved to fill similar niches. A careful look at their skeletal structure and reproductive physiology reveals that they are not closely related, however, the thylacine being more closely related to kangaroos than to placental mammals. Really, nothing you've said here is a problem for evolutionary theory at all.

Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans 46. Explain to the readers how that bridge was crossed genetically and then demonstrate how it was done by appeal to experiments in the lab.

Chromosome fusion. If you had watched the Ken Miller video I posted earlier, you would have known this. He explains it in great detail. Chromosome fusion happens all the time. We've documented it in fruit flies, grasshoppers, moths, etc. Chromosome fusion also accounts for the difference in chromosome counts between frogs and salamanders you alluded to earlier. If differences in chromosome numbers really were evidence of miraculous creation, you would have to believe that babies with Downs syndrome were magically poofed into existence also.

And you, sir, are lying in typical TE fashion. Not surprising at all among those who have accepted lies into their thinking process. I have read Colin Pattersons letter to Dr. Luther Sunderland on the subject in full. I have read Eldredge, Gould, et al many times and I did NOT 'quote mine' them. I didn't quote them at all in fact, I merely reported what their position was on the issue.

Actually, you did quote mine because you simply cited the same letter that neocreationists do all the time without understanding the context in which it was given. Here's the background to Patterson's letter you neglected to mention:

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

This will be my final reply to you. The Lord rebuke you.

Funny how you insist on the teachings of Jesus as they apply to Genesis, yet ignore everything he has to say about the fruits of the spirit. Jesus rebuked hypocrites, Calypsis4. Hopefully someone will report your last post as I have already replied to it!

 

[Calypsis4]

Mallon, you will not be answered again.

 

[Calypsis4]

My last post on this thread concerns the impossibility of biological evolution as it relates to genetics. Comparative anatomy is not the bottom line in establishing what was supposed to be a change from one living organism to other organisms. Change within the kind is the expected and observed phenomenon, but the evolution of change from one organism to a different organism never occurs.

This matter was established by the Creator in Genesis chapter one. His word makes it clear that all organisms will reproduce only ‘after its kind’. Such as

But while we might see genetic change in such things as…

Ligers:

A liger is a cross between a lion and a tiger. But they are all hybrids. The genetic limitations that God imposed on nature are clearly seen here.

We will never see crossbreeding result in something like this…

or this…

…or any variation of the same. Evolutionists laugh at such a claim but they don’t have ANY examples from nature to demonstrate that any kind of biological change has occurred; certainly nothing from genetics.

They claim that mutations are one of the main mechanisms that bring about this change but virtually all known mutations have been harmful. But even if the supposed ‘beneficial’ mutations have occurred in nature how could such a rare thing ever bring about the evolution of such a vast array of life forms on earth? The insect world alone boggles the imagination.

But the mutations observed results in things like…

Biologists have experimented by taking drosophila flies through tens of thousands of generations and yet ended up with...(guess what?) drosophilas!

Mutations produce things like…

These facts are well known but theistic evolutionists have bought into the lie of evolution despite the scientific facts. They actually believe that Darwinists are telling the truth about the changes in nature. They trust them instead of God and what He said (ten times in Genesis alone!) 'after its kind'. Simple faith and trust in God’s Word is tossed out in favor of the opinions of those who hate the gospel.

A day of reckoning is coming for all who disbelieved the Lord.

 

[Calypsis4]

Seriously,

The common definition is not necessarily the same as the scientific definition.

It was until the Orwellians came along and arbitrarily changed it to that juvenile version, "a change in allele frequency" nonsense. That is vastly incomplete at best and deceptive at worst.

The classic definitions as given by the classic sources is correct. Goodness, friend(!) where do you think they got the definition in the first place? Where did Cambridge get the definition. The publishers certainly didn't have to go further than the science lab on the same campus!


What you are arguing is not what Darwin thought.

Oh, yes it is. You aren't telling the truth. Darwin taught that living organisms change into other organisms over time. THAT is exactly what I am talking about.

I can't very well defend what you are arguing because I don't believe it, myself. Darwin wouldn't defend it, either, if he were alive today.

You can't defend it anyway. There is nothing to defend. Evolution doesn't exist and never occurred on this planet.

The 'up-dated' definition of evolution, i.e. (in short) 'a change in allele frequency' is woefully inadequate and dishonest for it misleads the student from understanding the issue and the practical outworking of what evolution is supposed to be doing in our world. It's like defining a souped-up 357 Chevrolet as 'an 8 cylinder engine with four wheels.'

I am not going to continue debating this particular point.

Okay.

I'm a TE, and I care what God's Word says about creation.

I found a number of examples, but I didn't find a way for me to decide. Anyway, we can stick to talking about evolution. That's okay with me.[/quote]

Have a nice day.

 

[Mallon]

Change within the kind is the expected and observed phenomenon, but the evolution of change from one organism to a different organism never occurs. This matter was established by the Creator in Genesis chapter one. His word makes it clear that all organisms will reproduce only ‘after its kind’.

Refuted here:
CH350: Discrete Kinds

We will never see crossbreeding result in something like this…

That's a strawman. Evolution does not state that new species arise via the hybridization of discreet living species. Evolution occurs via reproductive isolation of sub-populations.

Evolutionists laugh at such a claim but they don’t have ANY examples from nature to demonstrate that any kind of biological change has occurred; certainly nothing from genetics.

I provided genetic evidence for evolution in the Ken Miller video you ignored.

They claim that mutations are one of the main mechanisms that bring about this change but virtually all known mutations have been harmful.

Refuted here:

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

But even if the supposed ‘beneficial’ mutations have occurred in nature how could such a rare thing ever bring about the evolution of such a vast array of life forms on earth? The insect world alone boggles the imagination.

Addressed here:

CB928: Beneficial traits not ubiquitous.
CB940.1: The Mathematical Probability of Evolution

These facts are well known but theistic evolutionists have bought into the lie of evolution despite the scientific facts. They actually believe that Darwinists are telling the truth about the changes in nature. They trust them instead of God and what He said (ten times in Genesis alone!) 'after its kind'.

God also said in Job that the earth is shaped like a piece of clay under a seal (i.e., flat). Don't get your science from the Bible. It was not written for that purpose.

Simple faith and trust in God’s Word is tossed out in favor of the opinions of those who hate the gospel.

No doubt you'll be reported for that, too.