Win a debate against evolution every time.

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
​

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

I was expecting something a whole lot more difficult when I started looking into these things. What I found is that the truth is actually pretty simple, only the way they bury the truth is complicated.

Bear it in mind brother because I promise you, they haven't got an argument for this one because they haven't got a clue.

This is the same altered list that mark cuts and pastes, even though he knows he has removed the transitional skulls. Using it once might be a mistake, but using it over and over after being repeatedly corrected rules out an honest mistake.

mark, you are again telling the falsehood that there is no transitional, even though you been called on that more than once. Martyrs, do you think selectively hiding data is acceptable Christian behavior?


Here is another example of mark hiding evidence of this very transitional. He says there is no transitional, cutting it out of his list on post #31, then this is exposed with the full list in posts #37, 38 and 35.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7552551-4/

Here is the same above list with the transitionals replaced (from #38).

What mark is selectively not telling you is that there is a range (in fact, a usually overlapping range) to each of these.

It's about as gradual as you can get - in fact, the ranges often even overlap:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of 380-430 cc lived about 3.5 mya.
(about the same as modern chimps)
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of 420-500 cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 500-545cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.

at this point, mark again omits data to make his point look better. Hey, that "whole truth" line is just a suggestion, right?

H. habilis with a cranial capacity of 510-680 cc lived about 2.3 to 1.7 mya.
H. georgicus with a cranial capacity of 600-780 cc lived about 1.8 mya.

H. Erectus with a cranial capacity of 850-1200cc lived about 1.8 mya.

Ancient H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1150-1280cc lived about 0.5 to 0.2 mya.

H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1200-1800cc live today, and post on this board.

So, mark, please inform me where the large gap is? Look again at the graph. Is it at 500 cc? 600 cc? 700 cc? Hint - draw horizontal lines on the graph - a gap is where you can go a long ways (say, 200 cc) vertically without points between the horizontal lines.

In graphical form:
http://ncse.com/files/images/Fossil_homs_cranial_capacity_vs_time_0.png

This gene which is involved in the development of the fetal brain from week 7 to 19 would have been virtually unchanged for 310 million years. Then, about 2 million years ago it changes 18 nucleotides in the three dimensional structure to produce the human brain from that of apes.

mark, pull out your calculator and see what that gives you. 2000000/18 is only 1 mutation every 100,000 years. That's not hard at all. I don't see why you act incredulous over 1 mutation every 100,000 years, when we are all expected to have a few mutations with every birth.

You should understand, evolutionists haven't got a clue how this is even remotely possible.

Another unsupported and baseless statement.

As posted before (even on this thread), it has been explained to mark that the increase in brain size is not a mystery, and some of the genes responsible have been identified. The video below is by someone who actually understands genetics, has looked at the evidence, and explains it. You can see starting at 2:40 that the evolution of a human brain from a chimp-like brain is not at all a "mystery" to those who are familiar with the evidence, such as Dr. Saplosky here. The genetic evidence (which shows how the brain evolution took place genetically) coupled with the fossil evidence (which confirms that it happen in real creatures, in the general timeframe expected) make it pretty clear that mark's difficulty in admitting the evidence and easy plausibilty for human brain evolution is just in his own brain, not in those of the experts.


What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube


previously shown to mark at:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608419-5/#post59113621 Post #45


********************************

Smidlee wrote:

Saplosky is suppose to be an expert and the best he came up with if a monkey had more neurons they would think like us.

No, he doesn't say just that. In this informal part of a larger talk, he isn't trying to lay out all the details of the process shown by the science. He's mentioning offhand that it is understood, and giving one small part of that understanding (the increase in brain size, which is exactly the part mark can't get his head around). I agree, Smidlee, that it is a pretty amazing change. If you'd like to understand it in detail, then I encourage you to enroll at a University with these classes. It's not simple, and so learning it will require the time for a degree or so.

Also birds and dogs have better understanding of communication than a chimp. For example a dog understands finger pointing even though they have no fingers while chimps don't and have fingers.

As has been pointed out in an earlier post, up to date data shows that chimps are clearly more intelligent than all animals except human animals, including the pointing methods you mentioned.

Humans doesn't have the largest brain.

They have the largest encephalization quotient, which is what matters, since brain size scales with body size (so whales have the largest brains). Just look it up, and learn.

Thanks for the discussion-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the same altered list that mark cuts and pastes, even though he knows he has removed the transitional skulls. Using it once might be a mistake, but using it over and over after being repeatedly corrected rules out an honest mistake.

mark, you are again telling the falsehood that there is no transitional, even though you been called on that more than once. Martyrs, do you think selectively hiding data is acceptable Christian behavior?

Notice, Papias attacks the poster rather then the substance of the post. Does that indicate acceptable Christian behavior? Instead of dealing with the argument he fabricates an ad hominem personal attack like he has done his entire time on these boards.

What mark is selectively not telling you is that there is a range (in fact, a usually overlapping range) to each of these.

Now for the spam attack, he just posts a couple of links and other such nonsense hoping you will chase it all down.

It's about as gradual as you can get - in fact, the ranges often even overlap:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of 380-430 cc lived about 3.5 mya.
(about the same as modern chimps)
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of 420-500 cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 500-545cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.

at this point, mark again omits data to make his point look better. Hey, that "whole truth" line is just a suggestion, right?

H. habilis with a cranial capacity of 510-680 cc lived about 2.3 to 1.7 mya.
H. georgicus with a cranial capacity of 600-780 cc lived about 1.8 mya.

H. Erectus with a cranial capacity of 850-1200cc lived about 1.8 mya.

Ancient H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1150-1280cc lived about 0.5 to 0.2 mya.

H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1200-1800cc live today, and post on this board.

Well, that is an improvement over the scattergram you shamelessly spammed for so long. The Homo erectus skulls that are complete are comparable with modern humans.

At around 600 cubic centimetres (37 cu in) brain volume, the skull D2700 is dated to 1.77 million years old and in good condition offering insights in comparison to the modern human cranial morphology. Homo erectus​

The cut off for 'Homo' was 600cc for a long time until Louise Leaky managed to include other features effectively neutralizing the 'cerebral rubicon' as it came to be called.

So, mark, please inform me where the large gap is? Look again at the graph. Is it at 500 cc? 600 cc? 700 cc? Hint - draw horizontal lines on the graph - a gap is where you can go a long ways (say, 200 cc) vertically without points between the horizontal lines.

No I'm not chasing your scattergram plots around the mulberry bush. There are two direct references to actual fossils:

KNM-ER 1470

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy Homo rudolfensis​

KNM-ER 3733

H. erectus 1.64-1.88 848 Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus"[1]) is an extinct chronospecies of Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago​

That's about it, they are the among the few hominid fossils that all within the range of human cranial capacity. For a substantive list of the fossils involved try this link:


Cranial Capacities and Dates for Selected Fossil Specimens

mark, pull out your calculator and see what that gives you. 2000000/18 is only 1 mutation every 100,000 years. That's not hard at all. I don't see why you act incredulous over 1 mutation every 100,000 years, when we are all expected to have a few mutations with every birth.

When you are ready to calculate mutation rates I'll break out on my calculator. In the mean time why don't you try wrapping your mind around the fact that only two substitutions were allowed due to functional constraint for 310 million years and then, about 2 million years ago or less, 18 substitutions are made.

That's the question you and all evolutionists don't want to answer, if things in common indicate common ancestry do differences indicate independent lineage due to special creation? In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Because if not, it's an a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes.

As posted before (even on this thread), it has been explained to mark that the increase in brain size is not a mystery, and some of the genes responsible have been identified. The video below is by someone who actually understands genetics, has looked at the evidence, and explains it. You can see starting at 2:40 that the evolution of a human brain from a chimp-like brain is not at all a "mystery" to those who are familiar with the evidence, such as Dr. Saplosky here. The genetic evidence (which shows how the brain evolution took place genetically) coupled with the fossil evidence (which confirms that it happen in real creatures, in the general timeframe expected) make it pretty clear that mark's difficulty in admitting the evidence and easy plausibilty for human brain evolution is just in his own brain, not in those of the experts.

As pointed out before, the statistic that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzee has been conclusively proven to be false:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions;​

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

That is the source this 'expert' is citing and grossly misrepresenting the content.

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

Do the math, that's not 98% the same and there is a reason they don't want to admit that the differences are far larger then expected. When they do that they have to admit that the mutation rate would have to be too high for our ancestors to have survived the deleterious effects.

So when the size and number of the differences in the chimp/human DNA double the mutation rate since the common ancestor doubles right?

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common....The average mutation rate was calculated from the average autosomal rate of evolution assuming a generation time of 20 years

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (see Table 1).​

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times (t) and different ancestral population sizes (Ne)

Now, pay attention because we are talking about mutation rates with devastating disease, disorder and death a likely and common result:

If the mutation rate needed for the differences at 1.3% high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations, what happens when it is found to be over three times that?

In other words, if the homology argument that we have so much in common with the chimpanzee that it strongly supports common ancestry. Then, when the differences are so great that the effect on fitness is too high, does that indicate evidence for independent creation?

Bottom line, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Papias has been shown this many times and yet wants to call me a liar. If he is being honest then let him openly admit that the statistic that we are 98% the same is false our he can expect to see it again and again until he does. Complete with direct quotes from the paper this 'expert' is grossly misrepresenting.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

Notice, Papias attacks the poster rather then the substance of the post. Does that indicate acceptable Christian behavior? Instead of dealing with the argument he fabricates an ad hominem personal attack like he has done his entire time on these boards.

Now for the spam attack, he just posts a couple of links and other such nonsense hoping you will chase it all down.

Well, that is an improvement over the scattergram you shamelessly spammed for so long. The Homo erectus skulls that are complete are comparable with modern humans.

At around 600 cubic centimetres (37 cu in) brain volume, the skull D2700 is dated to 1.77 million years old and in good condition offering insights in comparison to the modern human cranial morphology. Homo erectus
​

The cut off for 'Homo' was 600cc for a long time until Louise Leaky managed to include other features effectively neutralizing the 'cerebral rubicon' as it came to be called.




No I'm not chasing your scattergram plots around the mulberry bush. There are two direct references to actual fossils:

KNM-ER 1470

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy Homo rudolfensis
​

KNM-ER 3733

H. erectus 1.64-1.88 848 Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus"[1]) is an extinct chronospecies of Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago
​

That's about it, they are the among the few hominid fossils that all within the range of human cranial capacity. For a substantive list of the fossils involved try this link:


Cranial Capacities and Dates for Selected Fossil Specimens




When you are ready to calculate mutation rates I'll break out on my calculator. In the mean time why don't you try wrapping your mind around the fact that only two substitutions were allowed due to functional constraint for 310 million years and then, about 2 million years ago or less, 18 substitutions are made.

That's the question you and all evolutionists don't want to answer, if things in common indicate common ancestry do differences indicate independent lineage due to special creation? In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Because if not, it's an a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes.



As pointed out before, the statistic that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzee has been conclusively proven to be false:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions;
​

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

That is the source this 'expert' is citing and grossly misrepresenting the content.

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

Do the math, that's not 98% the same and there is a reason they don't want to admit that the differences are far larger then expected. When they do that they have to admit that the mutation rate would have to be too high for our ancestors to have survived the deleterious effects.

So when the size and number of the differences in the chimp/human DNA double the mutation rate since the common ancestor doubles right?

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common....The average mutation rate was calculated from the average autosomal rate of evolution assuming a generation time of 20 years

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (see Table 1).
​

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times (t) and different ancestral population sizes (Ne)

Now, pay attention because we are talking about mutation rates with devastating disease, disorder and death a likely and common result:

If the mutation rate needed for the differences at 1.3% high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations, what happens when it is found to be over three times that?

In other words, if the homology argument that we have so much in common with the chimpanzee that it strongly supports common ancestry. Then, when the differences are so great that the effect on fitness is too high, does that indicate evidence for independent creation?

Bottom line, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Papias has been shown this many times and yet wants to call me a liar. If he is being honest then let him openly admit that the statistic that we are 98% the same is false our he can expect to see it again and again until he does. Complete with direct quotes from the paper this 'expert' is grossly misrepresenting.

Have a nice day
Mark

It doesn't matter what papias says. I have him on ignore & I have good reason to keep him that way. But as far as your facts, Mark, I will vouch for you because I've seen that documentation before...point by point. They really have no case but they pretend that they do.

Thanks again.

 

[mark kennedy]

It doesn't matter what papias says. I have him on ignore & I have good reason to keep him that way. But as far as your facts, Mark, I will vouch for you because I've seen that documentation before...point by point. They really have no case but they pretend that they do.

Thanks again.

That was for Papias, I've always held to the hope that one of these days he will wise up and realize he is being used. Anyway, I'll see you around.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

Papias

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes

"The genes for eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) in primates belong to the ribonuclease gene family, and the ECP gene, whose product has an anti-pathogen function not displayed by EDN, was generated by duplication of the EDN gene about 31 million years ago. "

Assign it off into the unobserved past. (Creation says time didnt exist till ~6,000 years ago).

Its members originated 1−2 million years ago as retroposed duplicates and evolved into fission genes that separately encode protein domains from a multidomain ancestor.

Duplication-degeneration as a mechanism of gene fission and the origin of new genes in Drosophila species - Nature Genetics

Assign it off into the unobserved past.


The first literature was 'inferring' gene duplication based on homology between protein/gene families.

Apriori axiom- There was no supernatural creation, plants,animals and people came from non living matter ~3.5 billion years ago. Predict homology between x organism and y organism in the SAME MOLECULE/PROTEIN CODING REGION. Find homologies. Confirm prediction that plants/animals and people came from non living matter ~3.5 billion years ago.

Like me 'predicting' a similarity of one particular characteristic in x group of objects. Example-predict there will be a similarity in the slot width for letters on a number of different letter boxes. Look at letter boxes/measure slot width. WOW! AMAZING, THEY ARE SIMILAR!!! Why are they similar? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME DESIGNER WHO USED A SIMILAR BLUEPRINT.

Do you understand y/n?

Please present the timeline of 'theistic evolution' for critique/prompt destruction.

Thank you

 

[mark kennedy]

Papias

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes

"The genes for eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) in primates belong to the ribonuclease gene family, and the ECP gene, whose product has an anti-pathogen function not displayed by EDN, was generated by duplication of the EDN gene about 31 million years ago. "

Assign it off into the unobserved past. (Creation says time didnt exist till ~6,000 years ago).

Its members originated 1−2 million years ago as retroposed duplicates and evolved into fission genes that separately encode protein domains from a multidomain ancestor.

Duplication-degeneration as a mechanism of gene fission and the origin of new genes in Drosophila species - Nature Genetics

Assign it off into the unobserved past.


The first literature was 'inferring' gene duplication based on homology between protein/gene families.

Apriori axiom- There was no supernatural creation, plants,animals and people came from non living matter ~3.5 billion years ago. Predict homology between x organism and y organism in the SAME MOLECULE/PROTEIN CODING REGION. Find homologies. Confirm prediction that plants/animals and people came from non living matter ~3.5 billion years ago.

Like me 'predicting' a similarity of one particular characteristic in x group of objects. Example-predict there will be a similarity in the slot width for letters on a number of different letter boxes. Look at letter boxes/measure slot width. WOW! AMAZING, THEY ARE SIMILAR!!! Why are they similar? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME DESIGNER WHO USED A SIMILAR BLUEPRINT.

Do you understand y/n?

Please present the timeline of 'theistic evolution' for critique/prompt destruction.

Thank you

I tend to agree, if there is a requisite change then it's things in common that must have been due to a common ancestor. If there are differences then it's morphology and nature must have provided a favorable trait selected based on fitness and reproductive success. If someone doesn't agree with those, the only two possibilities considered, they must be ignorant or dishonest.

I'm beginning to wonder if theistic evolution is just an oxymoron.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KhaosTheory]

No, I am not lying nor will I back down to you. Not an inch.

If you think you can give evidence of an example that any organism can/is/will change into a classifiaby different organism by empircal investigation then do it.

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to posts like this since it shows such a misunderstanding of evolution and I believe that it is completely rude and dishonest for anyone to attempt to so vehemently oppose a theory when they have no knowledge of it.

However, when I respond to these posts I know I'll never get through to the indoctrinated poster. I am actually speaking to the curious, thoughtful lurkers that read these threads and who have sent me many private messages of encouragement.

Thanks for your support guys.

Ex. demonstrate by observation in human history that any form of bacteria ever changed into non-bacteria.

Actually nothing has ever evolved from a bacteria. Bacteria diverged from the rest of life a very long time ago.

Demonstrate that by observation that any form of bird became a dinosaur.

No bird ever became a dinosaur but dinosaurs did become birds.

The creationist definition of "transitional fossil" requires them to be half one thing and half the other (even though that is a silly definition) Well, we've found exactly that in this case.

This is a "half dinosaur, half bird."

Origin and Evolution of Birds

Demonstrate that any form of rodent or small creature evolved into a bat.

Here it a "half rodent, half bat" discovery that should satisfy even the incomplete creationist definition of a transitional.

Fossils solve mystery of bat evolution | Science | guardian.co.uk

You may be wondering why I think the creationist definition of a transitional fossil is silly or incomplete.

Well, it's because when you say that this fossil is "half ape, half human" you are ignoring the fact that humans are STILL apes.

Likewise, when you say "half dinosaur, half bird" you forget that birds are STILL dinosaurs.

This misunderstanding perpetuates the idea that things evolve into fundamentally different kinds of things... But this isn't how evolution works.

bacteria will ALWAYS still be bacteria and eukayrotes will ALWAYS still be eukayrotes.

Creationists just can't seem to understand how this:

(Earliest Bilateral Fossil Discovered)

Is actually the same type of thing as this:

(Bilateria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Or how this:

(Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Is just an earlier version of this:

Do you understand now why your questions like "show how a bacteria every evolved into a non-bacteria" is false?

Nothing ever stopped being whatever it's ancestors were. They just developed new traits through genetic mutation driven by natural selection.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Thanks Papias for taking the time to scrutinize and uncover the creationist lies... I never have the patience to pick apart huge walls of text like that...

I prefer to debunk the common misconceptions that keep flying around instead of diving down into the complicated junk.

Once we've cleared the common erroneous ideas people have about evolution then maybe I'll bother to debate on the complicated stuff.

I'll say it again Martyrs... Lying for God is STILL lying. Stop it.

By the way, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils that we find worldwide in the geologic column.

 

[samaus12345]

Khaos theory.

Source of new information for prokaryote--->fish--->cow myth. Mutation! Sure ONE single mutation that adds new functionally sequenced bases coding for a new functional protein? IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. If one wishes to believe by blind faith it happened in the unobserved past contrary to what happens when we do observe it (spontaneous abortions, down syndrome ie-disaster) ok. Its as far from science as it gets.

 

[Martyrs44]

Thanks Papias for taking the time to scrutinize and uncover the creationist lies... I never have the patience to pick apart huge walls of text like that...

I prefer to debunk the common misconceptions that keep flying around instead of diving down into the complicated junk.

Once we've cleared the common erroneous ideas people have about evolution then maybe I'll bother to debate on the complicated stuff.

I'll say it again Martyrs... Lying for God is STILL lying. Stop it.

By the way, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils that we find worldwide in the geologic column.

That deserves a rebuke, Khaos, for accusing a man who told the truth of telling lies. Stop it.

Papis didn't 'uncover creationist lies' or anything close to it. Did you even bother reading Mark Kennedy's reply and the details he listed showing why?

The fact is I've known about the so-called transitional 'ape men' to 'man' fallacy and Mark was quite correct.

Evolution is a false theory. It does not exist nor ever did. I am an ex-evolutionist and I am not alone. There will be many more of us as time passes. Get used to it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to posts like this since it shows such a misunderstanding of evolution and I believe that it is completely rude and dishonest for anyone to attempt to so vehemently oppose a theory when they have no knowledge of it.

Define evolution.

However, when I respond to these posts I know I'll never get through to the indoctrinated poster. I am actually speaking to the curious, thoughtful lurkers that read these threads and who have sent me many private messages of encouragement.

That's the audience in the Darwinian theater of the mind, if your a Christian they are not your friends.

Actually nothing has ever evolved from a bacteria. Bacteria diverged from the rest of life a very long time ago.

It's called recapitulation and all it really does is organize modern living systems around predetermined conclusions. The mythical primordial common ancestor would have had a genome in the millions of base pairs, how it came to be no one knows. Then from this bacteria like ancestor highly complex life forms emerge, organize into communities with highly divergent specificity that had genomes in the billions. Evolutionists haven't got a clue how this is remotely possible but it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

No bird ever became a dinosaur but dinosaurs did become birds.

Let the pedantic, condescending corrections begin!

The creationist definition of "transitional fossil" requires them to be half one thing and half the other (even though that is a silly definition) Well, we've found exactly that in this case.

This is a "half dinosaur, half bird."

Not for this Creationist, it requires a directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of facilitating the adaptation in the requisite genes.

Here it a "half rodent, half bat" discovery that should satisfy even the incomplete creationist definition of a transitional.

You may be wondering why I think the creationist definition of a transitional fossil is silly or incomplete.

Because you can't define something that doesn't exist. As Newton put it, you can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth. Here's the truth Khaos:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)​

At a minimum you have to confess this in order to be regarded as a Christian:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

Nicene Creed​

Notice the confession of the Incarnation is sandwiched between two confessions of God as Creator. There is a reason Darwinians go after creation, because after you receive the Gospel and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit you are 'indoctrinated' or immune to worldly persuasion.

You have had a big time belittling Bible believing Christians so why don't you honestly admit whether you believe the Nicene Creeds opening affirmation and make that confession now.

Well, it's because when you say that this fossil is "half ape, half human" you are ignoring the fact that humans are STILL apes.

Ape is not a scientific term, 'Homo' is the genus you are referring to. There was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. To date I have yet to see an evolutionist that didn't confess this fundamental problem with their naturalistic assumptions of universal common descent.

Are we to assume it happened based on fragmentary fossils and bold affirmations or does modern science know the molecular mechanisms capable of this transition?

Likewise, when you say "half dinosaur, half bird" you forget that birds are STILL dinosaurs.

Oh I see, men evolved from apes because they are apes and birds evolved from dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs. I had no idea you were so well versed in Tautology, I mean I know evolutionists regard this form of rhetoric to their arguments of science, falsely so called.

This misunderstanding perpetuates the idea that things evolve into fundamentally different kinds of things... But this isn't how evolution works.

That's the one thing you have failed to provide, the part where you tell us how it works. You have yet to define 'evolution' for one thing and failed to provide the actual molecular mechanisms capable of transitioning vital organs over time. Pedantic rhetoric might get you great expressions of support and approval from the dark recesses of the theater but your are only performing for their amusement, your pedantic rationalizations lack any scientific merit what so ever.

bacteria will ALWAYS still be bacteria and eukayrotes will ALWAYS still be eukayrotes.

We are in agreement, finally a positive statement. You must be inexperienced, no self respecting Darwinian with the courage of their convictions would ever admit such a thing.

Creationists just can't seem to understand how this:

Oh but we do, in fact, we shout it from the housetops.

Is actually the same type of thing as this:

Or how this:

Is just an earlier version of this:

I'll pass on the spam, I had bacon and eggs for breakfast so I'm good thanks.

Do you understand now why your questions like "show how a bacteria every evolved into a non-bacteria" is false?

Yes! It's because it's from the vain imaginations of atheists who have 'changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Thank you so much for your condescending corrections and rhetorical tautologies.

Nothing ever stopped being whatever it's ancestors were. They just developed new traits through genetic mutation driven by natural selection.

You obviously don't appreciate the deleterious effects of mutations on vital organs.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

That deserves a rebuke, Khaos, for accusing a man who told the truth of telling lies. Stop it.

If he persists use the report button, that's what it's there for.

Papis didn't 'uncover creationist lies' or anything close to it. Did you even bother reading Mark Kennedy's reply and the details he listed showing why?

No, he dismissed me as 'indoctrinated', or at least I'm flattered to think him and the audience he is performing for thinks so.

The fact is I've known about the so-called transitional 'ape men' to 'man' fallacy and Mark was quite correct.

Oh, you mean Homo habilis, it's fascinating how Louise Leaky fabricated that stone age tool making industry myth. He was a master mythographer. Next to Charles Darwin he's my favorite.

Evolution is a false theory. It does not exist nor ever did. I am an ex-evolutionist and I am not alone. There will be many more of us as time passes. Get used to it.

The theory of evolution is not the problem. A theory explains all the facts, ever watch House, the diagnosis is found when all the symptoms are explained. That's a theory, what they are doing is masquerading a naturalistic assumption as a theory that explains nothing except that you are ignorant for believing God had anything to do with it. They want you to argue against evolution, they want you to think your problem is with science, it's the biggest lie they are telling you. It's about their naturalistic assumptions and they are scarred to death you will realize that there are actually two definitions of evolution at work here. One is hidden, if you find it the Darwinians booo, if you miss it you fall into their trap and the audience he is performing for does a standing ovation.

Most people believe God created or at least designed life, it's common sense. That's why these skeptics continue to hammer away at this fundamental principle, it's the keystone of all theistic reasoning.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KhaosTheory]

Khaos theory.

Source of new information for prokaryote--->fish--->cow myth. Mutation! Sure ONE single mutation that adds new functionally sequenced bases coding for a new functional protein? IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. If one wishes to believe by blind faith it happened in the unobserved past contrary to what happens when we do observe it (spontaneous abortions, down syndrome ie-disaster) ok. Its as far from science as it gets.

New proteins form from the random ordering of amino acids all the time...

Whenever creationists howl that something "has never been observed" it usually means that the phenomena is either impossible to observe within a human lifespan or it actually HAS been observed just not in the form that creationists expect.

Sorry, but strawmen are easy to blow over.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

New Proteins Without God's Help | NCSE

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Martyrs44]

New proteins form from the random ordering of amino acids all the time...

Whenever creationists howl that something "has never been observed" it usually means that the phenomena is either impossible to observe within a human lifespan or it actually HAS been observed just not in the form that creationists expect.

Sorry, but strawmen are easy to blow over.

With arguments like you bring us, they wouldn't even blow over a dandelion with a hurricane.

When you learn how to connect the dots and can give evidence that living organisms have been observed to transform from one type to a classifiably different organism then get back with us.

BUT.........even so; why is it that you can't make the connections but many of your likeminded Darwinian comrades can:

Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

 

[samaus12345]

Khaos theory. Those 3 garbage links you posted depend on people with little faith in the God of the bible, reading them and blindly putting there hope and faith in them. If you find a full peer reviewed literature article 'showing' what the neodarwinian myth i mean delusion i mean hypothesis i mean theory is claiming (new functionally sequenced base pairs coding for a new functional protein(s) arising from a copying MISTAKE) please direct link it.

Martryrs add another 7 definitions of evolution to the list LOL ty

 

[KhaosTheory]

Define evolution.

I have... In this very thread... multiple times...

You are sending just not receiving.

The mythical primordial common ancestor would have had a genome in the millions of base pairs, how it came to be no one knows. Then from this bacteria like ancestor highly complex life forms emerge, organize into communities with highly divergent specificity that had genomes in the billions.

Who says? I've never heard this.

Not for this Creationist, it requires a directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of facilitating the adaptation in the requisite genes.

Ok, here is your directly observed and testable mechanism:

You were born, yes?

You look a little bit like your parents, right?

There's your proof.

Notice the confession of the Incarnation is sandwiched between two confessions of God as Creator. There is a reason Darwinians go after creation, because after you receive the Gospel and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit you are 'indoctrinated' or immune to worldly persuasion.

You keep assuming that I don't think God is our creator... I don't know where you keep getting this from.

Ape is not a scientific term, 'Homo' is the genus you are referring to. There was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. To date I have yet to see an evolutionist that didn't confess this fundamental problem with their naturalistic assumptions of universal common descent.

Oh NOW who is being pedantic? Everyone knows that "ape" is a colloquialism for any primate that's not a monkey.

Are we to assume it happened based on fragmentary fossils and bold affirmations or does modern science know the molecular mechanisms capable of this transition?

Nope, we assume it based on hundreds and hundreds of fossils as well as genetic evidence...

Oh I see, men evolved from apes because they are apes and birds evolved from dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs. I had no idea you were so well versed in Tautology, I mean I know evolutionists regard this form of rhetoric to their arguments of science, falsely so called.

You sure aren't making much sense right now...

We are in agreement, finally a positive statement. You must be inexperienced, no self respecting Darwinian with the courage of their convictions would ever admit such a thing.

Stop and think real hard about it for a minute... it will eventually click.

You obviously don't appreciate the deleterious effects of mutations on vital organs.

You obviously ignore the mostly neutral and sometimes beneficial mutations.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

 

[KhaosTheory]

Khaos theory. Those 3 garbage links you posted depend on people with little faith in the God of the bible, reading them and blindly putting there hope and faith in them. If you find a full peer reviewed literature article 'showing' what the neodarwinian myth i mean delusion i mean hypothesis i mean theory is claiming (new functionally sequenced base pairs coding for a new functional protein(s) arising from a copying MISTAKE) please direct link it.

Martryrs add another 7 definitions of evolution to the list LOL ty

Aww look at you pretending like you actually care to read any peer reviewed articles ever.

I see what you did there. We always ask you creationist types to "show me a peer reviewed article to support your assumption" and now you are using it against me now! That's clever.

Your Google works just as good as mine. Why don't YOU find an article for ME instead? I'd really appreciate it. It would show me that you are actually putting some thought into your posts.

You'll notice most of the stuff I've been posting is common knowledge but whenever I can I find peer reviewed articles from Pubmed or the Oxford Journals.

So far all I've seen from the other side is stuff from answersingenesis and creation.com

So I think it's high time that YOU actually post some peer reviewed articles, eh? I've already done my part.

 

[samaus12345]

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to supernatural, biblical, literal 6 day creation. Are you such a claimant?

 

[KhaosTheory]

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to supernatural, biblical, literal 6 day creation. Are you such a claimant?

 

[samaus12345]

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to supernatural, biblical, literal 6 day creation. Are you such a claimant?