Jump to content


Photo

Living Transitional Species


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
53 replies to this topic

#41 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 22 February 2006 - 06:52 AM

Actually the main mechanism for the lateral variation within the kind would involve genetic recombination and sorting of existing alleles/ genetic information rather than mutation.
http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp



Hmmmm not according to AiG Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly which links to Is your dog some kind of degenerate mutant? . In this second link it only argues the “imperfection of a dog, and totally fails to address the wild “fox and coyote etc” which have presumably got to where they are by the same means, could you argue they are “worse off” than a wolf? IMO no.



The portion of the AIG arctile that I was referring to for my above quoted statement occurred later in the arcticle. Start with the phrase: "Actually, two genomes (male and female) could have four different . . . " and continue (for a total of five paragraphs).

http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp

#42 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 February 2006 - 02:10 PM

Hmmmm not according to AiG Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly which links to Is your dog some kind of degenerate mutant? . In this second link it only argues the “imperfection of a dog, and totally fails to address the wild “fox and coyote etc” which have presumably got to where they are by the same means, could you argue they are “worse off” than a wolf? IMO no.

The portion of the AIG arctile that I was referring to for my above quoted statement occurred later in the arcticle. Start with the phrase: "Actually, two genomes (male and female) could have four different . . . " and continue (for a total of five paragraphs).

http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp

View Post



His argument does not make sense, if he is saying that S@xual reproduction

With the recombinations due to S@xual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 10^30,000

accounts for the variation we see, then what keeps wolves (or any life for that matter) from this path now, should not the whole of life kind just be a jumble of recombined variants at each generation?

Then

So it seems like there would have been plenty of genetic potential to produce all the members of the wolf kind that we see today. And if to this we add the degenerative changes due to mutations, we have more than ample capacity in two animals to produce all the varieties of dogs/wolves/jackals that we see today.

hmmmm, that’s sort of ‘evolution’ isn’t it? i.e. the wolf being the living transitional. (but I dispute that a dog or a jackal is degenerate when compared to a wolf).

#43 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 22 February 2006 - 10:07 PM

His argument does not make sense, if he is saying that S@xual reproduction

With the recombinations due to S@xual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 10^30,000

accounts for the variation we see, then what keeps wolves (or any life for that matter) from this path now, should not the whole of life kind just be a jumble of recombined variants at each generation?


I believe that over time in S@xual reproduction with migration that alleles can tend to be sorted into separate lines. Therefore, after a short period of time one would not expect "a jumble of recombined variants at each generation", but rather distinct lines with certain traits. See also the section "Breeding verses. Evolution" here: http://www.answersin...e1/chapter2.asp



Then

So it seems like there would have been plenty of genetic potential to produce all the members of the wolf kind that we see today. And if to this we add the degenerative changes due to mutations, we have more than ample capacity in two animals to produce all the varieties of dogs/wolves/jackals that we see today.

hmmmm, that’s sort of ‘evolution’ isn’t it? i.e. the wolf being the living transitional. (but I dispute that a dog or a jackal is degenerate when compared to a wolf).



Batten's point is not that a dog or jackel is necessarily degenerate when compared to a wolf, but instead that the large amount created genetic information contained within an original kind is easily capable of accounting for the variation that we see today. He also points out that mutation could have been an additional source for some additional variation such as degenerate characteristics found in some breeds of dogs.

#44 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 22 February 2006 - 10:50 PM

As discussed in this arctcile: http://www.answersin...e1/chapter2.asp (and also I believe a Brittanica in depth Macropaedia encyclopedia Evolution arcticle that I have read) the well known evolutionist: "Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations." Thus, the main creationsist mechanism for post-flood diversification within kinds need not be mutation (though mutation may have contributed).

#45 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 February 2006 - 01:54 PM

I believe that over time in S@xual reproduction with migration that alleles can tend to be sorted into separate lines. Therefore, after a short period of time one would not expect "a jumble of recombined variants at each generation", but rather distinct lines with certain traits. See also the section "Breeding verses. Evolution" here: http://www.answersin...e1/chapter2.asp


What I can’t find in the article is the evidence he uses for his argument, making the claim is one thing, but what is the claim based upon? All I can find on the subject is the “10^2017 variations possible etc”, now to my limited understanding this implies that he is talking about the entire gnome, and if the entire genome is up for grabs then variation should be equally expressed in all aspects of the body in no particular order, and no particular quantity, thus there is nothing to prevent the doubling in size of the small intestine, nor an inappropriate sized or quantity of kidnies, basically randomness gone berserk.



a. Batten's point is not that a dog or jackel is necessarily degenerate when compared to a wolf,

b. but instead that the large amount created genetic information contained within an original kind is easily capable of accounting for the variation that we see today. He also points out that mutation could have been an additional source for some additional variation such as degenerate characteristics found in some breeds of dogs.

my paragraphing.

a. I find conflicting information on the subject like this:

Deterioration from perfection
An important aspect of the creationist model is often overlooked, but it is essential for a proper understanding of the issues. This aspect is the deterioration of a once-perfect creation……….


b. I had to read this a couple of times because if we you going to combine variation with mutation and if you then add some selective pressure (which I presume you will need to prevent some sort of variation backtracking’) like “survival of the fittest”, you will have come full circle and your back at evolution. From the article

Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection—evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this.

. All I can find by way of an explanation is the purported “loss of information” with out so much as any proof of the concept I might add.

It gets even more bizarre with this quote

In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.


Shock horror, I do believe he is proposing that the environment and a small gene pool amplifies the evolutionary excuse me, the variation process.

Now this is interesting
fig 1Posted Image
Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.

fig 2 Posted Image
Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution—the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.

fig 3 Posted Image

Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.



I think at this point I will need to get some consensus, for participants in this discussion, is it figure 2 or 3 that is the creationist model?

#46 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:38 PM

What I can’t find in the article is the evidence he uses for his argument, making the claim is one thing, but what is the claim based upon?


This is getting tiresome for me and this will be my last post on this thread. The arcticle sites well known evolutionist Ayala (I have also listed an additional Ayala encyclopedia reference). Furthermore, If you study the dog diagram in the arcticle you can see how alleles can be sorted into various lines.

fig 2
Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution—the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.

fig 3

Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.



I think at this point I will need to get some consensus, for participants in this discussion, is it figure 2 or 3 that is the creationist model?


I'm done

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2006 - 02:26 PM

This is getting tiresome for me and this will be my last post on this thread. The arcticle sites well known evolutionist Ayala (I have also listed an additional Ayala encyclopedia reference). Furthermore, If you study the dog diagram in the arcticle you can see how alleles can be sorted into various lines.


Tiresome? The point of a forum is to debate, not just to post links and then think the argument settled, yes? I have studied the article, that why I asked the amplifying questions, because I could not find a satisfactory answer in them.

#48 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 08 April 2006 - 04:39 PM

[quote name='hooberus' date='Feb 22 2006, 06:52 AM']
Hmmmm not according to AiG Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly which links to Is your dog some kind of degenerate mutant? . In this second link it only argues the “imperfection of a dog, and totally fails to address the wild “fox and coyote etc” which have presumably got to where they are by the same means, could you argue they are “worse off” than a wolf? IMO no.[/quote]
The portion of the AIG arctile that I was referring to for my above quoted statement occurred later in the arcticle. Start with the phrase: "Actually, two genomes (male and female) could have four different . . . " and continue (for a total of five paragraphs).

http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp

View Post

[/quote]

They don't exist for the same reason you don't see dogs flying in the sky, because they never existed and never will.
Living Transitional Species, just more terminology to try to sound like they know a little something.lol

Puncuated equilibrium, another term made up by evolutionists to try to sound smart in their claim that there are no Living Transitional Species because time froze for evolution at some point.lol
You can't help but laugh at some of the stuff they come up with.

But the reality of it, is it's not funny, and the more the public knows of evolution, the more they can cleary see it's a foolish notion.


Louie Buren <><

Attached Files



#49 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:52 PM

Transitional’s, just keep turning up in the right places don’t they. This one (Tiktaalik roseae) was fond by specifically looking for it in the layer that should contain them at a certain development, and to no ones surprise the found one.

From scienceblogs
Posted Image

#50 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 10 April 2006 - 06:36 PM

Transitional’s, just keep turning up in the right places don’t they.  This one (Tiktaalik roseae) was fond by specifically looking for it in the layer that should contain them at a certain development, and to no ones surprise the found one.

From scienceblogs
Posted Image

View Post


:lol: Kinda funny how every picture proof of evolution is something that's drawn never an actual picture. That's because you can't make a man fly in reality, but in comic books you can.

There are many drawn depictions and illustrations on how evolution works, and all they represent are evolutionary claims, but not one fact.


Louie Buren <><
My web site

Attached Files

  • Attached File  eve.jpg   13.33KB   3 downloads


#51 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2006 - 07:22 PM

:lol: Kinda funny how every picture proof of evolution is something that's drawn never an actual picture.  <snip>

View Post


The actual fossil (from nature magazine)

Posted Image

#52 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 12 April 2006 - 03:24 PM

The actual fossil (from nature magazine)

Posted Image

View Post


It's not a fossil I was speaking of, I was speaking of the process of transformation due to the supposed hypothesis of evolution. You never see actual pictures of that happening because it never has happened, to show how transition happens, evolutionists must draw how the process works, because it's not a real process that ever happens.

Simply showing me a picture of a fossil does nothing for the evolution case, since most fossils presented by evolutionists have been tampered with and falsified in some way to seemingly support their bogus claims.

Evolution fraud link



Louie Buren <><
My web site

Attached Files

  • Attached File  JS.jpg   26.91KB   21 downloads


#53 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 April 2006 - 07:04 PM

It's not a fossil I was speaking of, I was speaking of the process of transformation due to the supposed hypothesis of evolution.


I see, and easy mistake I think you will agree from your previous statement of

Kinda funny how every picture proof of evolution is something that's drawn never an actual picture.


Nevertheless, mutation is the process that leads to change. P.S evolution is established as a theory, having long ago advanced from the hypothesis.


You never see actual pictures of that happening because it never has happened


Do I understand you correctly that you are requesting to see a picture of a mutation? Is that a picture of a mutation at the molecular level or an actual animal that has undergone a mutation?


to show how transition happens, evolutionists must draw how the process works, because it's not a real process that ever happens.


Well obviously an appropriate medium must be used to pass on knowledge, that can be text, pictures, documentaries, etc. What method can you envisage that does not rely on such methods, word of mouth is hardly appropriate is it?


Simply showing me a picture of a fossil does nothing for the evolution case, since most fossils presented by evolutionists have been tampered with and falsified in some way to seemingly support their bogus claims.


MOST! LOL. I think not, your link points to Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor, both of which were doubted by palaeontologists from the outset, it took until 1953 to clear up the Piltdown fraud and only months to expose Archaeoraptor! (by palaeontologists, not creationist I might add). So I think claiming that fossils are tampered with (as in to make them seem something they are not) will require much more evidence to substantiate your claim, yes?

#54 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 14 April 2006 - 03:37 PM

I see, and easy mistake I think you will agree from your previous statement of

Nevertheless, mutation is the process that leads to change. P.S evolution is established as a theory, having long ago advanced from the hypothesis.
Do I understand you correctly that you are requesting to see a picture of a mutation? Is that a picture of a mutation at the molecular level or an actual animal that has undergone a mutation?
Well obviously an appropriate medium must be used to pass on knowledge, that can be text, pictures, documentaries, etc.  What method can you envisage that does not rely on such methods, word of mouth is hardly appropriate is it?
MOST! LOL.    I think not, your link points to Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor, both of which were doubted by palaeontologists from the outset, it took until 1953 to clear up the Piltdown fraud and only months to expose Archaeoraptor! (by palaeontologists, not creationist I might add).  So I think claiming that fossils are tampered with (as in to make them seem something they are not) will require much more evidence to substantiate your claim, yes?

View Post


What I am saying is, show me actual pictures not illustrations of evolution taking place, and this does not include a loss of information, but gaining new information as this is what the evolution hypothesis claims happens, loss of information only shows evidence of things running down per the fall of man account in Genesis.

Show me actual pictures of a species evolving into another species, real photos taken with a camera, not drawings that represent the tellers imagination.

And secular scientists tamper with fossils everytime they find one, they use their imaginations to fill in the rest of the fossil to what they think, or want it to look like.

Your reply to my post was a weak rebuttal.

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users