Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

Missing Transitional Intermediates

Recommended Posts

"How's it going with the search for something other than jellyfish from the Cambrian ? Not very well, obviously."

 

There are dozens of so called "Living Fossils"

that have evolved ZERO over the last 6millions of years"

 

Here are a few..

 

Tuatara..

Ctenophores. ...

Coelacanths. ...

Elephant Sharks. ...

Crocodiles. ...

Horseshoe Crabs. ...

Fig Wasps. ...

Ginkgo Biloba..

Trilobytes..

Nautilus...

Purple Frog...

Platypus..

Red Panda..

Aardvark

Mantis shrimp

Hagfish

Umm we were talking about the Cambrian, why are you changing the goalposts ? (don't worry, I know why)

 

How are trilobytes a living fossil ?

 

Presumably "6millions of years" is a typo ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?

OTOH, if creationism was true you would not expect animal phyla to descend from one another.

and guess what, animal phyla arrived here radially, they did not descend from one another.

how do you address this wibble?

 

 

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another". We have no or scant fossil evidence for many phyla (e.g. Playthelminthes - flatworms etc.), being without hard parts they don't fossilize well. How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me when we talk about life with the alleged atheist evo clicke, we need to remind ourselves of the fact that we distinguish between life (which has dominion over matter) and the evo belief that life came into existencee and is the effect of a chemical soup!

What evo's claim is that biology caused life. But it seems evident from the Bible (at lesast to me) that one of the main characteristics of God is life. The scripture says God and life are eternal mutuals. God (life) therefore has  always existed.

When I look at anything displaying the characteristics of life, I notiice lots of activity, intelligence, memory. Moreover, when life leaves a cell, matter loses all activity and begins to degrade. Therefore, to describe what was going on in the cell, I coined the term, life animates matter (commonly called biology). Evos believe it's the other way arround.

The materialists emphases that the only things that exist are made of mater. We as Christians believe among those things made of matter is what we call the menal state (spiritual realm). We are apprised from the bible that the physical world was created by God from the spirit realm in which He resides.

Materialists don't wish to acknowledge the validity of the mental state and yet it is their primo state! Look at the room arround you. What hasn't been created by intelligent beings originating in the mental state of thought? I have asked in vain for materialist evos to give some of the physics of thoughts and life. But they seem to imply that our mental state of thought is not "real" and irrelevant! Only things of known physics are real. I find that boringly dishonest. What do they use to think and create truth--their mental state!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another".

koonins paper passed peer review.

so, it IS NOT my opinion, and it apparently met with the reviewers approval.

 

next "excuse".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i forgot the second part of your post.

How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

yes, this is the mainstream explanation, which koonin discounts (and gives references for) as unreliable, which also passed peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"How's it going with the search for something other than jellyfish from the Cambrian ? Not very well, obviously."

There are dozens of so called "Living Fossils"

that have evolved ZERO over the last 6millions of years"

Here are a few..

Tuatara..

Ctenophores. ...

Coelacanths. ...

Elephant Sharks. ...

Crocodiles. ...

Horseshoe Crabs. ...

Fig Wasps. ...

Ginkgo Biloba..

Trilobytes..

Nautilus...

Purple Frog...

Platypus..

Red Panda..

Aardvark

Mantis shrimp

Hagfish

 

Umm we were talking about the Cambrian, why are you changing the goalposts ? (don't worry, I know why)

How are trilobytes a living fossil ?

 

Presumably "6millions of years" is a typo ?

 

Yup a Typo.. Meant "Millions of years"

 

 

"Umm we were talking about the Cambrian, why are you changing the goalposts ? (don't worry, I know why)"

 

Yes.. We both know why.. The only way I could POSSIBLY be "Changing the goalposts" would be if there WAS SUCH A THING AS THE "CAMBRIAN"

 

HOWEVER

 

The "Canbrian" is just another made up part of the Fairytale just like the "Geologic Comumn"!!!

 

You see, when we are discussing a science fiction novel about "long ago and far away" we get to make it up as we go along!.. In other words.. THERE ARE NO GOALPOSTS!!!

 

 

All of the strata in the layers were laid down rapidly during the worldwide flood of Noah around 4500 years ago... End of Story..

 

 

 

How about my UNANSWERED QUESTION About an Order for Vital Organs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about my UNANSWERED QUESTION About an Order for Vital Organs?

in my opinion, this is not an issue, however it does raise the question of irreducible complexity.

in my opinion the metabolism of the cell is complete, and HAD to be complete from the get go.

the cell contains all the information and "vital organs" to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion: A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle.

Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.

- Koonin and Wolf Biology Direct 2010, 5:64

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/64

 

what exactly is this overwhelming evidence?

the commonality of DNA to all life.

the nearly universal genetic code.

certain genes, HOX genes and genes that determine how DNA is stored and read.

 

there is no real fossil evidence that supports universal common ancestry.

 

BTW, viruses do not show any signs of common ancestry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about my UNANSWERED QUESTION About an Order for Vital Organs?

in my opinion, this is not an issue, however it does raise the question of irreducible complexity.in my opinion the metabolism of the cell is complete, and HAD to be complete from the get go.the cell contains all the information and "vital organs" to exist.

 

"the cell contains all the information and "vital organs" to exist"

 

Yes.. But Accidentalists want everyone to believe that it hasnt always been that way... They believe that ORGANLESS Microbes slowly evolved into Microbiologists with 10 interlocked Vital Organs over the course of 2 Billion years.. And they cant even give a possible ORDER.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.. They want to borrow from Creationism to make their myth happen and say that they evolved "together"..LOL

 

Believe me.. It IS an "Issue" Otherwise someone would have at least TRIED to answer it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion: A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle.Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.- Koonin and Wolf Biology Direct 2010, 5:64http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/64what exactly is this overwhelming evidence?the commonality of DNA to all life.the nearly universal genetic code.certain genes, HOX genes and genes that determine how DNA is stored and read.there is no real fossil evidence that supports universal common ancestry.BTW, viruses do not show any signs of common ancestry.

 

"what exactly is this overwhelming evidence?

 

the commonality of DNA to all life.

the nearly universal genetic code.

certain genes, HOX genes and genes that determine how DNA is stored and read.

 

 

 

Yup.. I agree.. The evidence is overwhelming..

 

You are correct, It can no longer be denied by

anybody!

 

The overwhelming evidence points to a COMMON DESIGNER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another".

koonins paper passed peer review.

so, it IS NOT my opinion, and it apparently met with the reviewers approval.

 

next "excuse".

 

 

The paper passing peer review does not mean that a conclusion opined by the author is rubber stamped as a fact. Also peer review in Biology Direct (for which Koonin himself is Chief Editor) is undertaken by reviewers chosen by the author of the paper to be reviewed, which is unorthodox, to put it mildly.

 

Which particular paper by him are you referring to in your comment ? If it is this one, the Biological Big Bang paper you often reference:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/

then Koonin does not appear to be as certain as you are that "animal phyla did not descend from one another"

 

"It remains an open and intriguing question to what extent the BBB model applies to other transitions in biological evolution beyond those discussed above, e.g., the emergence of animal phyla during (or before) the Cambrian explosion."

 

"Certainly, I do not insist on a large-scale swap of genetic information (i.e, HGT) being the underlying cause of the emergence of the animal phyla. I suggest leaving the causes of the acceleration of evolution in this and other late transitions wide open"

 

 

 

 

i forgot the second part of your post.

 

How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

yes, this is the mainstream explanation, which koonin discounts (and gives references for) as unreliable, which also passed peer review.

 

Again, Koonin's conclusions are not the final word. Scientists on the other side of the fence such as Jerry Coyne and Dawkins have had papers passed by peer review, why discount their views ? I'd prefer it if you provided why the mainstream explanation is unreliable rather than deferring to an unlinked paper by your favourite scientist (who may be right for all I know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Umm we were talking about the Cambrian, why are you changing the goalposts ? (don't worry, I know why)"

 

Yes.. We both know why.. The only way I could POSSIBLY be "Changing the goalposts" would be if there WAS SUCH A THING AS THE "CAMBRIAN"

 

HOWEVER

 

The "Canbrian" is just another made up part of the Fairytale just like the "Geologic Comumn"!!!

What a complete cop out of an answer. The Cambrian exists as defined strata whether you are a mainstream scientist or a creationist. You are avoiding having to explain why there were hardly any recognizably modern organisms dwelling in the Cambrian seas. Where were all the fish ?

 

All of the strata in the layers were laid down rapidly during the worldwide flood of Noah around 4500 years ago... End of Story..

Really ? Two topics I started " Chalk" and "Angular Unconformities" each by themselves destroy this kind of naïve nonsense but you prefer to cover your ears and eyes and pretend such clear refutations don't exist don't you ?

 

 

How about my UNANSWERED QUESTION About an Order for Vital Organs?

How about re reading the 14 pages of posts in the dedicated thread you set up for that topic rather then tediously spreading your strawman everywhere else at every opportunity ? Nobody even on your side seems to think much of it either judging by the lack of comments from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper passing peer review does not mean that a conclusion opined by the author is rubber stamped as a fact.

what i posted was in reference you referring to my posts as my opinion.

 

Which particular paper by him are you referring to in your comment ? If it is this one, the Biological Big Bang paper you often reference:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/

then Koonin does not appear to be as certain as you are that "animal phyla did not descend from one another"

 

"It remains an open and intriguing question to what extent the BBB model applies to other transitions in biological evolution beyond those discussed above, e.g., the emergence of animal phyla during (or before) the Cambrian explosion."

 

"Certainly, I do not insist on a large-scale swap of genetic information (i.e, HGT) being the underlying cause of the emergence of the animal phyla. I suggest leaving the causes of the acceleration of evolution in this and other late transitions wide open"

that's right.

koonin seems to think phyla somehow "jelled" from eukaryote supergroups.

at least that's what i get from his paper, they did not arrive here by bifurcation.

I'd prefer it if you provided why the mainstream explanation is unreliable rather than deferring to an unlinked paper by your favourite scientist (who may be right for all I know)

it's in the paper, reference 38 i believe.

 

BTW, be sure to read the reviewers comments, if they hadn't been excluded for some "mysterious" reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another".

 

koonins paper passed peer review.

so, it IS NOT my opinion, and it apparently met with the reviewers approval.

next "excuse".

 

The paper passing peer review does not mean that a conclusion opined by the author is rubber stamped as a fact. Also peer review in Biology Direct (for which Koonin himself is Chief Editor) is undertaken by reviewers chosen by the author of the paper to be reviewed, which is unorthodox, to put it mildly.

Which particular paper by him are you referring to in your comment ? If it is this one, the Biological Big Bang paper you often reference:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/

 

then Koonin does not appear to be as certain as you are that "animal phyla did not descend from one another"

"It remains an open and intriguing question to what extent the BBB model applies to other transitions in biological evolution beyond those discussed above, e.g., the emergence of animal phyla during (or before) the Cambrian explosion."

"Certainly, I do not insist on a large-scale swap of genetic information (i.e, HGT) being the underlying cause of the emergence of the animal phyla. I suggest leaving the causes of the acceleration of evolution in this and other late transitions wide open"

 

i forgot the second part of your post.

 

How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

 

yes, this is the mainstream explanation, which koonin discounts (and gives references for) as unreliable, which also passed peer review.

Again, Koonin's conclusions are not the final word. Scientists on the other side of the fence such as Jerry Coyne and Dawkins have had papers passed by peer review, why discount their views ? I'd prefer it if you provided why the mainstream explanation is unreliable rather than deferring to an unlinked paper by your favourite scientist (who may be right for all I know)

Merely bringing up Jerry Coyne and Dawkins is surely going to shut down any honest debate..(Probably the intention)

 

I have read their books (Unfortunately) Searched high and low for ONE SINGLE EMAPLE OF EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the mindless 2 Billion year old Microbes to Microbiologists Myth... I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ONE... I see lots of creationist bashing and God Hating though.... Par for the course...

 

OF COURSE

 

It would be quite easy for show that I am wrong by posting some.. But, of course.. You will do no such thing and your silence will be rightfully interpreted to prove that I am right AGAIN.. (Just like the Vital organs)

 

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.†Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?

OTOH, if creationism was true you would not expect animal phyla to descend from one another.

and guess what, animal phyla arrived here radially, they did not descend from one another.

how do you address this wibble?

 

 

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another". We have no or scant fossil evidence for many phyla (e.g. Playthelminthes - flatworms etc.), being without hard parts they don't fossilize well. How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

 

 

Maybe I'll have to look it up, but I thought it was a main-stream view that the diversity of the Cambrian was brought about through adaptive radiation; one form quickly diversifying into many forms filling various niches.

 

I have no idea how this would be a boon to creationists. It would be like saying if creationism is true then you would not expect humans to have evolved from Neanderthals. And guess what, Neanderthals didn't evolve into humans. While all that is true, the premise of if creationism is true then x, we see x, therefore creationism is supported, is woefully misapplied. Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor, and evolution is perfectly happy with that. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that all animal phyla arrived here radially from the same eukaryotic supergroup simultaneously, but assuming that is true for sake of discussion, all that means is that all animal phyla are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor, and evolution is perfectly happy with that.

 

If creationism is true, we would not expect animal phyla to have arrived here radially either.

 

As for peer review I'll add this to the discussion: Assuming a paper meets basic minimum standards of correctness and such, just because a paper passes peer review doesn't necessarily mean that it is representative of the scientific community as a whole, or even that the reviewers agree with everything that is written in the paper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?

 

OTOH, if creationism was true you would not expect animal phyla to descend from one another.

and guess what, animal phyla arrived here radially, they did not descend from one another.

how do you address this wibble?

Your opinion does not translate as fact "Whatif". And just because Koonin says something it doesn't mean his opinion trumps all other scientists in the field. We are not able to conclude that "animal phyla did not descend from one another". We have no or scant fossil evidence for many phyla (e.g. Playthelminthes - flatworms etc.), being without hard parts they don't fossilize well. How do you know that a branching into separate phyla didn't occur with similarly poorly preserved soft bodied animals prior to the Cambrian ? When exoskeletons and shells evolved then clearly preservation became much easier. It is a bit odd that this event happened across many different phyla in close succession but perhaps it was linked to a change in chemistry in the oceans e.g. availability of calcium.

Maybe I'll have to look it up, but I thought it was a main-stream view that the diversity of the Cambrian was brought about through adaptive radiation; one form quickly diversifying into many forms filling various niches.

 

I have no idea how this would be a boon to creationists. It would be like saying if creationism is true then you would not expect humans to have evolved from Neanderthals. And guess what, Neanderthals didn't evolve into humans. While all that is true, the premise of if creationism is true then x, we see x, therefore creationism is supported, is woefully misapplied. Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor, and evolution is perfectly happy with that. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that all animal phyla arrived here radially from the same eukaryotic supergroup simultaneously, but assuming that is true for sake of discussion, all that means is that all animal phyla are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor, and evolution is perfectly happy with that.

 

If creationism is true, we would not expect animal phyla to have arrived here radially either.

 

As for peer review I'll add this to the discussion: Assuming a paper meets basic minimum standards of correctness and such, just because a paper passes peer review doesn't necessarily mean that it is representative of the scientific community as a whole, or even that the reviewers agree with everything that is written in the paper.

"Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor,"

 

Got any evidence for that Assertion? Didnt think so..

 

"And evolution is perfectly happy with that"

 

As I have pointed out many times.. "Evolution" is "Happy" with Everything because it already predicted everything! How can one go wrong with "Evolution"??

 

 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

 

Jim Thinnsen

 

 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

 

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So evolution happens....

 

INSTANTLY

 

QUICKLY

 

SLOWLY

 

NEVER

 

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

 

 

“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.â€

— Richard Goldschmidt (Inventor of the "Hopeful Monsters" Theory)

 

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

Richard Dawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. ..... Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor,......

Got any evidence for that Assertion? Didnt think so..

From the journal Nature:

Genomic studies have shown that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, and that non-Africans today are the products of this mixture.

 

From the journal Science:

Anatomically modern humans overlapped and mated with Neandertals such that non-African humans inherit ~1 to 3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piasan, you and Goku are correct, homo sapiens and neanderthals do share a common ancestor, the problem is that that common ancestor was a human. Even if we go with evolution theory and say that neanderthal and homo sapiens shared an ancestor, that ancestor would be in the genus, "homo"

 

"Both fossil and genetic evidence indicate that Neanderthals and modern humans(Homo sapiens) evolved from a common ancestor between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago."

 

The term "evolved" is the problem here, as it usually is, because it conjures images of macro-evolution but in fact the changes between all homo species are acknowledged by anatomists, to be superficial, therefore wipe the image of "evolution" from your minds, if you were thinking of goo-to-you, for we are very much within "micro".

 

Yes but 500,000 years ago all common ancestors for humans, would still be human. So the "common ancestor" Goku is talking about, was human, even if it wasn't one of the humans listed in the homo genus, and given they have now found a homo sapien nearly 350,000 years old according to their dating.

 

Yes, creation scientists can agree with Goku and Piasan, neanderthals and homo sapiens stemmed from a human being. So if you guys thought you were scoring a big goal there, not really. 

 

You have to avoid the denial of the antecedent. There are certain evidences we do know would not follow given a concept is true and some we don't know would follow. For example if a spaghetti monster existed which ate dinosaurs, while we would expect the dinosaurs disappearing from the record because it ate them, nevertheless if that theory isn't true that doesn't mean that another theory can't explain why the dinosaurs diminished.

 

In the same way, it isn't an out-of-this-world proclamation, if we say that we would expect an omnipotent designer to create conditions where animals can adapt in order to prevent them from going extinct, so we might expect an epigenetic code to exist, and we might reasonably expect that different kinds of animals would produce speciation, we would also expect a lack of true transitionals, if creation is true. (so we might expect a variety of bats, but we wouldn't expect to find anything evolving into bats, which is exactly what we find).

 

So speciation, because it doesn't actual produce any genuine intermediates representative of a macro evolution, actually are in favour of creation more than macro evolution, in the sense that there are no anatomical overhauls for new species, as you would expect from evolution, and there is no evidence those overhauls ever happened, because those ancestors of the "macro", don't exist.

 

(m)And now I cannot possibly answer any posts as I am taking a break from debate and therefore must now proclaim pigeon chess victory.(/m) :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same way, it isn't an out-of-this-world proclamation, if we say that we would expect an omnipotent designer to create conditions where animals can adapt in order to prevent them from going extinct, so we might expect an epigenetic code to exist, and we might reasonably expect that different kinds of animals would produce speciation, we would also expect a lack of true transitionals, if creation is true. (so we might expect a variety of bats, but we wouldn't expect to find anything evolving into bats, which is exactly what we find).

the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god.

 

there is no evidence at all for a pervading intelligence.

OTOH, the overwhelming majority of the people knows in their gut that there is something else other than physical laws at work.

 

i would NEVER expect a genetic code, epigenetics, tagged transposons, and a restart scanario to emerge from a broth of chemicals.

the proposition is just plain absurd, outright ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What If: the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god.

 

Well, God is a creator, and is claimed be all-powerful and all-intelligent/knowledgeable in the bible, since I am only claiming the Lord is God I only have to specifically support that claim, I don't have to support all theism generally. From our experience on earth what do things with creativity and intelligence tend to do? 

 

That's right you can say it out loud when you know the answer, you are correct, Creators create, so we would expect to see creativity, intelligence, everything we get from humans only done with superiority.

 

So what is the, "evidence" of a Creator God? Well, it answers itself - the precondition of intelligibility, that the laws and orderliness of the physics are neat. Physicists will tend to tell you God is there because of the neat formulas they tend to find, like E=MC2. Ever listend to Michio Kaku? If you don't believe me then believe him, he isn't a creationist but acknowledges the Spinoza type God of Einstein.

 

So then evidence of a creator is creation. Symmetry, beauty, design, order, intelligibility. The universe plainly has all. It's not like this stuff is a secret.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor,"

Got any evidence for that Assertion? Didnt think so..

 

It's an inference based upon various things general to evolutionary theory like homologies, and as Piasan pointed out we have Neanderthal DNA and comparisons show that they interbred with our species. So according to creation scientists' standards we do have a common ancestor and would be evolutionary cousins. If those creation scientists have a technical word to describe relationships within a holobaramin apart from 'evolutionary cousin' I do not know it, but a rose by any other name.

 

"And evolution is perfectly happy with that"

 

As I have pointed out many times.. "Evolution" is "Happy" with Everything because it already predicted everything! How can one go wrong with "Evolution"??

 

 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

 

Jim Thinnsen

 

 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

 

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So evolution happens....

 

INSTANTLY

 

QUICKLY

 

SLOWLY

 

NEVER

 

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

 

 

“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.â€

— Richard Goldschmidt (Inventor of the "Hopeful Monsters" Theory)

 

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

Richard Dawkins

 

All those 'evolution happens quickly/slowly/never' are explained within the theory itself as a product of the rate of environmental change. This has been explained to you ad nauseam.

 

An interesting theory of everything would be the Christian theory of everything when it comes to prayer: either God says "yes", "no", or "not right now". The predictive power of Christian thought when it comes to prayer sure is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: An interesting theory of everything would be the Christian theory of everything when it comes to prayer: either God says "yes", "no", or "not right now". The predictive power of Christian thought when it comes to prayer sure is amazing.

 

The problem with that comparison though, is that the bible specifically says to expect that when it says ask anything "according to God's will". In the same way if we compare to real life, people can say yes, no or not right now, so it's hardly unexpected.

 

But a scientific theory should follow the rules, and it seems evolution largely is 99% conjecture, in a way it could be called the "Houdini theory", given for any circumstance, well, like Wibble said earlier, any and every scenario as far as he is concerned, would be supportive of evolution and nothing ever supportive of creation. Transitionals would be supportive, and so would their absence, bunnies in the Cambrian would falsify, and yet in reality if they find things earlier they just "push back" evolution to an earlier time. Instead of "once upon a time" it becomes, "once upon a longer ago time". Goku surely you must notice yourself, how all the angles are covered. Think now of homologies, they show evo, but of course not when they don't agree with the story, and then hey presto, it was still evo, only we will call it "convergence" and simply place the evo elsewhere if we can't place it where we want it initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'll have to look it up, but I thought it was a main-stream view that the diversity of the Cambrian was brought about through adaptive radiation; one form quickly diversifying into many forms filling various niches.

My understanding of the mainstream view is that indeed there was a rapid diversification of forms in the Cambrian but that the sudden appearance may partly be an artifact due to the better preservation potential of hard parts - shells and exoskeletons etc. (which perhaps was a product of an evolutionary arms race following the appearance of mobile predators such as Anomalocaris). I think molecular studies have suggested an earlier appearance for various phyla than suggested by the fossils, so I'm not sure that it is believed that one Cambrian ancestor branched into all the phyla. And a small minority of phyla do have fossils in the Precambrian, sponges for example. The Ediacaran fauna, though generally mysterious and perhaps a dead end group, a few have been postulated as being ancestral to some Cambrian phyla (can't remember which without looking it up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which particular paper by him are you referring to in your comment ? If it is this one, the Biological Big Bang paper you often reference:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/

then Koonin does not appear to be as certain as you are that "animal phyla did not descend from one another"

 

"It remains an open and intriguing question to what extent the BBB model applies to other transitions in biological evolution beyond those discussed above, e.g., the emergence of animal phyla during (or before) the Cambrian explosion."

 

"Certainly, I do not insist on a large-scale swap of genetic information (i.e, HGT) being the underlying cause of the emergence of the animal phyla. I suggest leaving the causes of the acceleration of evolution in this and other late transitions wide open"

that's right.

koonin seems to think phyla somehow "jelled" from eukaryote supergroups.

at least that's what i get from his paper, they did not arrive here by bifurcation.

 

 

I'm not following. Can you be more explicit please as to where Koonin states that phyla did not appear via a branching process because he doesn't seem to make that claim in that paper.

 

I'd prefer it if you provided why the mainstream explanation is unreliable rather than deferring to an unlinked paper by your favourite scientist (who may be right for all I know)

it's in the paper, reference 38 i believe..

 

Nope that didn't help, ref. 38 is primarily about molecular evidence, there is no discussion about the "sudden" appearance of phyla in terms of fossils in the Cambrian. Why can't you just tell me, is it because you don't know ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merely bringing up Jerry Coyne and Dawkins is surely going to shut down any honest debate..(Probably the intention)

 

I have read their books (Unfortunately) Searched high and low for ONE SINGLE EMAPLE OF EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the mindless 2 Billion year old Microbes to Microbiologists Myth... I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ONE... I see lots of creationist bashing and God Hating though.... Par for the course...

 

It would be quite easy for show that I am wrong by posting some.. But, of course.. You will do no such thing and your silence will be rightfully interpreted to prove that I am right AGAIN..

I'm not sure I even believe you have read their books judging by how I exposed you after you claimed you had read Schmidt-Rhaesa's Evolution of Organ Systems (that and your general lack of knowledge on evolution and science in general). Perhaps you should, then you can stop pestering everyone on that subject.

 

As for a single example of empirical evidence, have you been asleep the whole time you have been on this forum ?

 

Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments). Why did your flood record nothing of these in the lower layers but preserved them with increasing success particularly from the Cretaceous onwards, with recognizably modern genera only appearing recently ? Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it.

 

Surely even you can see that this favours evolution not creation ? (I know, you would never admit it)

 

Go on provide a positive post for a change on how this evidence is expected for creation rather than attempting to besmirch the theory you have so much hatred for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms