[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[spartakis]

Meatballsub;645269]Hello Spartakis, it seems this thread has gone in multiple directions and you aren't getting answers to what you are looking for. maybe I can help you with that. Ok, lets see what we can discover together.

Okay

If you mean by form, as they currently are, I have to say that animals, fungus, plants, bacteria, and Archea Bacteria really can't be in any other form then what they currently are now.

Really so according to evolutionist I thought everything evolved from a single celled organism that came from nothing?

I don't think the actual neck could turn into a giraffe. Well, considering that the species Human belongs to the ape family. Whenever I see another human. I see transitional in all living creatures. I thought you wanted to go into this discussion with an open mind? By the way, evolution is the phenomenon of living creatures adapting and changing to their environments. So animals, plants, fungus, etc. that changes to adapt to their environment are examples of the phenomenon of evolutions.

Well that was one of darwins thoughts. So every time you see a human you consider that to be a ape evolving into a human? You could have just said the niche is filled like everyone else. Can you show a living creature in the transition from one kind to another? I do have an open mind do you see any apes in the wild in the process of changing to humans. I know what evolution is and have commented on the processes already of natural selection, mutations and etc... Might be buried in here somewhere but don't feel like repeating.

Considering that Hawkins isn't an evolutionary biologist and his expertise is elsewhere, he really dosen't hold any kind of authority in the matter. The theory of evolution is the model that explains how living organisms adapt and change in their environment. With explanations of various forms of Natural, Sexual, and convergent selection.

Well they did give him a whole show about it so yes he does hold authority to a lot of evolutionist, and a lot believe what he says. Once again I have commented on the so called evolution process. I will go over it again for you though.

The major problem with this is natual selection can not add DNA information. It can not add features like gills, fins, flippers, legs, heart, lungs, fur and etc... Even artificial breeding can only remove a trait, it can not add a trait that is not present.

A mutation to add a complex body part would take thousands of letters. Not only would they have to be accidently placed in the correct location but the perfect sequence. What do you think the chances of a random accidental mutation producing a leg, wings, gills, flippers, heart, lungs, eye, what about the human brain? Are we nothing more then an accidental mutation?



I know you probably don't feel like reading this whole thread and don't blame you, but most of everything you have stated we have went over. If you can show a kind changing from one kind to another that would be what I am looking for. You know like a land animal into a whale. All dear like creatures I am aware of show no signs of turning into a sea creature, same with apes to humans and etc... Thanks though.

 

[cupid dave]

Evolution is evolution, regardless of whether is theistic or naturalistic. As far as the science goes, most of it is the same. As for the Bible, the Bible simply doesn't say how God did it so you are going beyond Scripture by stating that it isn't "demonstrated in the Bible."

2X

It is also somewhat disconcerting to suggest that God did use evolution in his creation of the cosmos, but has stopped the process because it sounds so much like Nietzcheism, "God did exist but died."

 

[Milk-Drops]

Okay

Really so according to evolutionist I thought everything evolved from a single celled organism that came from nothing?

According to current models of Evolution, the comes from nothing argument isn't valid. A single single Celled organism probably didn't give rise to life by itself. Chances are there were several single celled organism that participated in gene transfer for millenia before life started to adapt in multi-cellular levels. This is based on my current understanding of micro biology.

Well that was one of darwins thoughts. So every time you see a human you consider that to be a ape evolving into a human?

No, What I'm saying is that the name of the categorization humans fall under in phylogeny is the Super group called ape. Humans, as we are have specific traits that we have adpated to separate us off from Gorillas, Chimps, Orangutangs, etc. All the current apes that are on the planet have adapted to their current environments. Chimps are our closest relatives, but they will never evolve into us, because they adapted in a way that genetically separated them from us long enough to no longer allow gene transfer. A chimp family could eventually show more human like features, but genetically, a chimp would never be human.

You could have just said the niche is filled like everyone else.

I would rather leave out technical talk until I know whether or not you understand enough of basic evolutionary theory. A niche is a term used to explain how an organism fits in an environment. Humans have filled a niche were we can control our environment through an advanced social structure, logic, and tool making. That would be considered out niche.

Can you show a living creature in the transition from one kind to another?

I would have to ask you to define what you mean by kind. Since I can't predict the future, I can't tell you what new lines will spread off from current species. I can however point out that every organism is a transitional form. Most will end in dead ends, but some will provide the genetic information that will eventually branch off.

I do have an open mind do you see any apes in the wild in the process of changing to humans. I know what evolution is and have commented on the processes already of natural selection, mutations and etc... Might be buried in here somewhere but don't feel like repeating.

Well, if you understand evolution, would understand that we as Humans are the result of specific mutations that were selected based on the various pressures the genus Homo underwent. Chimps, Gorillas, etc are not in transition to becoming humans, because their lineages diverged long ago and their pressures have adapted their family lines in ways that humans could never be. In order for a gorilla, for example, to evolve characteristics of humans, it would have to lose all the genetic information it has acquired over the time between when gorillas split off from Human and chimp ancestors. Then the gorilla lineage would have to go under the exact same pressures of selection that our ancestors under went.

What is more likely to happen is that, unless gorillas are wiped out due to mass extinction. The lineage will branch off into whole new types of animals.

Well they did give him a whole show about it so yes he does hold authority to a lot of evolutionist, and a lot believe what he says. Once again I have commented on the so called evolution process. I will go over it again for you though.

Hawkings's expertise is in Astro Physics. He can make statements about what he think about evolution, but his general comments don't have any weight unless he can demonstrate it. It dose not matter if people believe what he says, what matters to the theory of evolution is whether or not his statements can be verified.

The major problem with this is natual selection can not add DNA information. It can not add features like gills, fins, flippers, legs, heart, lungs, fur and etc... Even artificial breeding can only remove a trait, it can not add a trait that is not present.

It is true that natural selection can not add anything new. That is because Natural selection is just the mechanism that weeds out organisms that aren't capable of surviving in their current environment. Natural selection dosen't create lungs, however through natural selection, the organisms with the lungs that are best adapted to their area for breathing will win out while the organisms with lungs ill adapted will be weeded out.

A mutation to add a complex body part would take thousands of letters. Not only would they have to be accidently placed in the correct location but the perfect sequence. What do you think the chances of a random accidental mutation producing a leg, wings, gills, flippers, heart, lungs, eye, what about the human brain? Are we nothing more then an accidental mutation?

It is true that we don't see full body parts pop into existence in the genetic time line. We do however see body parts diverging, specializing, and adapting. Arms and Legs are varied forms of forelimbs. Primate hands, Bat wings, and Rodent are all specialized variants of a similar structure. The Human Brain, Chimp Brain, Neanderthal Brain are all variations of a similar structure.

Through Natural selection we see limbs and other body parts adapting and changing based on the specific pressures the species underwent.

I know you probably don't feel like reading this whole thread and don't blame you, but most of everything you have stated we have went over. If you can show a kind changing from one kind to another that would be what I am looking for. You know like a land animal into a whale. All dear like creatures I am aware of show no signs of turning into a sea creature, same with apes to humans and etc... Thanks though.

IF you are talking about discussing phylogeny and genetics, and what has lead Evolutionary Biologists to categorize organisms as ancestors to one another then we can discuss that. Would you like to start off with phylogeny? Without a base line understanding of that, and genetics, we really can't be on the same page. ;)

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Why not trust Him completely and accept the way He did it?

I do trust him completely

Unless He does something you don't like, like evolution.

Why not take take his word serious and literal like he meant it.

As St. Augustine wrote, taking it literally means that you accept it's an allegory.

Barbarian chuckles:
You seem to think that apes can only evolve by becoming humans. One group did, but others evolved into all sort of other things, and as you learned, continue to evolve.

Like what apes.

Saimangs and Orangutans, for example. And it's clear that chimps have evolved markedly in the past million years or so. They are not divided into two species, and Gorillas are nearly so.

Like you have learned all groups are still in their own kind. You can learn that pretty easy.

"Kind" is such a flexible idea. The same data that creationists use to claim canids are a "kind", show that humans and apes are a "kind." Rock and a hard place.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, a filled niche generally excludes others from that niche. It's been verified by observation.

What determines a filled niche and who determines it

It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

 

[Barbarian]

The major problem with this is natual selection can not add DNA information.

Random mutations, however, do add information to DNA in a population. Would you like to see the numbers?

It can not add features like gills,

It's not hard to show that it does. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

fins,

Fins have evolved several times from various other structures. Want to see some of that?

flippers, legs, heart, lungs, fur and etc... Even artificial breeding can only remove a trait, it can not add a trait that is not present.

Let's look at lungs. The first fish with lungs were pretty undeveloped. In some,they are mere outpouchings of the digestive tract, which merely enlarged the absorbing area for air-gulping (still a common way fish adjust to low-oxygen water). Other fish have very well-developed lungs.

Notice a new structure evolves by modifying something already there.

 

[spartakis]

For one I trust his word for what he ment it to be not what you want it to be, your the one that says well if it don't fit what I believe it must mean something else. I could get into this pretty deep with problems with your theology and why evolution does not fit into the Bible, but last time I went and replied to your post and said just that, my post got deleted How others are getting to go into it is beyond me.

And everything you keep throwing up is a bunch of assumptions of the fossil record which I have said multiple times I am not here to talk about. That's another topic about evolution which is also pretty bad for evolution upside down strata in the swiss alps, the stuff we have already talked about and etc...

If you can show me a mutation that adds gills of something that is not an assumption of a fossil record feel free, I believe that is what I am asking for since that would be a none fish to a fish. And if its an assumption of fossils similarity don't even post we have went over the similarity problems already.

Saying we are apes you might as well say we are fish to since we both are chordates, and apes have so much a difference in themselves they have their own separate genera. But skeletal and genetic similarities once again only proves similar creation.

All your arguments are the same and have not been on topic But whats new you have been doing the same old thing for years now under names like galatian and etc... And now it gets better

It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

Are you comparing the economy to evolution :toofunny

Okay just give me your final answer to the thread which I have heard already I believe. The niche is filled.

 

[Barbarian]

For one I trust his word for what he ment it to be not what you want it to be, your the one that says well if it don't fit what I believe it must mean something else.

Wrong. And it's been that way since the start. Even the ancient Christian knew that Genesis could not be literal days.

I could get into this pretty deep with problems with your theology and why evolution does not fit into the Bible, but last time I went and replied to your post and said just that, my post got deleted How others are getting to go into it is beyond me.

There is no conflict between God and creation. How could there be? And it's not just mainline Christianity that recognizes it.

And everything you keep throwing up is a bunch of assumptions of the fossil record which I have said multiple times I am not here to talk about.

Some YE creationists look on evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

That's another topic about evolution which is also pretty bad for evolution upside down strata in the swiss alps, the stuff we have already talked about and etc...

No geologist is surprised by folding in mountains. Rock strata will bend if slowly compressed over many years. In fact, we have examples where it was bent too fast and shattered.

If you can show me a mutation that adds gills of something that is not an assumption of a fossil record feel free,

Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans
Journal of Natural History
Volume 22, Issue 4, 1988
Abstract

The development of gills is described in zoea and megalopa stages of the following 16 species of decapods, and the patterns of gill development are discussed in terms of phylogenetic relationships of the larvae: Pagurus prideaux Leach, Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus), Inachus dorsettensis (Pennant), Hyas araneus (Linnaeus), Eurynome aspera (Pennant), Pisa armata (Latreille), Carcinus maenus (Linnaeus), Liocarcinus corrugatus (Pennant), Liocarcinus holsatus (Fabricius), Pilumnus hirtellus (Linnaeus), Monodaeus couchi (Couch), Pinnotheres pinnotheres (Linnaeus), Pinnotheres pisum (Linnaeus), Pinnaxodes mutuensis Sakai, Pinnixa rathbuni Sakai and Pinnixa (?)chaetopterana Stimpson.

The gills of most of the species investigated migrate during development, not only dorsally but, in some cases, also posteriorly. The Pinnotheridae provide the only known example in which rudiments of ‘lost’ gills appear within larval stages only to disappear by the first crab stage.


Notice gills development in these organisms show the phylogentic pattern seen in the fossil record.

Here's a discussion of the way homobox genes affect the development of gills in arthropods:

Diverse Adaptations of an Ancestral Gill:
A Common Evolutionary Origin for Wings,
Breathing Organs, and Spinnerets
Current Biology, Vol. 12, 1711–1716, October 1, 2002
Summary The expression patterns of pdm/nub and apterous are
good markers for such deep evolutionary comparisons
on the morphology and physiology of an organism. branchiopod crustaceans, and malacostracan crustaceans.

I believe that is what I am asking for since that would be a none fish to a fish.

Ah, so first you will need to supply us with a testable definition of "fish." What are the absolute minimum requirements for an organism to be a fish?

And if its an assumption of fossils similarity don't even post we have went over the similarity problems already.

As you learned, your objections were based on a confusion between analogy (similarity) and homology (inherited structures with modification). I'll be reminding you of homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

Saying we are apes you might as well say we are fish to since we both are chordates, and apes have so much a difference in themselves they have their own separate genera.

Funny you should mention that. A creationist once admitted:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.
- Carl Linnaeus, 1788

But skeletal and genetic similarities once again only proves similar creation.

But we aren't talking about analogies. We're talking about homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

(Barbarian, regarding who "determines" evolution)
It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

Are you comparing the economy to evolution

A market economy. No one controls it, no one even knows what it's doing, and yet it produces order. A lot of nature is like that.

Okay just give me your final answer to the thread which I have heard already I believe.

We have along way to go. And you're seeing a lot of new things. Let us know your testable definition of "fish" and I'll show you how gills appeared in fish.

 

[Asyncritus]

Address the arguments and not the person.

From now on, I am going to request that no charge of quote-mining be made unless it is at the same time shown to actually be so. To be fair, I am also going to request that quotes only come directly from the source, as they should.

Free

This is going to prove impossible, as I have no access to the original papers. I have some books authored by various evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, but not original papers, which are expensive and often only available to subscription lists.

As the charge of quotemining only comes from Barbarian, it would be useful if he produces the evidence of quotemining, as the burden of proof is on the one making the charge.

The many anti-evolutionists who produce the quotations, almost always give the necessary references. Any objector should go to the sources themselves and demonstrate that their charge is correct.

And by correctness, I do not mean showing that the author of the paper believes in evolution. He may do, but as almost always happens, the evidence quoted is hostile to evolution.

Which proves only that the author of the paper is prepared to go against the facts, even if they are hostile to the theory.

The case of bird migration is an excellent case in point. Here are the Pacific Golden Plovers and the Capistrano swallows making what are simply unbelievable migrations. On no evolutionary theory is it possible to account for how the behaviour arose, and how it entered the genomes.

Even the omniscient Barbarian has to concede that he doesn't know. But a theory which fails to offer any reasonable explanation, verifiable by experiment, of such a monumental and universal fact, MUST be either modified or discarded. No modification is possible in this case - therefore discarding it is the only other alternative.

Yet, every one of the authors of the books on migration I've read, has an author who believes in evolution. Ignoring the facts is a common phenomenon among evolution supporters, and Barbarian is merely another in a long list of such ostriches.

Gould is another excellent example. His Wonderful Life (which I have in my library) documents the appearance of a vast number of new forms which arise out of basically nowhere in the Burgess Shale.

So what does he do? He and Eldredge produce their 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, which basically says that once upon a time, there were intermediates, but abracadabra, they have all miraculously, surprise, surprise, disappeared.

Which is just more question-begging. Even when dressed up by a Harvard-educated plank.

The quotes we are discussing, are always made by people who have read the original sources, and unless they are another bunch of frauds, the quotemine charge also impugns their honesty. Which is unacceptable, and basically dishonest without proof.

I have seen talkorigins make the charge, and in many cases, their charge, even according to their own submissions, is valueless.

So I don't know what to do here. As I say, I have no access and am forced to rely on secondary sources in the main. But secondary sources are not entirely fallible or infallible.

So what do we do? Textbooks are secondary sources too. Does that mean that we do not even quote them?

You must decide.

 

[Asyncritus]

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.
- Carl Linnaeus, 1788

This is a most curious quote. I have recently read two authors saying that EVERY BONE OF A CHIMP is easily distinguishable from the corresponding human bone.

Let's see the whole context of the quote, before I say 'quotemine'.

 

[Asyncritus]

Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans
Journal of Natural History
Volume 22, Issue 4, 1988
Abstract

The development of gills is described in zoea and megalopa stages of the following 16 species of decapods, and the patterns of gill development are discussed in terms of phylogenetic relationships of the larvae: Pagurus prideaux Leach, Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus), Inachus dorsettensis (Pennant), Hyas araneus (Linnaeus), Eurynome aspera (Pennant), Pisa armata (Latreille), Carcinus maenus (Linnaeus), Liocarcinus corrugatus (Pennant), Liocarcinus holsatus (Fabricius), Pilumnus hirtellus (Linnaeus), Monodaeus couchi (Couch), Pinnotheres pinnotheres (Linnaeus), Pinnotheres pisum (Linnaeus), Pinnaxodes mutuensis Sakai, Pinnixa rathbuni Sakai and Pinnixa (?)chaetopterana Stimpson.

Are these exixting phenomena, or are they shown by some fossil evidence?
If they are existing, they are irrelevant to the current discussion of how they arose in the first place.

The gills of most of the species investigated migrate during development, not only dorsally but, in some cases, also posteriorly. The Pinnotheridae provide the only known example in which rudiments of ‘lost’ gills appear within larval stages only to disappear by the first crab stage.

Are we back to the 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' nonsense?

Notice gills development in these organisms show the phylogentic pattern seen in the fossil record.

Here's a discussion of the way homobox genes affect the development of gills in arthropods: [They may do now, but that's not the point is it"]

Diverse Adaptations of an Ancestral Gill:
A Common Evolutionary Origin for Wings,
Breathing Organs, and Spinnerets

Bravo!:biglol And you believe this junk, do you?

Current Biology, Vol. 12, 1711–1716, October 1, 2002
Summary The expression patterns of pdm/nub and apterous are
good markers for such deep evolutionary comparisons
on the morphology and physiology of an organism. branchiopod crustaceans, and malacostracan crustaceans.

Absolute tripe.

Ah, so first you will need to supply us with a testable definition of "fish." What are the absolute minimum requirements for an organism to be a fish?

The term fish is used to refer to any aquatic vertebrate that has a skin covered with scales, two sets of paired fins, some unpaired fins, and a set of gills.

As you learned, your objections were based on a confusion between analogy (similarity) and homology (inherited structures with modification). I'll be reminding you of homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

[...]

But we aren't talking about analogies. We're talking about homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

And I'll keep reminding you that homology proves nothing of the sort. I quoted de Beer above, and what was your response?

(Barbarian, regarding who "determines" evolution)
It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

This is a nonsense, Barbarian, and worse, you know it. Your problem is to account for how the well-adapted population arose in the first place, not to talk about this 'natural selection' business. So account already.

Let us know your testable definition of "fish" and I'll show you how gills appeared in fish.

A sensible showing, please. I'd be very pleased to hear about this, since Futuyama is reported to have said that fishes have their origins firmly based on nothing.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]origins firmly based in nothing." [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)[/FONT]

He may. of course, be wrong, but....

 

[Barbarian]

This is going to prove impossible, as I have no access to the original papers. I have some books authored by various evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, but not original papers, which are expensive and often only available to subscription lists.

If you don't have checkable sources, then you shouldn't be using them. In reality, you shouldn't be quoting from anything you haven't read yourself.

As the charge of quotemining only comes from Barbarian, it would be useful if he produces the evidence of quotemining, as the burden of proof is on the one making the charge.

Let's just adhere to Free's suggestions and no one will have any problems.

The many anti-evolutionists who produce the quotations, almost always give the necessary references. Any objector should go to the sources themselves and demonstrate that their charge is correct.

That's not how it works. If you make the assertion, it's up to you to show that it's true.

Even the omniscient Barbarian has to concede that he doesn't know. But a theory which fails to offer any reasonable explanation, verifiable by experiment, of such a monumental and universal fact, MUST be either modified or discarded. No modification is possible in this case - therefore discarding it is the only other alternative.

Which is sort of like saying if you don't know who prepared the food for the Last Supper, then Christianity is false.

Gould is another excellent example. His Wonderful Life (which I have in my library) documents the appearance of a vast number of new forms which arise out of basically nowhere in the Burgess Shale.

But he doesn't say that, does he?

So what does he do? He and Eldredge produce their 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, which basically says that once upon a time, there were intermediates, but abracadabra, they have all miraculously, surprise, surprise, disappeared.

The theory was about before Gould wrote about the Burgess shale. In fact, it was first mentioned by Ernest Mayr, who noted that aberrant species were often small groups in isolated places. Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain it.

I can see you're upset about all of this, but Free's suggestion is a fair and equitable one. Let's cooperate with him.

So I don't know what to do here. As I say, I have no access and am forced to rely on secondary sources in the main. But secondary sources are not entirely fallible or infallible.

If you want a source, I can often find it for you. I'm perfectly willing to look and help you learn how accurate some statement is.

So what do we do?

Don't present any quotes from work we haven't checked out for ourselves.

Textbooks are secondary sources too. Does that mean that we do not even quote them?

Instead of endorsements, just cite the evidence. It's not only honest, it's much more effective.

 

[spartakis]

Wrong. And it's been that way since the start. Even the ancient Christian knew that Genesis could not be literal days.

Once again your wrong and ignore the facts I show you more than once. And how you get away with going on this topic when my post get erased is . But once again the facts.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[11][12][13][14][15]

The Septuagint has traditionally been calculated to date the creation around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic around 4000 BC.[17] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle-Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius ....

Young Earth creationism was still the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era including Shakespeare:
...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.[37]

Support for a young Earth declined from the eighteenth century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, and scientific paradigm shifts.

The decline of support for a Biblically literal young Earth during the 19th century was opposed by first the scriptural geologists[43] and then by the founders of the Victoria Institute.[44]

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

There is no conflict between God and creation. How could there be? And it's not just mainline Christianity that recognizes it.

Correct God and creation no. God and evolution yes, it all is conflict with Genesis and remember what Jesus says about not believing the word of Moses, how can you believe his words.
I would get into the problems but I am sure my post would get deleted like it did last time. Weird how yours don't get deleted when you keep bringing it up.

Some YE creationists look on evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

Nothing in the fossil record conflicts with anything I believe. Its just how some people look at it, well all these animals have similar structure that means they must have all evolved together by a common ancestor, sorry I don't look at it like that. Neither do a lot of creation biologist and scientist.

No geologist is surprised by folding in mountains. Rock strata will bend if slowly compressed over many years. In fact, we have examples where it was bent too fast and shattered.

There are a lot of thing geologist can't explain, for instance if they did not see Mt st Helen erupt they would claim all that sediment was thousands of years old. It would be nice if you would stay on topic though.

Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans
Journal of Natural History
Volume 22, Issue 4, 1988
Abstract

The development of gills is described in zoea and megalopa stages of the following 16 species of decapods, and the patterns of gill development are discussed in terms of phylogenetic relationships of the larvae: Pagurus prideaux Leach, Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus), Inachus dorsettensis (Pennant), Hyas araneus (Linnaeus), Eurynome aspera (Pennant), Pisa armata (Latreille), Carcinus maenus (Linnaeus), Liocarcinus corrugatus (Pennant), Liocarcinus holsatus (Fabricius), Pilumnus hirtellus (Linnaeus), Monodaeus couchi (Couch), Pinnotheres pinnotheres (Linnaeus), Pinnotheres pisum (Linnaeus), Pinnaxodes mutuensis Sakai, Pinnixa rathbuni Sakai and Pinnixa (?)chaetopterana Stimpson.

The gills of most of the species investigated migrate during development, not only dorsally but, in some cases, also posteriorly. The Pinnotheridae provide the only known example in which rudiments of ‘lost’ gills appear within larval stages only to disappear by the first crab stage.


Notice gills development in these organisms show the phylogentic pattern seen in the fossil record.

Here's a discussion of the way homobox genes affect the development of gills in arthropods:

Diverse Adaptations of an Ancestral Gill:
A Common Evolutionary Origin for Wings,
Breathing Organs, and Spinnerets
Current Biology, Vol. 12, 1711–1716, October 1, 2002
Summary The expression patterns of pdm/nub and apterous are
good markers for such deep evolutionary comparisons
on the morphology and physiology of an organism. branchiopod crustaceans, and malacostracan crustaceans.

Okay creatures with gills is not what we are looking for here.

Ah, so first you will need to supply us with a testable definition of "fish." What are the absolute minimum requirements for an organism to be a fish?

What does it matter, this is getting old. Can you show what I have been asking for? Can you show a living species having evolved into a different kind. This is the last time I will explain this, Evolution believe whales came from land animals, a deer like creature. Have you ever seen a deer like creature/species adding/evolving limbs into what it needs to be a sea creature. Every deer species documented since men have been documenting have been deer species. What about Any type of animal adding a body component it does not have to become something else it is considered to evolve into.

As you learned, your objections were based on a confusion between analogy (similarity) and homology (inherited structures with modification). I'll be reminding you of homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

As you learned my objections had no confusion

But we aren't talking about analogies. We're talking about homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

Wrong they do not demonstrate evolution.
(As scientists learnt more about anatomy, physiology and especially genetics, the concept of homology increasingly came under attack. One problem however, was that examples which seemed to fit evolutionary assumptions were often cited, while the many examples that do not fit were ignored. And, in time, more and more examples were discovered that had to be ignored. Eventually, as one observer noted, homology led Darwinists to assemble very select examples that seemed to prove ancestor-descendant relationships that often were quite convincing. In addition, as Milton has observed,
‘It is homology that Darwinists rely on to bridge the gaps in the fossil record. . . . It is homology that underlies the diagrams drawn up by Darwinists from Haeckel to the present day showing how every living thing is related. Ultimately, however, it is homology that has provided the greatest stumbling block to Darwinian theory, for at the final and most crucial hurdle, homology has fallen.’48)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/homology

A market economy. No one controls it, no one even knows what it's doing, and yet it produces order. A lot of nature is like that.

Does not supply and demand control it, which people do have control over. We could pump out more oil to satisfy a demand to get the price down. Lets not start comparing economy to evolution. You keep pushing stuff off topic, let me guess now the next ten pages will be on a market economy.

We have along way to go. And you're seeing a lot of new things. Let us know your testable definition of "fish" and I'll show you how gills appeared in fish.

How do you know what I have seen? You have not showed me anything new. In fact I started this thread for something you have been dodging for 20 pages. I have seen and debated everything you are bringing up and it is not the question asked in the thread as to show a living animal in a process which I have explained multiple times. Curious as to how me as the op had a post deleted for being off topic but you have not even had any edited

 

[Barbarian]

Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans
Journal of Natural History
Volume 22, Issue 4, 1988
Abstract

The development of gills is described in zoea and megalopa stages of the following 16 species of decapods, and the patterns of gill development are discussed in terms of phylogenetic relationships of the larvae: Pagurus prideaux Leach, Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus), Inachus dorsettensis (Pennant), Hyas araneus (Linnaeus), Eurynome aspera (Pennant), Pisa armata (Latreille), Carcinus maenus (Linnaeus), Liocarcinus corrugatus (Pennant), Liocarcinus holsatus (Fabricius), Pilumnus hirtellus (Linnaeus), Monodaeus couchi (Couch), Pinnotheres pinnotheres (Linnaeus), Pinnotheres pisum (Linnaeus), Pinnaxodes mutuensis Sakai, Pinnixa rathbuni Sakai and Pinnixa (?)chaetopterana Stimpson.

Are these exixting phenomena

Yes. Didn't you read the abstract?

If they are existing, they are irrelevant to the current discussion of how they arose in the first place.

Wrong again. The embryology of organisms is constrained by their evolutionary history. For example, humans have branchial arches at one point, just as fish do. Of course, we never develop gills like fish; our arches become jaw bones and middle ear bones. One of the most compelling observations is that the jaw bones of the opossum fetus first form the reptilian arrangement, and then as development proceeds, slowly re-arrange to form the mammalian lower jaw and middle ear.

The gills of most of the species investigated migrate during development, not only dorsally but, in some cases, also posteriorly. The Pinnotheridae provide the only known example in which rudiments of ‘lost’ gills appear within larval stages only to disappear by the first crab stage.

Are we back to the 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' nonsense?

No, this the opposite of recapitulation. We don't become fish in utero (see above to learn why), but our development is constrained by the genes we inherit from earlier ancestors.

Notice gills development in these organisms show the phylogentic pattern seen in the fossil record.

Here's a discussion of the way homobox genes affect the development of gills in arthropods: [They may do now, but that's not the point is it"]

Diverse Adaptations of an Ancestral Gill:
A Common Evolutionary Origin for Wings,
Breathing Organs, and Spinnerets

Bravo! And you believe this junk, do you?

Comes down to evidence. They have it, you don't.

Current Biology, Vol. 12, 1711–1716, October 1, 2002
Summary The expression patterns of pdm/nub and apterous are
good markers for such deep evolutionary comparisons
on the morphology and physiology of an organism. branchiopod crustaceans, and malacostracan crustaceans.

Absolute tripe.

Sorry. That "E-word", again.

Ah, so first you will need to supply us with a testable definition of "fish." What are the absolute minimum requirements for an organism to be a fish?

The term fish is used to refer to any aquatic vertebrate that has a skin covered with scales, two sets of paired fins, some unpaired fins, and a set of gills.

So catfish aren't fish? You sure about that?

Barbarian explains:
As you learned, your objections were based on a confusion between analogy (similarity) and homology (inherited structures with modification). I'll be reminding you of homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

But we aren't talking about analogies. We're talking about homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

And I'll keep reminding you that homology proves nothing of the sort.

I quoted de Beer above

Sorry, evidence again. And that trumps anyone's opinion.

and what was your response?

Cited evidence. I know it seems unfair, but knowing what one is talking about, is a big advantage.

(Barbarian, regarding who "determines" evolution)
It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

This is a nonsense, Barbarian, and worse, you know it.

But you can't find a counter-example; your unsupported insistence is not very effective.

Your problem is to account for how the well-adapted population arose in the first place

Observations show it is by natural selection, acting on random mutations. Would you like to see some details on how we know?

Barbarian suggests:
Let us know your testable definition of "fish" and I'll show you how gills appeared in fish.

A sensible showing, please. I'd be very pleased to hear about this, since Futuyama is reported to have said that fishes have their origins firmly based on nothing.

So we are going to assume that catfish are not fish, (your definition). Is that correct?

the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)

Well, instead of reading about what other people claim Futuyma said, we can read what he actually did say. (I happen to have his book)

Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids.
Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

He may. of course, be wrong, but....

Yep. Regarding the prediction, based on anatomical data, that lungfish and not coelacanths were the direct ancestors of tetrapods:

Journal of Molecular Evolution
Volume 31, Number 5 (1990), 359-364
Origin of tetrapods inferred from their mitochondrial DNA affiliation to lungfish
Axel Meyer and Allan C. Wilson

Abstract
This paper shows that questions of an unexpected phylogenetic depth can be addressed by the study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences. For decades, it has been unclear whether coelacanth fishes or lungfishes are the closest living relatives of land vertebrates (Tetrapoda). Segments of mtDNA from a lungfish, the coelacanth, and a ray-finned fish were sequenced and compared to the published sequence of a frog mtDNA. A tree based on inferred amino acid replacements, silent transversions, and ribosomal RNA (rRNA) substitutions showed with statistical confidence that the lungfish mtDNA is more closely related to that of the frog than is the mtDNA of the coelacanth. This result appears to rule out the possibility that the coelacanth lineage gave rise to land vertebrates; hence, morphological characters that link the latter two groups are possibly due to convergent evolution or reversals and not to common descent. Besides supporting the theory that land vertebrates arose from an offshoot of the lineage leading to lungfishes, the molecular tree facilitates an evolutionary interpretation of the morphological differences among the living forms. It would appear that the common ancestor of lungfishes and tetrapods already possessed multiple morphological traits preadapting their locomotion, circulation, and respiration

 

[Milk-Drops]

Spartakis, I do want to help you with your questions, but we need to focus on something. You have asked about transnationals and stated that the fossil record doesn't show evidence for evolution. Would you kindly explain why is it that you disagree with the definitions of transitional fossils and why you disregard the fossil record?

 

[Free]

Free

This is going to prove impossible, as I have no access to the original papers. I have some books authored by various evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, but not original papers, which are expensive and often only available to subscription lists.

Then you should be careful what quotes you post.

As the charge of quotemining only comes from Barbarian, it would be useful if he produces the evidence of quotemining, as the burden of proof is on the one making the charge.

Just posing a quote means as a truth claim means the burden of proof is on you to verify that that quote is indeed true or not taken out of context.

The many anti-evolutionists who produce the quotations, almost always give the necessary references. Any objector should go to the sources themselves and demonstrate that their charge is correct.

Even if a reference is given, that does not mean the quote was taken in context.

Even the omniscient Barbarian has to concede that he doesn't know.

No more comments like this. This is flaming. Just because someone is more educated than you regarding this topic and therefore has an answer for everything, does not mean that they are omniscient or that they think themselves as such.

and Barbarian is merely another in a long list of such ostriches.

222

The quotes we are discussing, are always made by people who have read the original sources, and unless they are another bunch of frauds, the quotemine charge also impugns their honesty. Which is unacceptable, and basically dishonest without proof.

It is known to be an issue in the creation/evolution debate so unless the original source can be given or a substantial amount of the context, quote mining could very well be the case.

So I don't know what to do here. As I say, I have no access and am forced to rely on secondary sources in the main. But secondary sources are not entirely fallible or infallible.

So what do we do? Textbooks are secondary sources too. Does that mean that we do not even quote them?

You must decide.

Well let's change it a bit then. We are all reliant on secondary sources, just do further research to try and verify that what was said was true. Barbarian and others have shown many times, in this discussion and others, where the quote what taken out of context. At least go to more than one source, preferably as many as possible.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans
Journal of Natural History
Volume 22, Issue 4, 1988
Abstract

The development of gills is described in zoea and megalopa stages of the following 16 species of decapods, and the patterns of gill development are discussed in terms of phylogenetic relationships of the larvae: Pagurus prideaux Leach, Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus), Inachus dorsettensis (Pennant), Hyas araneus (Linnaeus), Eurynome aspera (Pennant), Pisa armata (Latreille), Carcinus maenus (Linnaeus), Liocarcinus corrugatus (Pennant), Liocarcinus holsatus (Fabricius), Pilumnus hirtellus (Linnaeus), Monodaeus couchi (Couch), Pinnotheres pinnotheres (Linnaeus), Pinnotheres pisum (Linnaeus), Pinnaxodes mutuensis Sakai, Pinnixa rathbuni Sakai and Pinnixa (?)chaetopterana Stimpson.

Yes. Didn't you read the abstract?

So basically, this is what happens in the present day creatures. How does this account for their 'evolutionary history', apart from the now severely discredited 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' garbage?

Wrong again. The embryology of organisms is constrained by their evolutionary history.

This is absolute nonsense Barbarian. I thought better of you.

You may not be saying it as strongly as Haeckel, that fraud, did - but that's exactly where this is leading you: to the old, discredited 'principle', 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.

Is that your position? Looks like it, from the nonsense which now follows:

For example, humans have branchial arches at one point, just as fish do. Of course, we never develop gills like fish; our arches become jaw bones and middle ear bones. One of the most compelling observations is that the jaw bones of the opossum fetus first form the reptilian arrangement, and then as development proceeds, slowly re-arrange to form the mammalian lower jaw and middle ear.

These are all necessary stages in development, and have nothing to do with 'being constrained by evolutionary history'

They are not 'gill arches' since: a. they are not 'slits', merely depressions and b. the human embryo does not obtain oxygen from the amniotic and other fluids - it obtains oxygen from the placental, maternal circulation.Nothing whatsoever to do with fish, which, by the way are also cold-blooded - unlike the human. Or are you implying that we were once cold-blooded too?

Where is that placental fact in our alleged evolutionary history?

I just noted a quote (by Mitchell) from J. Langman’s Medical Embryology, 3rd edition, 1975, p. 262, however, states, “Since the human embryo never has gills - ..." Go prove that that is a quotemine.

Also, about the 28th day of development, the spinal cord is somewhat longer than the rest of the embryo, and to accommodate the extra length, the embryo curls, and the folds come to LOOK LIKE so-called branchial arches.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So where's your evolutionary history now?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let me just throw into the pot, the well-known life cycle of the butterfly. It passes through egg,. larval, pupal and adult stages. Account for this 'embryological' development with respect to their 'evolutionary history'. Care to try?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

our arches become jaw bones and middle ear bones.

Oh great. So you're saying that fish gills become jaw bones and ear bones. Have I got that right?

So where's your proof? Fishes have jaws - ask anybody who'e been bitten by a shark. So their jaws couldn't become jaws - they were jaws already. That's the end of that piece of nonsense.

And as for saying that the gills of fish became the earbones of humans, words fail me. I feel like waxing lyrically abusive about that nonsense, but this is a Christian site.

One of the most compelling observations is that the jaw bones of the opossum fetus first form the reptilian arrangement, and then as development proceeds, slowly re-arrange to form the mammalian lower jaw and middle ear.

So we are descended from opossums now, are we? They're somewhere in our 'evolutionary history', are they? That's news to me. Honestly Barbarian, can't you see that this is all irrelevant junk? What do opossums have to do with 'human evolution'?

The gills of most of the species investigated migrate during development, not only dorsally but, in some cases, also posteriorly. The Pinnotheridae provide the only known example in which rudiments of ‘lost’ gills appear within larval stages only to disappear by the first crab stage.

Erm, what's that got to do with anything we've been discussing? Just another random lengthy quote to give the appearance of research?

No, this the opposite of recapitulation. We don't become fish in utero (see above to learn why), but our development is constrained by the genes we inherit from earlier ancestors.

Well I'm glad to hear you begging the question like that. But you just said "constrained by their evolutionary history".

What does that mean, besides 'they go through their evolutionary history' in development? Which is exactly the same as 'ontogeny recapitulates phyogeny'?

You (and all these evolutionary 'scientists') cannot distinguish between 2 simple concepts: 'similarity' and 'ancestry'.

Similarities do not imply ancestry. That is a bogus idea, much propagated by the molecular 'biologists' who probably won't recognise a snake if it bites them in the face, because it's not in a test tube.

It is a fact that paternity and criminal identification has been done extremely successfully using DNA tests.

But surely, you can see the sheer stupidity of the concept that those same DNA tests can identify an ancestor more than 600 million years old? That it can unerringly identify your ancestors down to some crab-louse in the Cambrian? Come now, Barbarian, admit that all these stunning 'phylogenies' aren't worth the electrons wasted in publishing them!

Here's Austin Hughes MNAS talking (and yes, I have read the abstract, and yes, he does believe in evolution before that bleat goes up.)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I'm sure he knows more than you do about the subject.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection (1, 2). Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Yokoyama et al.'s (3) study, in this issue of PNAS, of the evolution of visual pigments in vertebrates as more of the same. For, unlike all too many recent papers in the field, this study is solidly grounded in biology.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, thousands of these papers are garbage-ridden, since they never take account of the real world! And are merely the products of some computer model or the other. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But as we all know, or should know, GIGO rules OK!

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You should be careful which papers you quote. Check first whether they have had any [/FONT][FONT=&quot] evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations.[/FONT]

Which raises the important question regarding your above somewhat lengthy and irrelevant quotations.

Do they, or have they had any regard for the phenotypic effects of these allegedly adaptive mutations? Can you prove whether they did, or as is far more likely, did not?

And just how would you set about establishing these important and essential phenotypic effects?

And if you can't, then your quote from that paper is totally valueless, as it bears no relationship to the real world, merely some scientist's overheating imagination.

In future, please refrain from 'teaching us' using papers which have not passed this test, or you will be taken to task severely about the matter.

I personally have no desire to 'learn' from you, merely to examine the verifiable facts, not imaginative constructions.

 

[spartakis]

Spartakis, I do want to help you with your questions, but we need to focus on something. You have asked about transnationals and stated that the fossil record doesn't show evidence for evolution. Would you kindly explain why is it that you disagree with the definitions of transitional fossils and why you disregard the fossil record?

Besides whats in post 243, 292 above you, and the rest of my post? I am not here to discuss the fossil record, but since you ask 200,000,000 fossils and no direct ancestors of the animal groups.The fossils they claim that became whales and etc... are laughable.
Just one example

No one was there. Similarities in some animals fossils just prove similar creation. Can't call it science because not testable.
But like I said I am not here to discuss the fossil record. Post 292 above you will tell you what I was looking for, but I am pretty sure you have already answered that. With every time you see a human you see an ape.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Ah, so first you will need to supply us with a testable definition of "fish." What are the absolute minimum requirements for an organism to be a fish?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You mean, you really don’t know what a fish is?

So catfish aren't fish? You sure about that?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let’s assume they aren’t. Now about the other 27,999 species. You need to account for their origins, with especial regard to the phenotypic effects of any mutations you care to produce.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Barbarian explains:
As you learned

, your objections were based on a confusion between analogy (similarity) and homology (inherited structures with modification). I'll be reminding you of homologies, which demonstrate evolution.
But we aren't talking about analogies. We're talking about homologies, which demonstrate evolution.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Free has had words with me about my being condescending. In turn, I have complained to him about this repeated attitude of superiority you exhibit, and I trust that he has had a few words with you as well, or I will make a formal complaint to the moderating team.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now, I have pointed out de Beer’s remarks to the effect that homology is a non-starter. You may have said something in reply, and I missed it. Could you link or repeat your answer please.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). .

Futuyama seems to have a serious problem distinguishing between species and classes. So I can’t take his opinions too seriously.

In any case, you have to quote his whole book to show that you aren’t quotemining, and missing out the relevant bit.

Yep. Regarding the prediction, based on anatomical data, that lungfish and not coelacanths were the direct ancestors of tetrapods:

Lungfishes have been unchanged for the last 238 million years. They are still here today, and their ancestors are still recognisable as lungfish. They haven't evolved into anything. So more nonsense for the garbage heap.

We knew, didn’t we, that the coelacanths weren’t the ancestors of anything besides coelacanths, didn’t we? So why bring them up?[FONT=&quot]

Sorry, evidence again. And that trumps anyone's opinion.

[/FONT]
Evidence? What evidence? Oh yes, he says:
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]“…showed with statistical confidence…" Aha! Hughes again:

[FONT=&quot]Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution [/FONT][FONT=&quot]on the basis of computational analyses alone,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Are you listening?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also note that in this paper there is absolutely no effort to take anything phenotypical into account here. You are therefore quoting from a severely flawed paper, and this cannot be admitted as evidence of anything besides your ability to cut and paste irrelevant papers.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Cited evidence. I know it seems unfair, but knowing what one is talking about, is a big advantage.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An ability to think about what one reads is a greater advantage. As I said before, the brain, not the oesophagus is the organ of thought and discriminatory ability.

(Barbarian, regarding who "determines" evolution)
It's like a market economy. No one determines it. But a well-adapted population in a stable environment will not see a new population moving into that niche. If you doubt this, show me a counter-example.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I asked you ‘how did the well-adapted population arise in the first place’. What is your answer?

Oh dear. I forgot. OOOHHHH----MMMMM 'mutations and natural select-------iiio-nnnn.

[/FONT]

Observations show it is by natural selection, acting on random mutations.

Ahah! I was right!!!

Would you like to see some details on how we know?

[FONT=&quot]
Oh yes, please. But we won't mention Kettlewell in polite company, will we?

[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

So basically, this is what happens in the present day creatures. How does this account for their 'evolutionary history', apart from the now severely discredited 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' garbage?

As you learned earlier, that's not what this is about. It shows in embryology, what Hox genes show in genetics. Evolution works by modifying existing things to new uses.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong again. The embryology of organisms is constrained by their evolutionary history.

This is absolute nonsense Barbarian.

Demonstrably true. No point in denying it.

I thought better of you.

You old flatterer, you.

You may not be saying it as strongly as Haeckel,

I'm pointing out that Haeckel was wrong. You've confused common descent with recapitulation.

Barbarian observes:
For example, humans have branchial arches at one point, just as fish do. Of course, we never develop gills like fish; our arches become jaw bones and middle ear bones. One of the most compelling observations is that the jaw bones of the opossum fetus first form the reptilian arrangement, and then as development proceeds, slowly re-arrange to form the mammalian lower jaw and middle ear.

These are all necessary stages in development

Nope. It would work just as well with one bone from the start. But it demonstrates the same process we see in the fossil record.

They are not 'gill arches

I already pointed this out to you. Branchial arches are found in all vertebrates. But in tetrapods, they never form gills, being used for other purposes. But they are produced by the same genes, only slightly modified in tetrapods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9640333

http://www.cbi.pku.edu.cn/chinese/d...gwuxuecankaowenxian/cocb/13/13-6/13(6)-09.pdf

http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/10/2443.full

since: a. they are not 'slits', merely depressions and b. the human embryo does not obtain oxygen from the amniotic and other fluids - it obtains oxygen from the placental, maternal circulation.Nothing whatsoever to do with fish,

You're arguing with yourself here. As you see, branchial arches form gills in fish. But modification of the same Hox genes that form gills in fish, produce other structures in tetrapods.

which, by the way are also cold-blooded - unlike the human. Or are you implying that we were once cold-blooded too?

Some fish are endotherms. It has nothing whatever to do with branchial arches.

I just noted a quote (by Mitchell) from J. Langman’s Medical Embryology, 3rd edition, 1975, p. 262, however, states, “Since the human embryo never has gills - ..."

I just showed you that branchial arches only form gills in fish, not in tetrapods.

Also, about the 28th day of development, the spinal cord is somewhat longer than the rest of the embryo, and to accommodate the extra length, the embryo curls, and the folds come to LOOK LIKE so-called branchial arches.

You've confused folds with branchial arches. In fact, they must form in humans.

The pharyngeal arches (branchial arch, Greek, branchial = gill) are a series of externally visible anterior tissue bands lying under the early brain that give rise to the structures of the head and neck. Each arch though initially formed from similar components will differentiate to form different head and neck structures. In humans, five arches form (1,2,3,4 and 6) but only four are externally visible on the embryo.

Each arch has initially identical structures: an internal endodermal pouch, a mesenchymal (mesoderm and neural crest) core, a membrane (endoderm and ectoderm) and external cleft (ectoderm). Each arch mesenchymal core also contains similar components: blood vessel, nerve, muscular, cartilage.
http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Pharyngeal_arches

So where's your evolutionary history now?

Right in front of you.

Let me just throw into the pot, the well-known life cycle of the butterfly.

Butterflies aren't vertebrates. No bunny trails allowed on this one.

Barbarian observes:
our arches become jaw bones and middle ear bones.

Oh great. So you're saying that fish gills become jaw bones and ear bones. Have I got that right?

No, apparently you've gotten confused again. I pointed out to you several times that branchial arches aren't gills. They become gills in fish. In tetrapods, they become other things.

So where's your proof?

See above.

Fishes have jaws

Some do. BTW, fish jaws are derived from branchial arches, which became gill arches in jawless fish. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that?

So their jaws couldn't become jaws - they were jaws already.

Nope. A good, non-technical explanation can be found in Leondard Radinsky's The Evolution of Vertebrate Design. It could save you a lot of time.

And as for saying that the gills of fish became the earbones of humans

That's a strawman, of course. Did you really not read what I just told you?

Barbarian observes:
One of the most compelling observations is that the jaw bones of the opossum fetus first form the reptilian arrangement, and then as development proceeds, slowly re-arrange to form the mammalian lower jaw and middle ear.

So we are descended from opossums now, are we?

Common ancestor among the cynodonts, that's all.

They're somewhere in our 'evolutionary history', are they? That's news to me. Honestly Barbarian, can't you see that this is all irrelevant junk? What do opossums have to do with 'human evolution'?

It's hard to believe you are inadvertently misrepresenting what I wrote, but I'll be charitable and assume that is so.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, this the opposite of recapitulation. We don't become fish in utero (see above to learn why), but our development is constrained by the genes we inherit from earlier ancestors.

Well I'm glad to hear you begging the question like that.

Just correcting your misconception.

What does that mean, besides 'they go through their evolutionary history' in development?

It means they go through a different development, by modifying what already exists.

Which is exactly the same as 'ontogeny recapitulates phyogeny'?

If you think so, you have no idea what recapitulation means.

You (and all these evolutionary 'scientists') cannot distinguish between 2 simple concepts: 'similarity' and 'ancestry'.

It's the difference between analogy and homology. And no one has trouble with it.

Similarities do not imply ancestry.

Nor does evolutionary theory say so. That's a creationist strawman. In fact, evolution is most strongly demonstrated by homologies that appear to be quite different.

That is a bogus idea, much propagated by the molecular 'biologists' who probably won't recognise a snake if it bites them in the face, because it's not in a test tube.

And now, you know better.

It is a fact that paternity and criminal identification has been done extremely successfully using DNA tests.

Yes, common descent is easily demonstrated by DNA analysis. And we know it works, because we can verify it by checking organisms of known descent.

But surely, you can see the sheer stupidity of the concept that those same DNA tests can identify an ancestor more than 600 million years old?

Turns out it works for distant common descent, too. Why wouldn't it? The same principle holds.

Here's Austin Hughes MNAS talking (and yes, I have read the abstract, and yes, he does believe in evolution before that bleat goes up.) I'm sure he knows more than you do about the subject.

In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection (1, 2). Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Yokoyama et al.'s (3) study, in this issue of PNAS, of the evolution of visual pigments in vertebrates as more of the same. For, unlike all too many recent papers in the field, this study is solidly grounded in biology.

I note that the writer endorses the use of DNA analyses to find common descent. Did you even read it? Do you agree with him that the study in question is valid?

You should be careful which papers you quote.

Funny you should mention that...

Do they, or have they had any regard for the phenotypic effects of these allegedly adaptive mutations?

In fact, they are mostly about the phenotype. Do you know what "phenotype" means?

And just how would you set about establishing these important and essential phenotypic effects?

In the case of the cited research, direct observation. It only secondarily discusses what the modifications to the HOX genes cause the cited phenotypic changes.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Besides whats in post 243, 292 above you, and the rest of my post? I am not here to discuss the fossil record, but since you ask 200,000,000 fossils and no direct ancestors of the animal groups.The fossils they claim that became whales and etc... are laughable.
Just one example

No one was there. Similarities in some animals fossils just prove similar creation. Can't call it science because not testable.
But like I said I am not here to discuss the fossil record. Post 292 above you will tell you what I was looking for, but I am pretty sure you have already answered that. With every time you see a human you see an ape.

Your argument that we weren't there is not a solid stance to refute the current phylogenetic chart that you are presenting us with.

As Barbarian has pointed out, homology is not the only qualification for how the chart is composed. Genetic information has helped divide and solve plenty of gap and placement issues within the phylogenetic classifications. The theory of evolution helps make sense of what we see in the animal, fungus, plant, and Bacteria Kingdoms when it comes to the massive amount of variation and where the organisms come from.

You can beleive what ever you want, and I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to help you understand the very theory you are against. By not allowing us to use the fossil record for discussion of the theory of Evolution is like not letting us use planets and large bodies when discussing how the Theory of Special relativity relates to our universe.