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

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

By modifying something already there. Perhaps you've noticed a goldfish kept in an inadequate contrainer, gulping air. What is does, is swallow the air, and absorb the oxygen in the throat. Fish with larger surface areas in the throat, tend to survive better. So that easily leads to invaginations of the throat.

Not surprisingly, embryology shows that lungs develop from the throat.
The embryonic phase of lung development begins with the formation of a groove in the ventral lower pharynx, the sulcus laryngotrachealis (stage 10, ca. 28 days, 10

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/rrespiratory/phasen02.html[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yes, yes, and...? That proves what?

Where else could it arise from? And what is your point? Ontogeny recapitulates...?

The truth is much more interesting than your straw fairy tale.

Truth? What truth? That a fish got out of the water, developed lungs (or was it the other way round?) Please don't insult anybody's intelligence.

But you've failed to address my point. Let me copy and paste, and wait for some piece of nonsense:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Or did it sneak out, and the air flowing over its gills (and drying them out!) somehow, magically, turn them into lungs over millions of years? Maybe that's why there are millions of dead fish fossils! They all died trying to develop lungs! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surprise.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I bet you are - and I'll be surprised if you can provide an answer that stands up to any scrutiny. But I'm prepared to be surprised, as I say. Go right ahead.

You've been badly misled about that. The dipnomorpha share many homologies with lungfish,

Ah, these rubbish homologies again! What was it de Beer was saying again?

but are intermediate between them and more primitive Rhipidista.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surprisingly, evidence derived from DNA analyses does not provide a final answer to the question of the relationship of lungfish to land animals. The closest lower vertebrate group to the land animals could be the coelacanth, bony fish or lungfish. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Occasionally, I have been asked if it is true that lungfish have "human organs" such as a liver and lungs and so on. The short answer to this is a resounding "no". Lungfish are not, in any way, close to human beings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.annekempslungfish.com/what_is_a_lungfish.html[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So if that is correct, lungfish and any higher taxa have no relationship at all. Your hopes are dashed, if they ever really existed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

And there are a variety of lungfish in the fossil record, quite different from the present-day ones.

Really? You mean, they are identifiable as lungfish? And may simply have been other species of lungfish, which are as different from one another as many other species of birds or mammals are different from one another?

That is precisely the case, and your fudging of the facts really doesn't do you any credit at all.

See above. Lungs evolved in fish before the lungfish. Surprise, again.

The old trick re-emerges. Assume something, and that assumption forms 'proof''. Sorry, that won't wash. How did the lungs in fish before lungfish evolve, why, from what and where’s your evidence?

Lots of surprises for you, today.

I'm truly grateful to you.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And since they haven't changed, that means that they aren't the ancestors of anything! (Like tetrapods!)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
They evolved their own way.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
They evolved their own way, did they? And what way was that, and where is your evidence? In the question-begging room, I'm sure, but tell me otherwise.

Genetic analysis, however shows that lungfish are more closely related to us than to other fish. And we know this works, because the method can be tested on organisms of known descent.

The article quoted above says that this is not the case. You should read it some time. The coelacanth is their nearest relative (ha ha ha!), and they have nothing to do with us at all.

This is another illustration of Austin Hughes remarks. Genetic junk analyses have no regard for phenotypic problems.

How you can say lungfish are ' more closely related to us' than other fish is beyond me. Are they related to bananas as closely as we are? (60% of our genome is identical (?) to the bananas.)

Perhaps you would like to define 'closely related' for the readers to see exactly what you might mean. As far as I personally am concerned, the description is meaningless.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Pretty much the same thing. Modern lungfish are very different from the ancient ones, which were mostly small, and mostly freshwater fish. Even the genus of the modern ones is unknown in the fossil record.

But the palaeontologists are agreed that they ARE lungfish, and discernibly so. They had already 'evolved' lungs, and the identifying taxonomic features are clearly present.

Therefore, they are not the descendants of any known lung-less fish, and since they are here today, they aren't the ancestors of anything either.

Try again.

Show us that, from a checkable scientific paper. All the ones I've seen say that coelacanths are close to the line of lob-finned fish that led to the dipnomorpha.

And if coelacanths were direct descendants of the ancestors of land-dwelling vertebrates, then studying the coelacanth would nable predictions to be made about the blood system, the reproductive system, the brain and sensory organs of ancestors, which in turn would reveal how they lived, breathed, reproduced and responded to their environment. The living coelacanth thus became the important missing link between water-based fish and land-dwelling vertebrates.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/11feat_living_fossil_coelocanths-3116.pdf

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, as we all know, or should know, the coelacanth is no relative of anything.

Debate still rages though as to whether the coelacanths, presumed to be close relatives of the Rhipidistia fishes from which tetrapod amphibians supposedly arose, are our closest tetrapod ancestors, or if lungfishes, another very ancient line, are more closely related to tetrapods than the Rhipidistia. Coelacanths have a trilobated (three-lobed) tail with and extra trunk and fin protruding from the middle. While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way like producing live young.

http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54 Ha ha hahhh! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The coelacanth appears to be a cousin of Eusthenopteron, the fish credited with growing legs and coming ashore - 360 million years ago - as the ancestor of all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles and mammals) including ourselves. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Another reason finding a living coelacanth caused so much surprise at the time of its discovery was that coelacanths were widely [/FONT][FONT=&quot]believed[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to be the ancestors of the tetrapods. Indeed, many evolutionists assumed that the very reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet here they were very much alive—and swimming! http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

But they already knew that Tiktaalik was a fairly advanced member of the group. So it's not surprising that there were earlier ones. Didn't you read the research papers? No, I suppose you didn't.

You didn't read Henry Gee, did you? (One of the editors of Nature) He obviously didn't read the paper either. Here he is:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The best discoveries are those that overturn current thinking, revealing that what we thought, only yesterday, to have been a coherent and complete picture, is in fact a void that no discoveries can yet fill. Such is the report in tomorrow’s Nature (Niedźwiedzki et al., 463, 43-48, 7 January 2010) of footprints left by tetrapods (four legged land vertebrates) eighteen million years older than the earliest known tetrapod fossils, and ten million years older than the fossils of the creatures thought to be the closest relatives of tetrapods. A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight.

In other words, it's "Back to the drawing board, fellow evolutionist guessers! It was all wrong, dammit!"

You really must read the article, if it’s still here: http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2010/01/05/first-footing
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

How about walking and climbing trees?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You’re not serious, are you? Are you about to pretend that this creature is the ancestor of anything? It’s still here, so that’s impossible.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now the two questions:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]How did this amazing behaviour arise? And[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How did it enter the genome?



[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]a. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

As you just learned, air-breathing is a common behavior for fish, even those without legs.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You’re back to the condescension. Free, kindly take note of this and issue some kind of threat, as you did to me.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, we know that there are air-breathing fish, Barbarian. That is not the point being disputed here.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am demanding evidence that a fish developed lungs that would keep it alive out of the water for protracted lengths of time, as would be necessary for fishes to ‘evolve’ into amphibians.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Furthermore, I want to know what made them do it – come out and die, I mean – and how that behaviour arose, and how it entered their genomes.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As we’ve seen the genuine lungfish have no part to play in this. Why? They’re still here, and haven’t evolved into anything but lungfish.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

In fact, the swim bladder is a modified lung.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What utter nonsense. So animals with lungs evolved into fish with swim bladders, that right? No, WRONG.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A swim bladder has nothing in common with a lung proper apart from the fact that they both contain air.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the lung proper, as you should know, air enters the lungs via the nares, trachea, bronchus etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the swim bladder, air is extracted from the blood by the ‘red gland’ and leaves via resorption by the oval body, again into the blood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the lung breather, oxygen is extracted from the atmosphere and enters the blood.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the swim bladder, the exact opposite takes place. Air enters the bladder by being extracted from the blood by the ‘red gland’, and leaves by being resorbed into the blood via the oval body.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the fish, oxygen is extracted from the blood which has extracted it from the water via the gills. In the lung breather, the oxygen is extracted directly from the atmosphere.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is nothing in common between the two methods, and the lung breathing animal could not have evolved from the fish with a swim bladder, because ther is nothing in common between them and amphibia..
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

And the evidence, such as for Acanthostega, shows that legs were first used for walking on bottoms of ponds before they were used on land.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Catfish, coelacanths, gourami, the mudskipper, the handfish are all walkers on the bottom. Today. Not one of them shows the slightest hint of evolving into anything else, so Acanthostega is not that exceptional if it was a fish, which it was not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If it had lungs, then it was not a fish. The bones in the limbs bear no relationship to the cartilage in any fish today.

[/FONT]

 

[Adam]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Really? You mean, they are identifiable as lungfish? And may simply have been other species of lungfish, which are as different from one another as many other species of birds or mammals are different from one another?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That is precisely the case...[/FONT]

No, that is not precisely the case. It depends on which species in what family we are talking about.

I think it might be helpful if you spent the next few days learning about taxonomy in general.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian cites the evidence:
By modifying something already there. Perhaps you've noticed a goldfish kept in an inadequate contrainer, gulping air. What is does, is swallow the air, and absorb the oxygen in the throat. Fish with larger surface areas in the throat, tend to survive better. So that easily leads to invaginations of the throat.

Not surprisingly, embryology shows that lungs develop from the throat.
The embryonic phase of lung development begins with the formation of a groove in the ventral lower pharynx, the sulcus laryngotrachealis (stage 10, ca. 28 days, 10

Yes, yes, and...? That proves what?

Demonstrates that lungs com from modification of the digestive tract. They never came from gills, Async; indeed, many fish have had both. Again, if you'd read a little about the issue, things like this wouldn't blindside you so often.

Barbarian observes:
The truth is much more interesting than your straw fairy tale.

Truth? What truth?

That lungs and legs were here well before any vertebrate was walking on the land.

But you've failed to address my point. Let me copy and paste, and wait for some piece of nonsense:

Or did it sneak out, and the air flowing over its gills (and drying them out!) somehow, magically, turn them into lungs over millions of years?

As you see, that's not what happened. Gills never turned to lungs.

Surprise.

Barbarian regarding the idea that ancient lungfish are the same as the modern ones:
You've been badly misled about that. The dipnomorpha share many homologies with lungfish,

Ah, these rubbish homologies again! What was it de Beer was saying again?

Sorry, edited quotes don't stand up to evidence.

Surprisingly, evidence derived from DNA analyses does not provide a final answer to the question of the relationship of lungfish to land animals. The closest lower vertebrate group to the land animals could be the coelacanth, bony fish or lungfish.

Well, let's take a look...
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/8/1512.full.pdf

"Bony fish" is normally used for ray-finned fish (what are in common parlance called "fish") As you see, the evidence clearly shows that tetrapods are closer to coelacanths and lungfish than any of the three are to the ray-finned fish.

So if that is correct, lungfish and any higher taxa have no relationship at all. Your hopes are dashed, if they ever really existed.

Surprise. What you don't know, can hurt you. And copying opinions can't help you. Only evidence can help you.

Barbarian observes:
And there are a variety of lungfish in the fossil record, quite different from the present-day ones.

Really? You mean, they are identifiable as lungfish?

Some of them. The Dipnomorpha are almost-lungfish, and the are sarcopterygian fish that are vaguely like lungfish. Transistionals, you know.

And may simply have been other species of lungfish, which are as different from one another as many other species of birds or mammals are different from one another?

Like chimps from humans? Some of them.

Barbarian observes:
See above. Lungs evolved in fish before the lungfish. Surprise, again.

The old trick re-emerges. Assume something, and that assumption forms 'proof''.

Demonstrably true. Would you like to see the evidence, again?

Sorry, that won't wash. How did the lungs in fish before lungfish evolve, why, from what and where’s your evidence?

See above. Surprise.

They evolved their own way, did they?

Yep.

And what way was that, and where is your evidence?

The modern ones are considerably different from their ancestors.

Barbarian observes:
Genetic analysis, however shows that lungfish are more closely related to us than to other fish. And we know this works, because the method can be tested on organisms of known descent.

The article quoted above says that this is not the case.

See above. Surprise.

You should read it some time. The coelacanth is their nearest relative (ha ha ha!), and they have nothing to do with us at all.

Take another look. The best evidence is that lungfish, coelacanths, and amphibians all diverged about the same time. You've been misled yet again.

How you can say lungfish are ' more closely related to us' than other fish is beyond me.

Genetic evidence. Notice that every genetic analysis shows that we and lungfish are more closely related that either is related to ray-finned fish.

Are they related to bananas as closely as we are? (60% of our genome is identical (?) to the bananas.)

Doesn't seem to be right. Let's take a look...

Here's some representative ones, using DNA sequences, and counting for duplicated genes:

Similarity to humans;
Chimpanzee 96%
Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

Compare to the study I cited. Lungfish end up closer to mice then to fruitflies, which is exactly where common descent would have them.

Perhaps you would like to define 'closely related' for the readers to see exactly what you might mean. As far as I personally am concerned, the description is meaningless.

Fortunately, it's possible to quantify it. Surprise.

 

[Barbarian]

As you just learned, air-breathing is a common behavior for fish, even those without legs.

You’re back to the condescension. Free, kindly take note of this and issue some kind of threat, as you did to me.

If Free feels I've been unfair, I'll gladly comply, as I did with his request about quote-mining.

Yes, we know that there are air-breathing fish, Barbarian. That is not the point being disputed here.

I am demanding evidence that a fish developed lungs that would keep it alive out of the water for protracted lengths of time, as would be necessary for fishes to ‘evolve’ into amphibians.

Like lungfish, for example. They can breath out of water for extended period of time. Some lungfish would drown, if they couldn't get a breath of air periodically. What else would you like to see?

Furthermore, I want to know what made them do it – come out and die, I mean

Since some lungfish, even today, can live by gills alone, it seems likely that lungs were at first a supplement to gills, and only later became essential.

and how that behaviour arose

Like the goldfish. First by gulping air and absorbing it in the pharynx. Then any enlargement of the pharynx would give an advantage, and eventually pouches evolve.

and how it entered their genomes.

Same way we see things like that happen today. Mutation and natural selection.

As we’ve seen the genuine lungfish have no part to play in this.

See above. Remember, if you read up a bit before you talk about it, you'll do better.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, the swim bladder is a modified lung.

What utter nonsense.

It's a fact. Fish with them start as embyros, forming lungs, which then are slightly modified to become organs of buoyancy.

A swim bladder has nothing in common with a lung proper apart from the fact that they both contain air.

Surprise.

In the lung proper, as you should know, air enters the lungs via the nares, trachea, bronchus etc.

Nope. In fish, the lungs communicate through the mouth. Lungfish have internal nares, though. Another bit of evidence, um?

There is nothing in common between the two methods, and the lung breathing animal could not have evolved from the fish with a swim bladder, because ther is nothing in common between them and amphibia..

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
And the evidence, such as for Acanthostega, shows that legs were first used for walking on bottoms of ponds before they were used on land.

Catfish, coelacanths, gourami, the mudskipper, the handfish are all walkers on the bottom. Today. Not one of them shows the slightest hint of evolving into anything else

Mudskippers now leave the water and even climb tress. Sounds pretty good to me.

, so Acanthostega is not that exceptional if it was a fish, which it was not.

By definition, it's a fish. Internal gills, lateral line system, rayed tail fin.

If it had lungs, then it was not a fish.

A lungfish is not a fish? Well, in a sense, it's moved on, hasn't it?

The bones in the limbs bear no relationship to the cartilage in any fish today.

Well, let's take a look...

Zoology
Volume 107, Issue 2, 27 July 2004, Pages 93–109
The scapulocoracoid of the Queensland lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri (Dipnoi: Sarcopterygii): morphology, development and evolutionary implications for bony fishes (Osteichthyes)
Among bony fishes, the ontogenetic sequence by which the actinopterygian scapulocoracoid develops has been well described, but that of the sarcopterygian scapulocoracoid is poorly known, as the majority of taxa are only known from fossils. To rectify this, the cartilaginous scapulocoracoid of the extant lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri is examined. In initial stages of its development, the scapulocoracoid of Neoceratodus has a simple rounded shape, and supports the glenoid fossa. It appears nearly contemporaneously with the proximal endochondral element (humerus) of the pectoral fin. Pectoral fin elements develop by segmentation from a continuous field of cartilaginous precursor cells extending distally from the glenoid region of the scapulocoracoid. Subsequent scapulocoracoid development produces a ventromedial process, which is not associated with this field of precursor cells. A dorsal process also develops outside this field. Thus, the scapulocoracoid of Neoceratodus may consist of at least two developmentally distinct regions; (1) the ventromedial being homologous with the coracoid of actinopterygians, tetrapods and other jawed vertebrates and (2) a smaller dorsal process, homologous to the scapular region. The two, together with the glenoid region, give an overall triangular shape. The scapulocoracoids of fossil lungfish and other sarcopterygian fishes are also triangular and are composed of scapular and coracoid regions, rather than the ‘buttresses’ associated with scapulocoracoids of the Actinopterygii and Tetrapoda.

Kinda fits with coelacanths, though. And with tetrapods generally.

 

[spartakis]

Meatball I watched the video and is not the first video I have seen from this guy, he is the guy that claims macro evolution can be proved in a lab ( e. coli ). Which is not true ( can get into that if wish but not much time and want to clear some things up). The video once again does not show what we are discussing. Like I said I understand the process, and not arguing changes in species. I think we have some misconceptions going on here. Barbarian your saying as long as I don't do what you do we won't have any problems?

For the lungfish example real quick. The mixture of fish and amphibian traits are individual and themselves are not transitional between the two types. The fish characteristics are 100% typical condition that are found in fish and the heart and the way the blood is returned back to the lungs are similar to what is found in most terrestrial vertebrates. No sign that either of these developed from something less, but just appeared.

some misconceptions of what I believe me and Asyncritus are talking about and what you are trying to prove with something else. Asyncritus correct me if I am wrong. But it seems those arguing for evolution here are arguing for the micro part of it, which is not what we are looking for. I understand moths wings can change colors, different species of fruit flies can arise and etc... Evolutionist claim everything evolved from one common ancestor which puts evolution on a bigger scale then species changing. So let me ask.
What do you guys consider the first life form on earth?
What is your evidence for this?
Do you not see the gaps in the macro point?
If there are not any please explain.
If evolution is a slow ( I would say random so do others considering natural selection is not a creating process so it depends on mutations. Do mutation have a mind of their own that causes them to not be random. I understand how things adapt, but can adaption cause the first life form to eventual develop system that now make up the human? I believe this is why Anthony Flew changed his mind) we should see thousands of intermediates in the fossil record and the living. Not so, once again not talking about species change.

I believe Agassiz Flew, and many, many others have very good reasons to reject evolution. To act like we don't is nonsense. Barbarian I still have that thread open for you to show me your thoughts on how Jesus tells us salvation is by works.

So lets get the topic on what it should be the macro intermediates. Thanks
There are problems here

Slow process random or not should show millions of intermediates here. But that is not what we see.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe Agassiz Flew, and many, many others have very good reasons to reject evolution.

Agassiz, when he died in the early 1900s, was the last world-class biologist to deny evolution. He also denied that black people were people, BTW. He thought they could not have descended from Adam. He had a number of odd ideas. He trained a number of great biologists, who were all evolutionists. Ironically, Stephen Gould held that chair at Harvard. Don't know any biologists of any consequence, named "Flew." Possibly, you're thinking of the one who described God as a "cosmic Saddam Hussein?"

To act like we don't is nonsense.

There's a reason biologists overwhelmingly accept evolution. You've learned about that reason here.

Barbarian I still have that thread open for you to show me your thoughts on how Jesus tells us salvation is by works.

Just hear what He says in Matthew 25.

 

[Barbarian]

For the lungfish example real quick. The mixture of fish and amphibian traits are individual and themselves are not transitional between the two types.

Turns out, they are. The legs, which are used for walking underwater, the lungs, the internal nares, the genetic homologies, all demonstrate the transitional nature of lungfish.

The fish characteristics are 100% typical condition that are found in fish

Only if you consider acanthostega and lungfish to be fish.

and the heart and the way the blood is returned back to the lungs are similar to what is found in most terrestrial vertebrates.

Wrong again. The system has a path through the gills.

BTW, your diagram has some errors. Viruses are not regarded as being living organisms. And animals are not split into vertebrate/invertebrate. For example, echinoderms and vertebrates are more closely related than either is to arthropods.

No sign that either of these developed from something less, but just appeared.

Even in existing lungfish today, there are intermediate levels. Some can get on with gills alone. Some must depend on lungs. Learn and you will do better.

some misconceptions of what I believe me and Asyncritus are talking about and what you are trying to prove with something else. Asyncritus correct me if I am wrong. But it seems those arguing for evolution here are arguing for the micro part of it, which is not what we are looking for.

As you see, lungfish demonstrate the evolution of land animals from fish. All these transitional homologies demonstrate that quite nicely. Notice too, that genetics supports all those predictions made on structural homologies.

I understand moths wings can change colors, different species of fruit flies can arise and etc... Evolutionist claim everything evolved from one common ancestor which puts evolution on a bigger scale then species changing. So let me ask.

Linnaeus first noticed the fact. Without even assuming evolution, he produced a tree of life that closely matches the one we have today, using much more detailed evidence.

What do you guys consider the first life form on earth?

Define the absolute minimum requirements for something to be alive.

What is your evidence for this?

The tree of Linnaeus. The fossil record. Embryology. Genetics. Countless transitional forms, and the fact that transitional forms only appear where they are predicted to be. Things like that.

Do you not see the gaps in the macro point?

I notice that every time we find a transitional, it fills in another gap. That in itself is compelling, isn't it?

If evolution is a slow ( I would say random so do others considering natural selection is not a creating process so it depends on mutations.

As you know, Darwin discovered that it wasn't random. A random process plus a non-random process is a non-random process. Would you like a demonstration?

Do mutation have a mind of their own that causes them to not be random. I understand how things adapt, but can adaption cause the first life form to eventual develop system that now make up the human?

Yep. God is a lot more capable than YE creationists are willing to let Him be.

I believe this is why Anthony Flew changed his mind) we should see thousands of intermediates in the fossil record and the living.

And we do. Name two major groups, said to be related, and I'll show you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Meatball I watched the video and is not the first video I have seen from this guy, he is the guy that claims macro evolution can be proved in a lab ( e. coli ). Which is not true ( can get into that if wish but not much time and want to clear some things up).

Yeah, it actually is true. Macro Evolution is basically just specieation. This has been observed multiple times in the lab.

The video once again does not show what we are discussing. Like I said I understand the process, and not arguing changes in species. I think we have some misconceptions going on here. Barbarian your saying as long as I don't do what you do we won't have any problems?

So, I think I understand your real problem. You don't believe in evolution because you don't understand the body of work surrounding discoveries or phylogeny.

For the lungfish example real quick. The mixture of fish and amphibian traits are individual and themselves are not transitional between the two types. The fish characteristics are 100% typical condition that are found in fish and the heart and the way the blood is returned back to the lungs are similar to what is found in most terrestrial vertebrates. No sign that either of these developed from something less, but just appeared.

Anphibians didn't evolve from fish. Anphibians are part of the clade that includes Reptiles and avians. Amphibians are to fare removed to have evolved from fish. What we see in the fossil record and through genetics is that proto-reptiles came from ancestors that divided off of ancient fish.

some misconceptions of what I believe me and Asyncritus are talking about and what you are trying to prove with something else. Asyncritus correct me if I am wrong. But it seems those arguing for evolution here are arguing for the micro part of it, which is not what we are looking for. I understand moths wings can change colors, different species of fruit flies can arise and etc... Evolutionist claim everything evolved from one common ancestor which puts evolution on a bigger scale then species changing. So let me ask.

First I'd like to point out that your own opinion of what Micro and Macro evolution are does change their actual definition.
I understand now that it is not evolution that is your problem. It is your own ignorance of the field and how its studied that is your problem. For me, I can't help you understand if you have already decided you don't want to.

What do you guys consider the first life form on earth?

I don't personally know what it was. Nor do I think its necessarily important to know what it was to understand the theory of Evolution.

What is your evidence for this?

N/A

Do you not see the gaps in the macro point?

Can you be specific about what gaps you are speaking of? The thing is, taxonomists and phylogonists realize that we don't have a complete fossil record, and we probably never, but that dosen't change what the fossil record already says.

If evolution is a slow ( I would say random so do others considering natural selection is not a creating process so it depends on mutations. Do mutation have a mind of their own that causes them to not be random.

No, a mutation is an error, its not random though. Random means there is not understanding of it. In genetics we know that mutations happen based on understood concepts.

To simplify this, I'll throw you a bone. A mutation could be random, but whether or not its passed onto its offspring, is not.

I understand how things adapt, but can adaption cause the first life form to eventual develop system that now make up the human?

Here is the part where I don't think you understand how natural selection works. "The first life form" probably resembled something like bacteria. What we would expect to see is after several generations mutations that specialized various bacteria into different niches has happened. After several more generations, the bacteria would specialize even further into their niches.

In the lab, it has been observed that bacteria can join together to become multicellular structures. once this happens, the cells in this structure would just have to specialize to do specific jobs in the structure. That would be the foundation of what would eventually lead to then more specialized multi cellular life. That is when we can pull up a phylogenetic chart and track the line that would eventually lead to us.

Understanding takes a lot of study. I can already tell you are going to state that this is doesn't proove anything. I understand, but the frustrating part about this is that you don't know what you want, considering you have admitted your own ignorance on the subject.

I believe this is why Anthony Flew changed his mind) we should see thousands of intermediates in the fossil record and the living. Not so, once again not talking about species change.

What basis are you forming this on? Here is the thing you don't understand, you are making claims on what we should see, but you don't even know what have seen. Your a blind man trying to tell seeing men what color is. I think the problem is that you are trying to tell me and Barbarian what the color pink is, when we both have figured out that you have not even seen the color pink.

I believe Agassiz Flew, and many, many others have very good reasons to reject evolution. To act like we don't is nonsense. Barbarian I still have that thread open for you to show me your thoughts on how Jesus tells us salvation is by works.

Its not nonsense to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.

So lets get the topic on what it should be the macro intermediates. Thanks
There are problems here

Slow process random or not should show millions of intermediates here. But that is not what we see.[/QUOTE]Biologists do see them. Barbarian has showed you multiple. You are just repeatedly claiming they aren't because you want biology to show you something, that biology never claims to have to show you.

 

[cupid dave]

Forgive me, but who taught you this?

The bible says nothing about "visible light". When God said "let there be light" there wasn't any special provision for only certain types of light.

(Wrong.
It says the elecromagnetic radiation is what separates day from night.)

And your inability or apathy regarding the distinction of Pangea and Rodinia clearly says that you aren't interested in the facts of what happened, not to mention that neither of these were the first land masses. Your concept of a single ocean is not only extremely over-simplictic, it's patently wrong.

(Genesis doesn't name the single continent, but people today have heard of a Pangea-like event.)

And Animals preceded plants. That's a scientific fact. Science does not tell us otherwise.

(No)

I'm not really interested in talking about where science and the bible agree unless you get the science right, first. AND the scripture.


(LOL
You would be wise to dismiss this argument because you realize it is right)

I specified visible light because in Physics all Electromagnetic Radiation is commonly referred to a light, though it is not the kind that separates the day from the night as the passage says in Genesis1:3-5.


Technically, Genesis says the "the first sprouts of life" appeared but the KJV Bible interpretors called this "grass" which was an understandable mistake for that time.

Bacteria which first appeared are plants with Cell Walls.
They are part of the Plant kingdom in the two kingdom system mentioned in the Bible.
Animal Kingdom could not appear until about 1 billion years later after the Plants had replaced some of the CO2 atmosphere with Oxygen.

My identification of the Pangea event is used since most readers have heard of that.
But the Bible merely states correctly that "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place."

That is synonymous with the idea of one Ocean surrounding a single continent.

 

[cupid dave]

Dave I will post this again for you. Barbarian just ignores it and states evolution does not conflict with the Bible. Well lets take a look.
Genesis/ Evolution
Birds before insects/ Insects millions of years before birds
Bird and fish created simultaneously/ Fish millions of years before birds
vegetation before the sun/ Sun before any life
God made man directly from dust/ Man evolved from ape like creature
Women from mans side/ Evolved simultaneously
Ocean before land/ land before ocean
light before suns and stars/ opposite order
whales before creeping things/ opposite order
death came from sin/ Man came from millions of years of death and suffering.

Could go on and on, but you should get the point.
Genesis does not fit into evolution.

That is why those that believe in evolution say you can not take the Bible literal. But we know the Bible was meant to be taken literal.
Jesus himself says if you can't believe the words of Moses how can you believe him?

Hi mr sparks...

Yes, people willignore the whole issue of Evolution agreeing with Genesis because each of the two sides never thought of harmonizing the literal statements with the facts as we understand them in science.

You at least seek to more closely examine what Moses actually said.
Hopefully, you and these others will believe the words of Moses in Genesis to be true and that will support takingthe words of Jesus as true.

 

[cupid dave]

Well lets take a look.
Genesis/ Evolution


1) Birds before insects/ Insects millions of years before birds


2) Bird and fish created simultaneously/ Fish millions of years before birds


3) vegetation before the sun/ Sun before any life


4) God made man directly from dust/ Man evolved from ape like creature


5) Women from mans side


6) Ocean before land/ land before ocean


7) light before suns and stars/ opposite order


8) whales before creeping things/ opposite order


9) death came from sin/ Man came from millions of years of death and suffering.

9) Extinction is the death that is referred to here.
The death of one species of earliest "humanoid" is actually what happened, 22 times in fact, before Modern Homo sapiens appeared and has survived.

Re:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans
byG.J.Sawyer




8) The KJV interpretors did not properly verify the actually Hebrew used there:

7) Light flood the Universe after a long 400 million year Dark Cosmic Age immediately after the Big Bang because the universe was so hot no Atoms could exist other than in the Plasma form.
Until neutral Atoms formed visible light is impossible.
Visible light had to await the formation of Stars.

... to be cont...

 

[cupid dave]

If you were honest, you'd admit that I showed you that your literal re-interpretation doesn't hold up. It supposes, for example that there were mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. This is why early Christians concluded it wasn't a literal history.
.

There were evenings and mornings, reversed in the way Genesis presents the story.
This no doubt was intentionally done to get our attention.
The literary tactic points to the fact that these evenings and mornings were not exactly the common idea we might at first assue to be the case.

Then, conclusively, we are informed on the fourth "day" of the creation process that God assigned the Sun and the Moon to be time keepers for a Solar Clock that ticks off days and years and seasons on Earth.

It is soecifically stated that for Earth a clock is made to count ut earth days as opposed to the apparently much longer geological eras the Genesis is referring too:

1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day
2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day
3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day
4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day
5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day
6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day
7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

[Adam]

I specified visible light because in Physics all Electromagnetic Radiation is commonly referred to a light, though it is not the kind that separates the day from the night as the passage says in Genesis1:3-5.


Technically, Genesis says the "the first sprouts of life" appeared but the KJV Bible interpretors called this "grass" which was an understandable mistake for that time.

Bacteria which first appeared are plants with Cell Walls.
They are part of the Plant kingdom in the two kingdom system mentioned in the Bible.
Animal Kingdom could not appear until about 1 billion years later after the Plants had replaced some of the CO2 atmosphere with Oxygen.

My identification of the Pangea event is used since most readers have heard of that.
But the Bible merely states correctly that "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place."

That is synonymous with the idea of one Ocean surrounding a single continent.

I'm sorry, but this is all very wrong.

It only takes the slightest amount of consideration to dismiss all of your claims.

Bacteria oxygentated the planet, not plants. Bacteria clearly aren't plants.

That's one example.

 

[cupid dave]

I'm sorry, but this is all very wrong.

It only takes the slightest amount of consideration to dismiss all of your claims.

Bacteria oxygentated the planet, not plants. Bacteria clearly aren't plants.

That's one example.

Bacteria in the Two Kingdom System is classified as a Plant.

Reading Genesis literally the account clearly specifies only Plants and Animals.

Hence the Bible writers were using the option of a two Kingdom Classification System:

 

[Barbarian]

Bacteria oxygentated the planet, not plants. Bacteria clearly aren't plants.

That's one example.

I'm a little leery about trying to read science into Genesis. That's not what it's for. However, it would have to be consistent with science; it is God's creation, after all.

The most likely explanation is cyanobacteria, which were apparently the cause of the banded iron formations of that time.

 

[cupid dave]

I'm a little leery about trying to read science into Genesis. That's not what it's for. However, it would have to be consistent with science; it is God's creation, after all.

The most likely explanation is cyanobacteria, which were apparently the cause of the banded iron formations of that time.

Science is founded upon facts.
Science uncovers facts by the Scientific Method.
This method makes the facts available to everyone who would be willing to duplicate the controlled labortory experiments used initially.

Hence, they are true.

Now the things stated in Genesis are eiother true facts now clearly available thru science or the things stated in Genesis are not true, not facts.

An intellectually honest Bible reader ought expect that what is stated in the Bible as a fact would be stated by Science too.

 

[Asyncritus]

In human embryos, the lungs develop independently of their gill slits.

There are no gill slits in human embryos, as I pointed out some while ago. They are 'folds', having nothing to do with gills.

They are actually 2 different structures. Lungs are not derived from gills.

You're not kidding! Gills and lungs are not connected in any way except as oxygen extraction devices.

The question "how is lung breathing developed?" is quite fascinating. But we don't necessarily need to consider that a species already has gills as an obstacle to lung development.

Why don't we? If the species has perfectly functioning gills, and has lived happily for a zillion years in water, why should it develop lungs?

The second question is: how could it do so?

Does it say to itself some day: Hey, there's a whole world out there. I gotta get to it, but I've gotta have lungs to breathe out there.

And so the lung appears. Is that how you see it?

It's like asking why a species would develop teeth since it already has a stomach.

Don't be silly.

 

[Asyncritus]

Originally Posted by Asyncritus
What about the lungfishes?

Well, what about them? They've been here for over 200 million years, are still lungfish, and haven't changed one bit.

So where did they get their lungs from? Not evolution, that's for sure, since they're pretty much the same then as now!!

And since they haven't changed, that means that they aren't the ancestors of anything! (Like tetrapods!)


This is basically a rehash of the "why are there still monkeys?" fallacy.

This is basically a rehash of the "why are there still monkeys?" fallacy.

No it's not.

The question is: how did lungs arise? From what? and why?