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

[Asyncritus]

Yep. So far, no one's come up with two of them for me to check. I notice you choked again.

No, I am giving you the whole animal kingdom to choose from.

You choose. But if you insist... see below.

Bats aren't "mostly blind." Remember when I suggested that you learn something about the issue before telling us about it?

The saying “blind as a bat”, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/02/bats-are-not-blind/

What are you talking about? The microhiropterans are blind. Others aren't - so don't let that bother you too much.

Find the group you think has been claimed to be a sister taxon with bats, and we can see how you do with the challenge. You'd be the first YEer to actually step up and take it, if you do.

Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.”

http://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/the-origin-of-bats/

Off you go then.

Try the cetaceans! Har -de- har!!!:biglol :toofunny

PS I am not a YEer. I'm an OEC.

 

[Adam]

Adam

I just said that we have a short summary of what did happen. If you were asked to summarise the second world war in two and a half pages of text, how much do you think you'd have to leave out?

I also said that 'cyanobacteria' would be a meaningless term then, since it was only invented recently. I don't suppose you know what 'eth means?

Yes, you did say that. You have not, however, substantiated that claim.

No one asked God to summarize what happened. And over the course of several thousand years, I would expect that if God were speaking on the subject, he would not stop at 2 paragraphs.

Genesis is not a condensed version of the physical processes that took place. The bible simply does not explain what happened. It also fails to explain reproduction, farming, long division, internal combustion, velocity, and a whole host of subjects.

These subjects are not condensed. They are not spoken of at all.

 

[Adam]

Well you should.

It is perfectly clear that the developmental stages of the human embryo have nothing to do with any alleged 'evolutionary history'.

That's a layperson's perception, and given the vast number of tissues and organs, including windpipes and corneas as well as bone that can be grown from embryonic stem cells, it's quite clear that a cell can become most anything, depending on it's coding.

 

[Barbarian]

So we're back to the old 'a species is what a competent taxonomist calls a species' definition.

Nope. We're back to evidence. Clack is just pointing out what you learned earlier; transitionals have apomorphic charachters of two separate groups. So Acanthostega is a fish because it has gills and lateral line organ and a rayed tail. Only fish have those. But it also has four legs. Today only land animals have those. But by definition, it's a fish.

Sort of like a platypus is a mammal, because it has a single bone in the lower jaw, which only mammals have. But it lays reptilian eggs which only reptiles do, and has the reptilian skeletal structure, and has a cloaca, all of which only reptiles have. But by definition, it's a mammal. Even though mammals don't ordinarily lay eggs.

Transitionals are a problem for your way of thinking, because things like Acanthostega or platypuses can't exist in a creationist universe.

Where did the amphibian-type lungs come from if it was an amphibian, and why would amphibian-type lungs arise in a fish?

It appears to have had lungfish-type lungs.

Especially as the adult frog cannot breathe underwater using lungs.

Neither can lungfish. Surprise. But amphibians are close enough to the ancestry of fish that they can use alternative means of getting oxygen, such as vascularized tissue. There's at least one frog that doesn't use lungs at all.

A bit later, lungs became essential in tetrapods and one species of lungfish. Evolution, you know.

The hardest breathing problem in the animal world was so1ved by the remote ancestors of our frogs. This was almost 300 million years ago when these brave creatures left the ancient seas for life on the land. Until this time they had taken their oxygen only from the water.

Nope. As you learned, lungs existed in fish long before land vertebrates existed.

Har-de-har!

Indeed.

And if it 'evolved' weight-bearing legs of one sort or another, which are not needed in water,

There are various instances of fish other than Acanthostega walking under water. Some lungfish do that today.

what would it do with them when they first appeared?

Walk on the bottom of ponds as lungfish do.

Remember, legs were a new invention at the time, requiring complex instincts to move them which did not exist before!

Someone's misled you on that. Most likely because they were themselves ignorant of it. Primitive tetrapods walk with the same sinuous motions that fish make when they swim. Watch a salamander walk. Surprise.

So where did the instincts come from?

Already there. Just used in a slightly different way. God is a lot more powerful and capable than you suspect.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. So far, no one's come up with two of them for me to check. I notice you choked again.

No,

Yep. I asked you to give me two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and you folded.

Barbarian observes:
Bats aren't "mostly blind." Remember when I suggested that you learn something about the issue before telling us about it?

The saying “blind as a batâ€, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....are-not-blind/

What are you talking about?

Bats. All kinds of them. No species of bat is blind.

The microhiropterans are blind.

No. You've been played again, I'm afraid:

A major misconception about bats is that they are blind. This idea originated from the fact that bats are able to successfully maneuver in the dark and often have small eyes. While some bats do have very small eyes (most Microchiroptera) many have large and complex eyes (Megachiroptera). Experiments on several species of bats have shown that they are able to distinguish patterns even at low light levels (Hill and Smith, 1984).
http://tolweb.org/Chiroptera

It's not like you haven't been warned about believing those fruitcakes.

Barbarian suggests:
Find the group you think has been claimed to be a sister taxon with bats, and we can see how you do with the challenge. You'd be the first YEer to actually step up and take it, if you do.

Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.â€
http://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.c...rigin-of-bats/

Off you go then.

You made that too easy. The site you quoted from, has three transitional forms between primitive carnivores and bats. Did you even bother to read it?

The skulls of three transitionals between Protictis and bats have been found, and they fit nicely with Onychonycteris, showing a transition in the skulls of these animals. You made that one too easy. BTW, I wasn't previously aware of the recent discovery of bat transitionals. I would have found them, even if you hadn't done it for me, though.

PS I am not a YEer. I'm an OEC.

If you're willing to accept God's creation that far, why not just accept all of it?

 

[cupid dave]

Evolution has not stopped and if man does not change his ways, even man as we know him today will become extinct as did Neanderthal man when we flooded out of Africa 40,000 years of days and nights ago:

 

[Adam]

Dave, I really don't want to discuss such things unless you can get the science right, but I'll give it one last shot:

I have no idea what your picture has to do with anything but we didn't "flood" out of Africa. We started leaving Africa in a long and slow sequence spanning over 100,000 years.

At 40,000 years ago, the last of the migrating Homo sapiens would come across other groups of sapiens already familiar with Neanderthal, who was quite established in Europe and western Asia, having already migrated out of Africa 300,000 years prior.

I see that you've referred to these events as taking place "40,000 years of days and nights ago" along with your use of the word "flood" and can see that you are trying to make some sort of allegory to the Noah story.

Excuse the pun, but that simply does not hold water. Neanderthal was still around as early as 30,000 years ago, and evidence in Gibralter suggests they still existed even 24,000 years ago.

The flood of the bible indicates that all but 8 humans were wiped out, yet in the context of human species- Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, Homo florensis, Denisovan man, and the recently discovered "Red Deer Cave" species who were around as early as 11,500 years ago- such a flood causing the extinction of these species dated to 40,000 years ago is simply inconsistent with the facts.

The truth is that Neanderthal populations were not instantly wiped out by modern man by one event. They, in fact, lived in close proximity for thousands of years during the long span of migration events and even after the very last of the out of Africa occupations.


I recommend that you read "The Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins" by Carl Zimmer. Like "the Last Human" by G.J. Sawyer, it is out-dated and does not contain a complete list of all known hominids, but it is richly illustrated and it does a good job at explaining tool-making, walking, and the African migrations.

 

[Asyncritus]

That's a layperson's perception, and given the vast number of tissues and organs, including windpipes and corneas as well as bone that can be grown from embryonic stem cells, it's quite clear that a cell can become most anything, depending on it's coding.

Yeah. And...?

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, you did say that. You have not, however, substantiated that claim.

You trying to be funny?

No one asked God to summarize what happened. And over the course of several thousand years, I would expect that if God were speaking on the subject, he would not stop at 2 paragraphs.

If you were God, you probably wouldn't. But you're not, so...

Genesis is not a condensed version of the physical processes that took place. The bible simply does not explain what happened. It also fails to explain reproduction, farming, long division, internal combustion, velocity, and a whole host of subjects.

Yeah. And...?

These subjects are not condensed. They are not spoken of at all.

The account is condensed. I simply don't follow where you're going with this.

 

[spartakis]

Sorry have not had a chance to post in the last couple days, will be worse in the week coming. Please lets keep theology out of this thread, way off topic. Barbarian if you would like to discuss Christian darwinism ( Oxymoron ) please start another thread. As for the thread you ask me to start, it's started. And Matt 25 in context is talking about the judgment of the nations post trib. If you would like to see what Jesus says about salvation in context please go here.

This thread was started to discuss living intermediate if macroevolution was present. That is no longer being discussed. It has turned into a straight out evolution verse creation debate. So instead of trying to get it back on topic which has not happened I will state my problems with evolution.

The example Wiki gives for macroevolution is the evolution of feathers. Sorry no empirical evidence for macro evolution in the fossil record or living. Have we seen feathers or any other novel feature evolve. There are very few candidates in fossil record and they are pretty dubious. We should have a huge amount of transitional fossil instead only a handful of candidates. Changes in species do occur, but evolution declares microbes to man. We have yet to see any information in anyway needed to produces evidence to make microbes to man close to feasible. Mendels law I guess is not a problem? No new information and novel features? Today we see ( what I was getting at with this thread ) separated species or kinds that vary among themselves never producing any new novel features or new information. It is a huge assumption that mutations produce new alleles for viable healthy phenotypic traits. We do have evidence that mutation produce thousands of genetic diseases. But nothing to really further evolution. We should be able to see production of brand new genes to produce novel features. The frequency of existing alleles can be controlled by environmental pressures. The variation you see in species are shuffled alleles for variation of trait genes. I hope I explained that well enough you can understand. So please stop arguing macro evolution like you have empirical evidence. I could get further into problems with evolution even though most will ignore them, but my days are extremely busy and that is not what this thread was started for.

If anyone wants to get back on topic about living intermediates and what we see in the variation of species I will respond as soon as possible ( still may take awhile) but I don't have time to go back and fourth and to be called ignorant because I don't believe microbes to men hypothesis. Not here for a evolution vs creation debate but to discuss what we see today, separated species or kinds that vary among themselves never producing any new novel features or new information.
Thanks. For those that want to continue the off topic conversation go ahead, but I will not respond.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. So far, no one's come up with two of them for me to check. I notice you choked again.

You were given, let's see,

Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.”

about 5 groups to check. Can you read?

Yep. I asked you to give me two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and you folded.

No, you've got about 5 or 6 to play with. So play already and stop these stupid remarks.

Barbarian observes:
Bats aren't "mostly blind." Remember when I suggested that you learn something about the issue before telling us about it?

You don't know what you're talking about so pompously. Here

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] This indicates that the bat eyes work better in dim light than in bright light. This has been verified behaviourally by Bradbury & Nottebohm (1969), who found that Myotis lucifugus avoids obstacles better under ambient illuminations resembling dusk, than they do in bright daylight. These findings may explain why early studies, which were made in room illumination, usually failed to prove any major visual capacity in microchiropteran bats (e.g. Eisentraut 1950; Curtis 1952). [/FONT]

Remember: 'mostly blind' was the description. Do read up before spouting off.

The saying “blind as a bat”, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....are-not-blind/

I'm talking about the echo-locating microchiropterans.

No. You've been played again, I'm afraid:

A major misconception about bats is that they are blind. This idea originated from the fact that bats are able to successfully maneuver in the dark and often have small eyes. While some bats do have very small eyes (most Microchiroptera) many have large and complex eyes (Megachiroptera). Experiments on several species of bats have shown that they are able to distinguish patterns even at low light levels (Hill and Smith, 1984).
http://tolweb.org/Chiroptera

See above.

Barbarian suggests:
Find the group you think has been claimed to be a sister taxon with bats, and we can see how you do with the challenge. You'd be the first YEer to actually step up and take it, if you do.

Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.”
http://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.c...rigin-of-bats/

You made that too easy. The site you quoted from, has three transitional forms between primitive carnivores and bats. Did you even bother to read it?

That's their junk. I prefer to hear your's, since you made the challenge.

The skulls of three transitionals between Protictis and bats have been found, and they fit nicely with Onychonycteris, showing a transition in the skulls of these animals. You made that one too easy. BTW, I wasn't previously aware of the recent discovery of bat transitionals. I would have found them, even if you hadn't done it for me, though.

Oh, I forgot. It's in a paper, A PAPER! A PAPERRR!! WAHEY! The new gospel has just been written!

Bat transitionals don't exist, Barbarian. You'll have to remember the brain is the organ of thought, not your oesophagus.

Now establish the idea that transitionals do exist, specifically, from whichever of the above groups you choose, account for:

1 How the mammal learned to fly

2 How the wings of a bat evolved, and from what.

3 How the echolocating system originated, and from what.

4 And when the wings and the e-l system appeared, how did the bat know what to do with them?

If you're willing to accept God's creation that far, why not just accept all of it?

I do. But that's your problem. You don't really.

 

[Asyncritus]

Nope. We're back to evidence. Clack is just pointing out what you learned earlier; transitionals have apomorphic charachters of two separate groups. So Acanthostega is a fish because it has gills and lateral line organ and a rayed tail. Only fish have those. But it also has four legs. Today only land animals have those. But by definition, it's a fish.

Then it is not an amphibian, and cannot live out of water for any length of time.

But I'm very curious here. Since soft tissues do not fossilise, what evidence is there that these things had any type of lungs?

Sort of like a platypus is a mammal, because it has a single bone in the lower jaw, which only mammals have. But it lays reptilian eggs which only reptiles do, and has the reptilian skeletal structure, and has a cloaca, all of which only reptiles have. But by definition, it's a mammal. Even though mammals don't ordinarily lay eggs.

And is an evolutionary impossibility. They don't fly either - but bats do.

Transitionals are a problem for your way of thinking, because things like Acanthostega or platypuses can't exist in a creationist universe.

Since they are fiercely debating if A. is a tetrapod or whatever else they care to decide, then your certainty is somewhat misplaced. As their's was in Tiktaalik! And the coelacanth.

It appears to have had lungfish-type lungs.

Then it was not a transitional between fish and amphibia. You have heard of alveoli, haven't you?

Neither can lungfish. Surprise. But amphibians are close enough to the ancestry of fish that they can use alternative means of getting oxygen, such as vascularized tissue. There's at least one frog that doesn't use lungs at all.

Amphibians are not close to the ancestry of fish - that is your mistake. The lungs alone finish that idea off for good. Why you, an intelligent person, stick to that nonsense is beyond me.

The alveolar structure of the amphibians' lung, their inability to breathe underwater and the structure of their 3-chambered hearts and their double circulatory system among other things when compared with the fish heart (see below) show the impossibility of any evolutionary progression.

They were created this way.

You will notice, of course, that there is no transitional state between a two- chambered heart as in fish, and a three-chambered amphibian heart.

View attachment 2431


Amphibian heart


Fish have a single-circuit circulatory system,and a simple heart


View attachment 2430


Fish heart
​

All this indicates that there's no real connection except in the minds of these 'taxonomists'.

A bit later, lungs became essential in tetrapods and one species of lungfish. Evolution, you know.

Now you know better. Alveolar lungs have ALWAYS BEEN ESSENTIAL in land-based animals. Those lungs bear no relationship to those of the lungs fish which as you have been repeatedly shown are non-alveolar.

Nope. As you learned, lungs existed in fish long before land vertebrates existed.

Yeah. And...?

There are various instances of fish other than Acanthostega walking under water. Some lungfish do that today.

I've listed some of them, and they have no relationship to tetrapods.

Someone's misled you on that. Most likely because they were themselves ignorant of it. Primitive tetrapods walk with the same sinuous motions that fish make when they swim. Watch a salamander walk. Surprise.

Whether they walk with a sinuous motion or not does not explain what they would do with weight-bearing legs UNDER the water, and why they should have 'evolved' weight-bearing legs in the first place.

You're in trouble here, because organs do not 'evolve' with the anticipation that they may be needed. As somebody said, an organ does not evolve in the Cambrian because it might be of use in the Jurassic.

Weight-bearing legs are not needed in water because the water supports the creature's weight.

So why evolve in the first place? What advantage is there in having such an underwater organ as far as natural selection is concerned?

Answer? None.

The legs of tetrapods were created so that the creatures could walk on land.

And please note: when the legs appeared, the powering instinct HAD to appear AT THE SAME TIME - or the organ would be useless. The Law of Asynctropy is in full flower again. But instincts are immaterial and cannot be subject to the normal 'evolutionary processes'.

Therefore they were implanted, along with the created legs.

Already there. Just used in a slightly different way. God is a lot more powerful and capable than you suspect.

True, and He doesn't use these half-baked, half-soaked evolutionary trial and error methods you embrace.

He spoke, and it was done.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. So far, no one's come up with two of them for me to check. I notice you choked again.

You were given, let's see,

Nothing the first time, then "the whole animal kingdom", then an assortment of taxa this time. But your own link showed the relationship of bats to primitive carnivores. You answered your own question.
Barbarian observes:
Bats aren't "mostly blind." Remember when I suggested that you learn something about the issue before telling us about it?

You don't know what you're talking about so pompously.

I gave you several links, showing bats can aren't blind. They aren't.

This indicates that the bat eyes work better in dim light than in bright light.

So bats can see in bright light, but they can see better in dim light. Not surprising for nocturnal creatures, is it?

This has been verified behaviourally by Bradbury & Nottebohm (1969), who found that Myotis lucifugus avoids obstacles better under ambient illuminations resembling dusk, than they do in bright daylight. These findings may explain why early studies, which were made in room illumination, usually failed to prove any major visual capacity in microchiropteran bats (e.g. Eisentraut 1950; Curtis 1952).

So it's confirmed now that microchiropteran bats have "major visual capacity."

Barbarian notes research:

The saying “blind as a batâ€, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....are-not-blind/

I'm talking about the echo-locating microchiropterans.

So is the paper. All of them. You spoke out of ignorance, and you messed up. Learn from it.

No. You've been played again, I'm afraid:
A major misconception about bats is that they are blind. This idea originated from the fact that bats are able to successfully maneuver in the dark and often have small eyes. While some bats do have very small eyes (most Microchiroptera) many have large and complex eyes (Megachiroptera). Experiments on several species of bats have shown that they are able to distinguish patterns even at low light levels (Hill and Smith, 1984).
http://tolweb.org/Chiroptera

Barbarian suggests:
Find the group you think has been claimed to be a sister taxon with bats, and we can see how you do with the challenge. You'd be the first YEer to actually step up and take it, if you do.

You made that too easy. The site you quoted from, has three transitional forms between primitive carnivores and bats. Did you even bother to read it?
That's their junk. I prefer to hear your's, since you made the challenge.

The skulls of three transitionals between Protictis and bats have been found, and they fit nicely with Onychonycteris, showing a transition in the skulls of these animals. You made that one too easy. BTW, I wasn't previously aware of the recent discovery of bat transitionals. I would have found them, even if you hadn't done it for me, though.

Oh, I forgot. It's in a paper, A PAPER! A PAPERRR!! WAHEY! The new gospel has just been written!

Evidence is like that. When it's found, it's added to knowledge.

Bat transitionals don't exist, Barbarian.

You just accidentally cited several.

1 How the mammal learned to fly

Probably the way birds do. Seems to work.

2 How the wings of a bat evolved, and from what.

Cretekos, C.J. et al. (2008) Regulatory divergence modifies limb length between mammals. Genes & Development 22:141-151.

Turns out, bone morphogenic proteins are responsible. Specifically, modification of Prx1 seems to have been the primary cause.

3 How the echolocating system originated, and from what.

Modification of something already there. You have an echolocating ability, for example. People have used it to navigate near coastlines in heavy fog, by shouting and listening for echos. In a large empty building, you can actually use it to navigate.

4 And when the wings and the e-l system appeared, how did the bat know what to do with them?

As you see, already there, just modified.

Barbarian suggests:
If you're willing to accept God's creation that far, why not just accept all of it?

I do.

No, you don't. You're adhering to your new revision of Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. We're back to evidence. Clack is just pointing out what you learned earlier; transitionals have apomorphic charachters of two separate groups. So Acanthostega is a fish because it has gills and lateral line organ and a rayed tail. Only fish have those. But it also has four legs. Today only land animals have those. But by definition, it's a fish.

Then it is not an amphibian, and cannot live out of water for any length of time.

That's what I told you. The skeleton of Acanthostega is too weak to hold it up out of water. It's a fish with some amphibian characteristics. A transitional, in other words.

But I'm very curious here. Since soft tissues do not fossilise, what evidence is there that these things had any type of lungs?

We know that lobed-fin fishes have lungs. From existing examples today (coelacanths are now deep-water fish, but they still have the now-nonfunctional lung. And we know ancient ones had lungs:

The histological structure of the calcified lung of the fossil coelacanth Axelrodichthys araripensis (Actinistia: Mawsoniidae)
http://tinyurl.com/6med4k7

Barbarian continues:
Sort of like a platypus is a mammal, because it has a single bone in the lower jaw, which only mammals have. But it lays reptilian eggs which only reptiles do, and has the reptilian skeletal structure, and has a cloaca, all of which only reptiles have. But by definition, it's a mammal. Even though mammals don't ordinarily lay eggs.

And is an evolutionary impossibility.

In fact, a necessary step between reptiles and mammals. And it's real.

Barbarian observes:
Transitionals are a problem for your way of thinking, because things like Acanthostega or platypuses can't exist in a creationist universe.

Since they are fiercely debating if A. is a tetrapod or whatever else they care to decide, then your certainty is somewhat misplaced.

The controversy is because it doesn't fit properly in either group. Transitionals are always like that.

Then it was not a transitional between fish and amphibia.

By definition, it is, since it as apomorphic characteristics of both groups.

You have heard of alveoli, haven't you?

You're surprised that lungs continued to evolve? Why?

Barbarian observes:
Neither can lungfish. Surprise. But amphibians are close enough to the ancestry of fish that they can use alternative means of getting oxygen, such as vascularized tissue. There's at least one frog that doesn't use lungs at all.

Amphibians are not close to the ancestry of fish - that is your mistake.

See above. Surprise.

The lungs alone finish that idea off for good. Why you, an intelligent person, stick to that nonsense is beyond me.

Comes down to evidence. Sorry about that.

The alveolar structure of the amphibians' lung, their inability to breathe underwater and the structure of their 3-chambered hearts and their double circulatory system among other things when compared with the fish heart (see below) show the impossibility of any evolutionary progression.

Fish don't breath underwater, either, but many amphibians can get oxygen from water.

I'll pick up the rest a little later today.

 

[cupid dave]

1) At 40,000 years ago, the last of the migrating Homo sapiens would come across other groups of sapiens already familiar with Neanderthal, who was quite established in Europe and western Asia, having already migrated out of Africa 300,000 years prior.

Neanderthal was still around as early as 30,000 years ago, and evidence in Gibralter suggests they still existed even 24,000 years ago.

2) The flood of the bible indicates that all but 8 humans were wiped out, yet in the context of human species- Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, Homo florensis, Denisovan man, and the recently discovered "Red Deer Cave" species who were around as early as 11,500 years ago- such a flood causing the extinction of these species dated to 40,000 years ago is simply inconsistent with the facts.

1) What Genesis says is that 100,000 years before the great population explosion out of Africa, Noah (a species) had three "sons" (which I see as the three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens, Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians) (Gen 5:30-31).

The emphasis in Genesis on that massive exit Out-of-Africa, starting about 40 thousand years age, was the start of this "flood" story analogy in Genesis which actually corresponds to 40,000 years ending finally with the total elimination and extinction of all other species except us.

See: Paleontological "Out-of-Africa Theory:"



The African replacement, "out of Africa," Noah's ark model of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.
From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.
Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens, (Noah?), 200,000-150,000 years ago [Gen 8:3] only in Africa, (before the flood!) and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neandertals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry.
All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.
From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.


3) The "Ark" that carried all the animals with us refers to our brain inside of the Skull.



2) Yes, you are correct that there were a variety of humanoid species until the 40 "days", (each 1000 years long), had expired, which was about 10,000 years ago aroung the beginning of the Agricultural Age:


Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman , and he planted a vineyard:

 

[cupid dave]

Adam

I just said that we have a short summary of what did happen. If you were asked to summarise the second world war in two and a half pages of text, how much do you think you'd have to leave out?

I also said that 'cyanobacteria' would be a meaningless term then, since it was only invented recently. I don't suppose you know what 'eth means?

2X

Many things had to be couched in terms carefully chosen so that the earliest readers could rationalize statements such as men living for 950 years.
Though that would have been implauible it would not be discard by the Bible enthusiasts who would merely argue it was still possible.
These bible bangers would simply say that men lived 950 years because they were less sinful or thatthey we different in that way.

Later oin, scripture excuses this slight misrepresentation be stating that a day to the ord is as a thousand years.

Hence, these "men" in the Geneaology were actually Speiceis which lived hundreds of thousands of years between there appearance as evolution continues the ascent of modern man:

(see recent book by paleontologists: The 22 Now Extinct Species of Humans)

 

[Adam]

Dave,

If you are trying to pass this off as accepted or acceptable, you are going to have to go find some extremely scientifically and biblically illiterate people.

I, along with anyone else you might encounter, know better.

It is also highly offensive, not to mention widely discarded in the scientific community, to refer to races as "stock" or to classify races, especially under the terms "caucasian, negroid and mongoloid." You must be reading out of your grandfather's secondary education books. The concept of "race" has been largely abandoned by anthropologists following the work of Franz Boas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Race classifications have been deemed useless in terms of evolution and have been obsolete for some time.

Your hypothesis is a very poor grasp of archaic science and has nothing to do with scripture. It really appears that you are just letting your imagination run wild. A person could learn just as much about evolution by watching the Underworld movies as they would by reading what you've stated. And they wouldn't learn anything about what the bible actually says by your account.


Good luck with whatever you are trying to attempt, but you are really wasting my time, yours, and everyone else's.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:

So it's confirmed now that microchiropteran bats have "major visual capacity."

You clearly can't read too well, or is it a comprehension problem? Try again:

These findings may explain why early studies, which were made in room illumination, usually failed to prove any major visual capacity in microchiropteran bats (e.g. Eisentraut 1950; Curtis 1952).

Barbarian notes research:

The saying “blind as a bat”, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....are-not-blind/

I'm talking about the echo-locating microchiropterans.

So is the paper. All of them. You spoke out of ignorance, and you messed up. Learn from it.

See above, and check out who's ignorant.

Probably the way birds do. Seems to work.

This is unbelievable ignorance. Let me enlighten your darkness.

A bird flies using wings which are formed from the whole of the forelimbs, to use a loaded term.

A bat flies using its HANDS. Hence the name Chiro- (meaning 'hand') -ptera (meaning 'wings').

View attachment 2432
​

That's one fact I want an explanation of. From any of the sister taxa you were given, account for the evolution of the bat's wing from the forelimb of its 'sister' taxon.

Cretekos, C.J. et al. (2008) Regulatory divergence modifies limb length between mammals. Genes & Development 22:141-151.

Turns out, bone morphogenic proteins are responsible. Specifically, modification of Prx1 seems to have been the primary cause.

Oh, really?

A wing forms from the hands of a bat and some proteins are responsible for that magical feat! Aren't you embarrassed to produce such junk?

Remember, we're talking about the EVOLUTION of bats' wings, not their formation.

In any case you failed to read the title of the article. We aren't discussing limb length here, we're discussing wing evolution, wing anatomy and how a mammalian forelimb 'evolved' into the wing of the fastest flying critter on the planet, in terms of body length per hour.

Modification of something already there. You have an echolocating ability, for example. People have used it to navigate near coastlines in heavy fog, by shouting and listening for echos. In a large empty building, you can actually use it to navigate.

Please. Do demonstrate some common sense here.

Are you really saying that in one or two zillion years, if I keep jumping off trees and cliffs (furiously waving my fingers in the air), my descendants will be able to fly (using their fingers) at a speed exceeding 234,000 times my body length, and shouting at the top of my voice, manage to catch 5 or so insects per minute?

And doing so well at it, that the US Navy and Air Force will be waving large sums of money at me wanting to know how I did it, so they can use my techniques in their latest fighter planes and torpedo guidance systems?

Such are the depths evolutionary 'scientists' have to plumb in order to explain the origin of those little bats who give them such nightmares.

This is as good a point as any to mention that scientists are supposed to hold their theories with a light hand, as Huxley once said.

And as Hawking said, a single fact can overthrow a whole great theory.

The bats certainly overthrow this miserable one.

And I still haven't asked the 2 fatal questions as yet.

1 How did those flying instincts originate in a non-flying mammal, and

2 How did they enter their genome?

Now when are you going to abandon this nonsense for something much saner and more reasonable?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
So it's confirmed now that microchiropteran bats have "major visual capacity."

You clearly can't read too well, or is it a comprehension problem? Try again:

This has been verified behaviourally by Bradbury & Nottebohm (1969), who found that Myotis lucifugus avoids obstacles better under ambient illuminations resembling dusk, than they do in bright daylight. These findings may explain why early studies, which were made in room illumination, usually failed to prove any major visual capacity in microchiropteran bats (e.g. Eisentraut 1950; Curtis 1952).

The part in red is the part you deleted to make it appear that bats can't see. They can actually see better than humans in low light. Why not just accept that you messed up and learn from it.

Barbarian notes research:
The saying “blind as a batâ€, simply isn’t correct. The truth is that all 1,100 bat species can see and often their vision is pretty good, although not as excellent as many other night-hunting animals.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....are-not-blind/

I'm talking about the echo-locating microchiropterans.

So is the paper. All of them. You spoke out of ignorance, and you messed up. Learn from it.

See above, and check out who's ignorant.

As you see, you are. Bats are not "mostly blind."

(Barbarian, regarding how bats learned to fly)
Probably the way birds do. Seems to work.

This is unbelievable ignorance.

It took us a long time to get you to admit that birds have to learn to fly. Are you now denying that bats have to do that? Show us.

Let me enlighten your darkness.

At least you'll be able to see as well as a bat, then...

A bat flies using its HANDS.

Show us that it means they don't have to learn, as birds do.

That's one fact I want an explanation of. From any of the sister taxa you were given, account for the evolution of the bat's wing from the forelimb of its 'sister' taxon.

Sure...

Onychonycteris finneryi. Transitional to modern microbats, that has claws on all fingers, short wings capable of fluttering or gliding, and long rear legs. Surprise.

Cretekos, C.J. et al. (2008) Regulatory divergence modifies limb length between mammals. Genes & Development 22:141-151.

Turns out, bone morphogenic proteins are responsible. Specifically, modification of Prx1 seems to have been the primary cause.

Oh, really?

So the evidence indicates

A wing forms from the hands of a bat and some proteins are responsible for that magical feat!

No magic. Just differential growth.

Aren't you embarrassed to produce such junk?

You'll have to complain to Him. I'm just observing what it is.

Remember, we're talking about the EVOLUTION of bats' wings, not their formation.

See above. Surprise.

In any case you failed to read the title of the article. We aren't discussing limb length here, we're discussing wing evolution, wing anatomy and how a mammalian forelimb 'evolved' into the wing of the fastest flying critter on the planet, in terms of body length per hour.

As you learned, it's a matter of genes affecting the growth of specific bones.

(Someone is puzzled as to the origin of echolocation)

Modification of something already there. You have an echolocating ability, for example. People have used it to navigate near coastlines in heavy fog, by shouting and listening for echos. In a large empty building, you can actually use it to navigate.

Please. Do demonstrate some common sense here.

Reality is a powerful argument.

Are you really saying that in one or two zillion years, if I keep jumping off trees and cliffs (furiously waving my fingers in the air), my descendants will be able to fly (using their fingers) at a speed exceeding 234,000 times my body length, and shouting at the top of my voice, manage to catch 5 or so insects per minute?

Ah, you're arguing with yourself again. Let us know when you two are done.

And doing so well at it, that the US Navy and Air Force will be waving large sums of money at me wanting to know how I did it, so they can use my techniques in their latest fighter planes and torpedo guidance systems?

Unlikely. You seem to have no idea what the military has in that regard.

And I still haven't asked the 2 fatal questions as yet.

1 How did those flying instincts originate in a non-flying mammal, and

Same what it works in birds, apparently. As you admitted, birds have to learn how to fly.

How did they enter their genome?

If you think there is an "instinct gene", you must be homozygous for the gullibility gene.

 

[Adam]

We aren't discussing limb length here, we're discussing wing evolution, wing anatomy and how a mammalian forelimb 'evolved' into the wing of the fastest flying critter on the planet, in terms of body length per hour.


1 How did those flying instincts originate in a non-flying mammal, and

2 How did they enter their genome?

If you are discussing wing evolution, you have to discuss limb length. (wings are limbs)

I'm no expert on bats, but many exaggerated features in animals come from runaway sexual selection.

This occurs when a slightly exaggerated trait is desireable to females. They choose mates because they possess this unique trait. The unique trait spreads through the population until most males possess the exaggerated trait and most females prefer the greatest expression of the trait. The process may run out of control when females continue to choose males whose trait is most exaggerated. Sometimes the trait becomes so pronounced that they can no longer compete or avoid predation.

However, it may eventually give the species a competitive advantage over its relatives, which increases fitness. With gliding (and by extention, flying) there are varying degrees of this trait in mammals.

Several possums in Australia glide. There are close to 50 different species of flying squirrel and other African rodents that glide. Cats even spread their bodies out and parachute when they fall. And there are a number of lemurs and other primates that can temporarily fly.


Peroxiredoxins aren't just found in mice and bats. They are found in mammals, yeast, and bacteria. The expression of the Prx1 gene in bats is different, but the Prx1 gene didn't just pop into existence. It was there before flight, but it's regulation has been altered, which could arise from random mutation or external factors like runaway sexual selection or environmental factors that change the epigenome. It has nothing to do with instinct.

Flight behavior is an expression of locomotor functions, which we all have.