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

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
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).

In other words, they don't have any major visual capacity. Simple English does the trick every time.

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

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.

I don't think we're talking the same language, or you're copping out with this wriggle. Let me pin you to the floor.

Existing birds learn to fly, since no egg can fly. Granted.

But that's not the problem we're addressing here. Please stick to the question.

HOW DID THE PROTO-BIRDS, who WEREN'T BIRDS, learn to fly, and so become full birds? Remember, their parents couldn't fly, and as you may not know, gliding isn't flying by a long way.

So to return to the bat, lest you slither away.

Proto-bat (can't fly) -----X----Y----Z----> Bat (can fly)

The question is, how did proto-bat and X,Y,Z learn to fly? See below for your diving technique exposure.

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

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

As you've now been shown, that is NOT the question being asked. See above comments.

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

Out of your own post will I condemn thee and thy theory.

Transitional: If O. is a bat, and the very first bat found, then it cannot be transitional. It IS a bat. Maybe an early (in time) bat, but definitely a bat with no antecedents.

However, a study in 2010 has also uncovered evidence for other bone structures indicative of laryngeal echolocation, opposing the conclusions of the previous study by showing that Onychonycteris finneyi did possess the ability to echolocate after all.

So it could fly, and had echolocation capacities too. Nothing primitive about that!

Short wings: Why does it have wings? Because it could fly. Nothing transitional there.

One author:

[FONT=&quot]: ‘These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.’[/FONT]

National Geographic:

Although the fossil record is notably lacking, scientists believe that bats fully capable of flight and echolocation, or locating prey and other objects through sound waves, emerged during the geologic time period known as the Eocene (about 50 million years ago), probably in North America....


How they emerged is neatly glossed over, in fact is not even mentioned! So you are being called upon to fill in that great blank spot! Might be a bit too much...

"Bats are a spectacular group of mammals, with a combination of two remarkable specializations that you don't see in any other land mammals: flight and echolocation," Springer said.

How true - and they completely wreck any theory of evolution.

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

No you're not. You're closing your eyes very firmly and shouting 'they evolved' when it's pretty obvious to anyone as blind as a bat that they didn't.

Now go on, admit that the theory leaks like a sieve in this matter. In fact there ISN'T a theory about this matter.

Genes making a bone longer? Do you think that if we took a piece of the metal they use in aeroplane wings and make it longer and longer and longer it'll turn into a wing?

No, because there are a lot of missing factors, like intelligent design, for starters.

(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.

You've cut out my nice little story. It makes the point supremely well, and leaves you in the dust.

How did a non-flying, non-echo-locating proto-bat ever become a flying, echolocating bat?

Why, by jumping off trees and cliffs while trying to catch insects, of course. How else?

Oh yeah, by waving their fingers in the air as they hurtled to the ground and destruction! The faster they fell, and the more frequently they fell, the faster they evolved! And their screams as they headed groundwards bounced back off the ground so they could measure the speed with which they would hit the ground! And that's how echolocation arose.

No wonder they are ultrasonic - they got more and more high pitched as the creature realised the end was rapidly approaching!

That's my scenario. What's yours?

Reality is a powerful argument.

Of course! See above! :biglol

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

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

Here:

[FONT=&quot]. In addition to the ability to navigate in complete darkness by echolocation, both bats and dolphins live in very social environments using echolocation in group situations without any obvious problems with interference. All of these capabilities are highly desired by current military programs developing unmanned-aerial vehicles (UAV) especially since many of the target environments are in places where Global Positioning System (GPS) signals are unavailable and obstacle locations are not mapped.
[/FONT]
You were saying?

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

I've stated many times that nobody knows where instinct is located.

Since instinct is obviously inheritable, because generation after generation does exactly the same things, then the genome seems the most likely location for transmission of an instinct.

If the genome is NOT the location, and I'm not saying it is, then we are in the realms of the spirit, and your evolutionary problems become even more horrendous.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

Hmm... let's take a look...

The African lungfish is an example of how the evolutionary transition from breathing water to breathing air can happen. Lungfish are periodically exposed to water with low oxygen content or situations into which their aquatic environment dries up. Their adaptation for dealing with these conditions is an outpocketing of the gut, related to the swim bladder of other fishes, that serves as a lung.[1] The lung contains many thin-walled blood vessels, so blood flowing through those vessels can pick up oxygen from air gulped into the lung.

The African lungfishes are obligate air breathers, with reduced gills in the adults. They have two anterior gill arches that retain gills, though they are too small to function as the sole respiratory apparatus. The lungfish heart has adaptations that partially separate the flow of blood into its pulmonary and systemic circuits. The atrium is partially divided, so that the left side receives oxygenated blood and the right side receives deoxygenated blood from the other tissues. These two blood streams remain mostly separate as they flow through the ventricle leading to the gill arches. As a result oxygenated blood mostly goes to the anterior gill arches and the deoxygenated blood mostly goes to the posterior arches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopterus

Surprise.

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

You could have looked it up before you made that mistake, you know.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Horsefeathers. There are terrestrial vertebrates living today without alveolar lungs. Given what we know of evolution, it's not surprising that they are all (AFAIK) amphibians.

Those lungs bear no relationship to those of the lungs fish which as you have been repeatedly shown are non-alveolar.

See above. Surprise.

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

Yeah. And...?

You were wrong about that, too.

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.

Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence says you're wrong. You've learned a lot of it in this thread. Why not just admit the obvious?

(Argument that walking motions came from nowhere)

Barbarian chuckles:
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,

Walk. We still see lungfish doing that. I thought I already showed you that.

and why they should have 'evolved' weight-bearing legs in the first place.

Useful mode of motion for an ambush predator in shallow ponds. As you learned, it's evolved several times.

You're in trouble here, because organs do not 'evolve' with the anticipation that they may be needed.

They don't have to. As you learned, legs were useful long before vertebrates got onto land. But you've discovered an important principle of evolutionary theory. Everything that evolves is a modification of something already there.

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

And yet lungfish walk about underwater. Someone should tell them that creationists have discovered that they can't.

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

Apparently, those foolish fish thought they were useful. WFTH-I

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

The evidence indicates otherwise. Surprise.

And please note: when the legs appeared, the powering instinct HAD to appear AT THE SAME TIME - or the organ would be useless.

Which, I suppose, is why the first tetrapods walked with the same muscles and motions that a fish uses in swimming.

The Law of Asynctropy is in full flower again. But instincts are immaterial and cannot be subject to the normal 'evolutionary processes'.

Surprise.

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

True,

The real evil of creationism is that it leads to disbelieve in God.

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

Comes down to evidence. But the fact that engineers are now using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are resistant to design, suggests that He knew best, after all.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
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).

In other words, they don't have any major visual capacity.

I restored (in red) the context you deleted, showing that they do. But as you know, I showed you several links documenting that bats aren't blind at all. They can see better than we can in low light.

Simple English does the trick every time.

Yep. Quote-mining, not so much.

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

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.

I don't think we're talking the same language, or you're copping out with this wriggle. Let me pin you to the floor.

Ready, wrestle!

Existing birds learn to fly, since no egg can fly. Granted.

Bat eggs can't either. There's a point, here?

HOW DID THE PROTO-BIRDS, who WEREN'T BIRDS, learn to fly, and so become full birds?

So now, you're claiming that ostriches and kakapos aren't "full birds?" Seriously?

The evidence is that "proto-birds" didn't fly, or fluttered ineffectively like some primitive bird chicks do to incease jumping.

So to return to the bat, lest you slither away.

Proto-bat (can't fly) -----X----Y----Z----> Bat (can fly)

The question is, how did proto-bat and X,Y,Z learn to fly?

Probably the way proto-birds did. Bird flight, of course, uses the same muscles and motions that a bipedal dinosaur would use for the upper limbs when running or grasping. It might be interesting to see how that mode differs in bats. My guess is that it's quite different, since bats evolved from animals that were not bipedal.

(Async calls for light)

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

(Barbarian asked for any transitional bats)

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

Out of your own post will I condemn thee and thy theory.

(ancient creationist dodge trotted out)

Transitional: If O. is a bat, and the very first bat found, then it cannot be transitional.

By definition it is. Wings are transitional between modern bats and primitive carnivores. So are hind legs. So is skull.

No point in denying it.

It IS a bat. Maybe an early (in time) bat, but definitely a bat with no antecedents.

As you learned, there are several bat-like relatives that are clearly not bats, or very primitive bats. Nice try, though.

So it could fly, and had echolocation capacities too. Nothing primitive about that!

The limbs are transitional, as is the skull. So, by definition, a transitional. It's a primitive bat. And though bats rarely fossilize, we've found a few. And they confirm predictions about what a bat transitional should be.

re a spectacular group of mammals, with a combination of two remarkable specializations that you don't see in any other land mammals: flight and echolocation," Springer said.

As you learned, you have a primitive form of echolocation, one which is sometimes used by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

Nothing magic. Just a modification of something already there.

and they completely wreck any theory of evolution.

Do you ever wonder why everything looks like a modification of something simpler? That's how we discovered evolution.

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?

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

No you're not.[/QUOTE

I'm just looking at the evidence. You're closing your eyes very firmly and shouting 'they didn't evolve' when the evidence shows they did.

Now go on, admit that the theory leaks like a sieve in this matter. In fact there ISN'T a theory about this matter.

Surprise.

Genes making a bone longer? Do you think that if we took a piece of the metal they use in aeroplane wings and make it longer and longer and longer it'll turn into a wing?

Turns out genes affect bones, not machinery.

(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.

You've cut out my nice little story.

Turns out, reality is more interesting.

How did a non-flying, non-echo-locating proto-bat ever become a flying, echolocating bat?

As you just learned, modification of things already there.

No wonder they are ultrasonic - they got more and more high pitched as the creature realised the end was rapidly approaching!

Smaller organisms, with higher-pitched voices are more effective echolocators, for the same reason it doesn't matter where you put the subwoofer. If this puzzles you, I'll explain. Do I need to?

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.

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

. In addition to the ability to navigate in complete darkness by echolocation, both bats and dolphins live in very social environments using echolocation in group situations without any obvious problems with interference. All of these capabilities are highly desired by current military programs developing unmanned-aerial vehicles (UAV) especially since many of the target environments are in places where Global Positioning System (GPS) signals are unavailable and obstacle locations are not mapped.

They lack the range that military location systems have, and of course, no animal can match the capabilities of one AWACS installation or the echolocation capabilities of a modern frigate. But it would be nice to be able to use animal echolocation for smaller applications.

You were saying?

You seem unaware of these systems.

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

I've stated many times that nobody knows where instinct is located.

I showed you in the case of phototropism which you identified as an instinct. It's in the ability of the auxin molecule to be degraded by light.

Since it is obviously inheritable, because generation after generation does exactly the same things, then the genome seems the most likely location.

Chemistry, in this case. So far, that's what it's been.

If the genome is NOT the location, and I'm not saying it is, then we are in the realms of the spirit, and your evolutionary problems become even more horrendous.

So far, that hasn't been a problem.

 

[zeke]

Bird flight, of course, uses the same muscles and motions that a bipedal dinosaur would use for the upper limbs when running or grasping.

But how exactly did theropods sprout wings and avian lungs and fly into the future as birds? Please be specific and try a little science this time.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian cites functional analysis of flight:
Bird flight, of course, uses the same muscles and motions that a bipedal dinosaur would use for the upper limbs when running or grasping.

But how exactly did theropods sprout wings

Opportunistic use of allometric growth, it seems. The upper limbs of theropods get relatively long as they get absolutely smaller. T-rex has tiny upper limbs for it's size. Velocoraptors, which are much smaller, have longer ones. Compsognathus, which is only a few feet long, has even longer ones. And Archaeopteryx, which is quite small, has longer ones yet. Of course, feathers long preceded flight, as did birdlike lungs. We know it about feathers, because feathered dinosaurs (except Archaeopteryx) have symmetrical feathers, which are not usable for sustained flight.

and avian lungs and fly into the future as birds?

And at least some huge dinosaurs had birdlike lungs:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/

Please be specific and try a little science this time.

This is as simple as I can make it for you. Better this time?

 

[zeke]

Opportunistic use of allometric growth, it seems. The upper limbs of theropods get relatively long as they get absolutely smaller.

Do you offer anything other that your hands waiving in the air to support your naturalistic dogma? Rhetorical question - we all know the answer. Darwinian lore is not supported via the scientific method but some folks foolishly accept hand-waiving as evidence.

 

[Adam]

Do you offer anything other that your hands waiving in the air to support your naturalistic dogma? Rhetorical question - we all know the answer. Darwinian lore is not supported via the scientific method but some folks foolishly accept hand-waiving as evidence.

Do you offer anything other than your hand waiving?

Your claim about "darwinian lore" is just that. A claim.

 

[zeke]

Your claim about "darwinian lore" is just that. A claim.

Darwinian lore is what it has always been - mythology passed off as science. Move forward.

 

[Adam]

If you can disprove the ToE, be my guest. You would be the first.

It would be very exciting to many scientists and offers you world fame and prestige.

And since you seem to despise the theory so much, it surely would be worth your while.


What's holding you back?


Oh, that's right. An insurmountable body of evidence that, so far, compliments the theory to the point of almost absolute certainty.

 

[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.
I
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.

Just checked in looks like my last post never got seen or the problems for evolution and back on topic got ignored.

By the way Adam evolution has never been proved. I don't think anyone denies changes in species but I will go back to my last post for the microbes to man theory.

 

[zeke]

If you can disprove the ToE, be my guest. You would be the first.

I have no obligation to 'disprove' anything my friend. I am not the one making the extraordinary claim that man and chimp have a common ancestor. The real question is can you provide the required evidence to support that faith-based notion? Take your time and do it right. This could be fun.

 

[zeke]

Oh, that's right. An insurmountable body of evidence that, so far, compliments the theory to the point of almost absolute certainty.

Only in the mind of those who have absolutely had the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that longer arms in theropod/bird transitionals are allometric)

Do you offer anything other that your hands waiving in the air to support your naturalistic dogma?

It's an observable fact. Would you like me to show you?

Rhetorical question

Rhetoric won't keep evidence at bay. You need to find a way to deal with nature as it is.

Darwinian lore is not supported via the scientific method but some folks foolishly accept hand-waiving as evidence.

That's your mantra against reality, isn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

This thread was started to discuss living intermediate if macroevolution was present. That is no longer being discussed.

When my challenge to find even one case of two major groups missing a transitional wasn't answered, that pretty much closed out the issue. Did you note that a prominent YE creationist admits that there are numerous transitionals which are not predicted by creationism? That issue has been resolved, and the discussion moved on.

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.

See above. Even honest creationists admit it. Not just Kurt Wise. Phillip Johnson in Darwin on Trial admits Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution.

Have we seen feathers or any other novel feature evolve.

The Mammalian ear, lungs, legs in vertebrates, jaws, and a host of others. Would you like to see the evidence for some of these? Pick one, and we'll get started.

There are very few candidates in fossil record and they are pretty dubious.

Even your fellow creationists admit that there are many such:

Kurt Wise:
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf (pg. 221)

We should have a huge amount of transitional fossil instead only a handful of candidates.

See above. Surprise.

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.

The fact that genetic analysis gives us a tree of common descent that very closely matches those prepared by Linnaeus and others on other evidence is compelling evidence. We know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Mendels law I guess is not a problem?

For creationism it is. Mendle's law actually cleared up an important problem in Darwinism, that is "how do new traits avoid getting lost among all the old traits?"
Mendel showed why. It's not like mixing paint, it's like sorting beads.

No new information and novel features?

Every new mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the math?

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.

New information in a genome is observed to happen every day. Let's just focus on useful new mutations. Want to see some of those?

It is a huge assumption that mutations produce new alleles for viable healthy phenotypic traits.

They occur frequently. Even honest creationists admit this much.

We should be able to see production of brand new genes to produce novel features.

If we did, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. It's always a modification of something already there.

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.

What you missed, is that favorable mutations occur and accumulate in the population by natural selection. This is a basic principle of genetics, which led to the Modern Synthesis. Would you like to see some useful new mutations?

So please stop arguing macro evolution like you have empirical evidence.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" means. It refers to the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, new genera, new families, etc. BTW, the ICR endorses papers that assert that all of these evolved from a few "kinds" on the Ark.

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.

The Gish Gallop is never very productive, anyway. Find something you think actually supports creationism, and develop a cogent argument for it, with evidence. Takes more time, but it's less easy to dismiss. Worth a try, no?

If you want someone to respond to your assertions about transitionals, the best thing you can do is post a testable definition of the term as you use it. One of two things will happen. It might be that your definition is not what we see in nature, and hence not part of evolutionary theory. Or it might be that you do understand the theory, and then with a testable definition, we can see what is in evidence.

Give it a try.

 

[Adam]

I have no obligation to 'disprove' anything my friend. I am not the one making the extraordinary claim that man and chimp have a common ancestor. The real question is can you provide the required evidence to support that faith-based notion? Take your time and do it right. This could be fun.

You are making a positive claim that it is faith based. The burden is on you to prove what you claim.

Until you provide evidence that evolution is a "faith based notion" there is no reason to accept what you claim. The burden is on you.


What do you have against faith based beliefs, anyway? Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity, or as you might call it " Christianitisitism."

 

[Adam]

By the way Adam evolution has never been proved.

Neither has Germ Theory of Disease, Modern Atomic Theory, Theories of Relativity, Cell Theory or the Theory of Gravity.

All of these, including the ToE, are strongly supported by evidence, however, otherwise they would not be accepted as scientific theories.

 

[spartakis]

When my challenge to find even one case of two major groups missing a transitional wasn't answered, that pretty much closed out the issue. Did you note that a prominent YE creationist admits that there are numerous transitionals which are not predicted by creationism? That issue has been resolved, and the discussion moved on.

Are you joking I gave you many. Can you show all links to. Sharks, bats, seals, sea lions, horse, dog, apes. Could continue but thats more than two. And please no huge jumps and gaps like my last post A I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 -----B

See above. Even honest creationists admit it. Not just Kurt Wise. Phillip Johnson in Darwin on Trial admits Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution.

Kurt Wise says this about the Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx, for example, is thought to be an intermediate between reptiles and birds because it has bird structures (e.g., feathers) and reptile structures (e.g., teeth, forelimb claws). Yet the teeth, the claws, the feathers and all other known structures of Archaeopteryx appear to be fully functional. The teeth seem fully functional as teeth, the claw as claws, and the feathers as any flight feathers of modern birds. It is merely the combination of structures that is intermediate, not the structures themselves.
http://bevets.com/equotesw2.htm

You can not show evolution for feathers.

The Mammalian ear, lungs, legs in vertebrates, jaws, and a host of others. Would you like to see the evidence for some of these? Pick one, and we'll get started.

Pick either and show why ask. No huge jumps and gaps

Even your fellow creationists admit that there are many such:

Kurt Wise:
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf (pg. 221)

That one mans opinion on the evidence. Others do not agree. See above what he actually says about your other evidence.

See above. Surprise.

No still a handfull out of millions that are doubius

The fact that genetic analysis gives us a tree of common descent that very closely matches those prepared by Linnaeus and others on other evidence is compelling evidence. We know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

You don't know the decent. You know there are some similarities which we have went over this, similar creation. Small similarities do not prove a common ancestor.


For creationism it is. Mendle's law actually cleared up an important problem in Darwinism, that is "how do new traits avoid getting lost among all the old traits?"

Mendel showed why. It's not like mixing paint, it's like sorting beads.

Mendel listed some of the species Gartner experimented on. The final sentence of his paper states, “hybrids between these species lost none of their stability after 4 or 5 generations.” In a day where Darwinism was sweeping the intellectual world in Britain and spreading to the continent, Mendel’s words quoted above seem intended as a clarion call to observation over speculation. He seems to be shouting, in his own gentle way, Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?
http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

If we did, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. It's always a modification of something already there.

So how do you get from microbes to man. Your going against what evolutionist try and prove. So you claim everything evolved from microbes but now claiming we should not see no new novel features.
And this is the same time you're going to show me how these features evolved.

Please show me where new information and genes are added.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
When my challenge to find even one case of two major groups missing a transitional wasn't answered, that pretty much closed out the issue. Did you note that a prominent YE creationist admits that there are numerous transitionals which are not predicted by creationism? That issue has been resolved, and the discussion moved on.

Are you joking I gave you many.

Nope. My challenge was for you to show me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'd see if there was a transitional. You declined to do that.

Note that your fellow creationist Kurt wise pointed out numerous transitionals that were predicted by evolutionary theory, but not by creationism. He's a PhD in paleontology, and although he says he takes his reading of the Bible above the evidence, he does not deny that the evidence exists.

But even more important than that, the fact that we don't see transitionals were evolutionary theory is compelling.

See above. Even honest creationists admit it. Not just Kurt Wise. Phillip Johnson in Darwin on Trial admits Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution.

Kurt Wise says this about the Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx, for example, is thought to be an intermediate between reptiles and birds because it has bird structures (e.g., feathers) and reptile structures (e.g., teeth, forelimb claws). Yet the teeth, the claws, the feathers and all other known structures of Archaeopteryx appear to be fully functional. The teeth seem fully functional as teeth, the claw as claws, and the feathers as any flight feathers of modern birds. It is merely the combination of structures that is intermediate, not the structures themselves.
http://bevets.com/equotesw2.htm

Of course. He openly admits that the evidence looks as though birds evolved from dinosaurs. He just believes that God somehow make different combinations of characteristics that make it look that way. It's a religious belief, and he's quite honest in admitting that.

You can not show evolution for feathers.

In fact, we can show that feathers are evolutionarily connected to scutes, scales found on dinosaurs, birds, and crocodilians. Not surprisingly, the evidence shows all three groups to be connected in other ways.

Scutes can even, in some cases, be made to form feathers:
http://web.me.com/dinoruss/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

Not surprisingly, we can also track the evolution of feathers in the fossil record; sometimes remains of feathered dinosaurs shows the feathers, and we see that the evolution of feathers from simple filaments to the complex assymetrical flight feather was a long process of gradual change. Want to learn about it?

The Mammalian ear, lungs, legs in vertebrates, jaws, and a host of others. Would you like to see the evidence for some of these? Pick one, and we'll get started.

Pick either and show why ask. No huge jumps and gaps

O.K. mammalian jaws. The lower jaw of mammals has only one bone. The lower jaws of reptiles have more than one, and there is a different jaw joint. Reptiles use those extra bones as levers and as a means of conducting ground vibrations to the ear. There's a connection between the jaw and the middle ear for them.

Over time, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) evolved so that these bones became smaller and smaller. Eventually, the old joint was supplimented by a second joint, and eventually, the extra bones became disarticulated from the lower jaw, but remained attached to the ear, where they became the ossicles of the mammalian middle ear. This is well-documented in the fossil record:

Even your fellow creationists admit that there are many such:

Kurt Wise:
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf (pg. 221)

That one mans opinion on the evidence. Others do not agree. See above what he actually says about your other evidence.

Wise has a PhD and is a very knowledgeable paleontologist. As you learned, most creationists are not very knowledgeable about the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
The fact that genetic analysis gives us a tree of common descent that very closely matches those prepared by Linnaeus and others on other evidence is compelling evidence. We know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

You don't know the decent.

But we do. We can take humans of known, ancestry, for example, and test it. Or we can take animals of known descent. It works.

You know there are some similarities which we have went over this

Remember, as Wise points out, you have to distinguish between mere similarities and homologies. I showed you how to tell the difference, remember?

(suggestion that Mendel's Law is a problem)

For creationism it is. Mendle's law actually cleared up an important problem in Darwinism, that is "how do new traits avoid getting lost among all the old traits?"
Mendel showed why. It's not like mixing paint, it's like sorting beads.

Mendel listed some of the species Gartner experimented on. The final sentence of his paper states, “hybrids between these species lost none of their stability after 4 or 5 generations.” In a day where Darwinism was sweeping the intellectual world in Britain and spreading to the continent, Mendel’s words quoted above seem intended as a clarion call to observation over speculation.

Nope. He's merely pointing out that heterozygotes will remain one form, if one allele of the two is recessive. You've been misled about that. Mendel was very interested in theories of evolution, and even sent a copy of his paper to Darwin. (who unfortunately never got around to reading it, and thus never solved the swamping problem)

He seems to be shouting, in his own gentle way, Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?

The only occasion that Mendel expressed himself directly on the subject of evolution was in an examination paper he sat in 1850. Discussing the origin of plant and animal forms, in the context of the formation of the earth, he wrote:

As soon as the earth in the course of time had achieved the necessary capability for the formation and maintenance of organic life, plants and animals of the lowest sorts first appeared.

In time, organic life

developed more and more abundantly; the oldest forms disappeared in part, to make space for new, more perfect ones.
http://www.macroevolution.net/mendel.html#.T8tkC8VwY3w

Surprise. Does it never occur to you that if you actually looked up the material for yourself, reality wouldn't be so often blindsiding you?

(surprise expressed that nothing evolves out of nothing)

If we did, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. It's always a modification of something already there.

So how do you get from microbes to man.

Mutation and natural selection. So far, nothing we see in organisms appeared out of nothing.

Your going against what evolutionist try and prove.

Nope. Even Darwin called the process "descent with modification." Remember what I suggested about learning for yourself? It would be very helpful to you.

So you claim everything evolved from microbes but now claiming we should not see no new novel features.

Everything that appears to be "novel" to you has been modified from something else.

Please show me where new information and genes are added.

The formula for information is:

Where p is the frequency of each allele in a population. As you can probably calculate for yourself, a new allele will add information to the population. New alleles happen by mutation, remember.

If you have trouble calculating this, I can do a simple example for you.

 

[spartakis]

So when the first life form develop what did it have to modify into everything you have today? And you can cherry pick parts of my sentences if you want but like I said homology don't just shut the door for common decent but is also open to views like common creation.

Mutation is a change in sequence of DNA. Say you have a sentence
I went to church. The change would be like
I wetn to church.
That is not adding information as you claim is happening daily.

Gene duplication is not adding anything new. If I am reading a book and come across a duplicate page ( rare ) that is not new information.

So explain how all these novel features evolved from the first life form.

 

[Barbarian]

So when the first life form develop what did it have to modify into everything you have today?

Depends on what you think "life" is. What, in your opinion, is the absolute lower limit of things a living thing needs to have in the way of structures?

And you can cherry pick parts of my sentences if you want but like I said homology don't just shut the door for common decent but is also open to views like common creation.

You're wrong. Homology is inexplicable in terms of creationism. But it makes perfect sense in light of the way God actually did it.

Mutation is a change in sequence of DNA.

Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

Say you have a sentence

Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

That is not adding information as you claim is happening daily.

By definition, it is. And we know Shannon's equation works, because it lets us pack a maximum amount of information in a channel, with as little error as we care to have.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Gene duplication is not adding anything new.

Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

So explain how all these novel features evolved from the first life form.

Every time we've checked so far, it's been mutation and natural selection.