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

[Adam]

But you have not done so yet - hand-waiving means nothing. Present on this thread the required evidence from science that proves man-chimp common ancestry? I don't think you can.



If you accept Darwinian lore (and you do) then you do so via great faith - got science?

Keep trolling.

 

[zeke]

Keep trolling.

Interpretation: Adam cannot present on this thread the required evidence from science that proves man-chimp common ancestry? And why is that? Because he has none. He has hitched his wagon to a bankrupt worldview that all Christians should reject.

 

[Adam]

Interpretation: Adam cannot present on this thread the required evidence from science that proves man-chimp common ancestry? And why is that? Because he has none. He has hitched his wagon to a bankrupt worldview that all Christians should reject.

Keep trolling.

 

[zeke]

Keep trolling.

Keep running. Remember, you can't hide. If you ever find that missing in action evidence provided and I will critique for you. It will be fun.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's directly observed. Can't do much better than that.

I think you're talking about something different to me. I am referring to the formation of new genera and higher taxons.

Taxa. And even the Institute for Creation Research has accepted that. They endorse the claims of John Woodmorappe that new species, genera, and families evolved from a few "kinds" on the Ark.

We're back to the "giant redwoods can't grow from a seed, because no one's ever seen that happen" story. I don't think anyone is fooled. You might as well deny gravity, because no one's ever seen a galaxy make a full rotation.

You're scratching about with the odd molecular genetic piece of useless junk and claiming that as evolution.

That's what evolution is. It's a change in allele frequency in a population. There's no way to challenge it directly, so you fell back to the redwood defense.

You can claim all you like, but as Broom said, there hasn't been a new higher taxon for the last 2 million years.

Creationists claim that happened in the last 10,000 years. You guys can't keep your stories straight, it seems.

Evolution is dead in the water

It's helping stem the rising number of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The antibiotic protocols used by doctors are the result of evolutionary theory, and now doctors and bacteriologists are even using the theory to predict how new drug resistance might occur.

Determining the Limits of the Evolutionary Potential of an Antibiotic
Resistance Gene
Stephen J. Salipante and Barry G. Hall
Biology Department, University of Rochester
The AAC(6) enzymes inactivate aminoglycoside antibiotics by acetylating their substrates at the 6 position. Based on functional similarity and size similarity, the AAC(6¢) enzymes have been considered to be members of a single family.
Our phylogenetic analysis shows that the AAC(6) enzymes instead belong to three unrelated families that we now designate as [A], , and [C] and that aminoglycoside acetylation at the 6 position has evolved independently at least
three times. AAC(6 )-Iaa is a typical member of the [A] family in that it acetylates tobramycin, kanamycin, and amikacin effectively but acetylates gentamicin ineffectively. The potential of the aac(6¢)-Iaa gene to increase resistance to tobramycin, kanamycin, or amikacin or to acquire resistance to gentamicin was assessed by in vitro evolution. Libraries
of PCR mutagenized alleles were screened for increased resistance to tobramycin, kanamycin, and amikacin, but no isolates that conferred more resistance than the wild-type gene were recovered. The library sizes were sufficient to conclude with 99.9% confidence that no single amino acid substitution or combination of two amino acid substitutions in aac(6 )-Iaa is capable of increasing resistance to the antibiotics used. It is therefore very unlikely that aac(6¢)-Iaa of S. typhimurium LT2 has the potential to evolve increased aminoglycoside resistance in nature. The practical implications ofbeing able to determine the evolutionary limits for other antibiotic resistance genes are discussed.
http://web.me.com/barryghall/resour...niglycoside-acetyltransferases/AAC6-Paper.pdf

It's still producing entirely new sciences, like evolutionary development, which are finding answers to old questions that seemed intractable. And it's spilled over into engineering, where engineers are copying evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design.

Putting a Darwinian Spin on the Diesel Engine
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/19/s...-the-diesel-engine.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

and that's why it isn't doing anything of any significance at all.

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, YE creationism denies what God says about creation.[/quote]

I don't know that it does. Proof?

The Bible rules out the "life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism.

Barbarian suggests:
If you were more interested in what He had to say to you, it would be better.

I think it's important to listen to Him.

So why do you believe in evolution then?

It's consistent with the Bible, and most forms of creationism are not.

As you learned, that's not how God did it. He uses nature for most things in this world. Why do you think He made it in the first place?

New genomes are not appearing anywhere.

Which is a good thing for evolutionary theory. The theory would be in big trouble if "new" genomes appeared. What we see happening are old ones modified to new functions.

As I sad before, evolution is dead in the water from the POV of producing new significant features and thence taxa.

See above. Even many creationists know better.

In the beginning, obviously new genomes were created all over the place. Since then, zilch.

I know you want us to believe that, but without evidence or scriptural support, you're in a bad position, aren't you?

But evolution theory demands that there be new genomes coming onstream.

Nope. It predicts old ones will be continuously modified to new purposes.

Where are they?

I mentioned Hall's bacteria, which evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. I mentioned the evolution of a new human lipoprotein that prevents hardening of the arteries. That one happened about a hundred years ago; we know the name of the individual who had the mutation. I mentioned the nylon enzyme.

You could find a lot more if you wanted to look.

Barbarian, asked about first genes:
Turns out, some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing. So it's not a problem.

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned as zeke switches from genes to cells)

Barbarian chuckles:
Cells are a lot easier. It's no coincidence that the one structure that is absolutely essential to a cell is also the simplest and self-organizing. The cell membrane is a simple phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously forms vesicles in water.

I hear ignorance rampaging unchecked in this parade! You really don't know much about this, do you?

Well, let's take a look...

The basic cell membrane is just a bilayer of phospholipid molecules, with the hydrophobic lipid moeities facing each other and the phosphate moeties facing outward. The modern cell membrane also has a number of structures inserted into the cell membrane which greatly increases the efficiency of transport and other functions. But the basic membrane is just a bilayer of two molecules. And as you learned, these spontaneously form hollow spherical vesicles in water.

The membrane is loosely held together and materials like water,gases, and even large organic molecules can cross through it, the proteins in the layer of modern cells make the process faster and more efficient.

The membrane is said to be 'semi-permeable', in that it can either let a substance (molecule or ion) pass through freely, pass through to a limited extent or not pass through at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

Let me enlighten your darkness.
...the cell membrane has been found to be increasingly sophisticated. Not only is the protein-punctuated sandwich structure incredibly complicated, but organisms actively fine-tune its design as conditions change. For instance, the number and location of carbon-carbon double bonds, in the phospholipid tails in the lipid bilayer, are astonishingly modified in real-time to deal with temperature changes. A recent paper agreed that “the membrane is a biological device of a staggering complexityâ€:

So is the human brain. But the first nervous systems, like the first cell membranes, are quite simple. Want to learn about those?

That you can call the cell membrane simple and try to hand-wave it away is pretty pathetic in view of the above quote (and there are others, if you do a search).

Surprise.

Barbarian, regarding favorable mutations:
Yep. We still observe it happening.

Genetics. 2005 Jan;169(1):475-83. Epub 2004 Oct 16.
Variation after a selective sweep in a subdivided population.

And…

[...]

Honestly Barbarian, can't you see that these are jokes in the context of the production of new species, genera and any other taxa?

Oh yes, the redwood defense, again. Sorry. Not credible.

How 'beneficial' they really are remains to be seen, and any shouting that they are beneficial may turn out to be a trifle premature.

Even honest creationists admit that such mutations exist. There's no point in denying it.

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything.

That's exactly what I said.

Now you do.

Barbarian observes:
A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

And right there is your biggest problem. If a VERY FEW are beneficial, then that VERY FEW cannot possibly have produced the Cambrian explosion (never mind the others) from the known pre-Cambrian critters. Not in the time available, anyway.

Every human has a few mutations that were not present in either parent. So there are tens of billions of mutations in humans each generation. Seems like it's more than enough. But show us your numbers and we'll see how it shakes out.

I asked you for some estimate of the rates of speciation. Any luck with finding that yet?

Remember, you learned that the rates vary according to the environment? It's a difficult concept, I'll admit, but if you think about the difference between stabilizing, directional, and disruptive selection, it's easier. Read here:
http://www.evotutor.org/Selection/Sl5A.html

Barbarian observes:
We can directly observe it.

No you can't. I'm not referring to those piffling cases you've dredged up from somewhere. I'm talking about serious observations of serious 'transformations'. Where are they?

Sorry, "no giant redwoods" is not an objection.

Barbarian observes:
You were fooled there, too. Kettlewell's data confirm natural selection in cases of industrial melanism. If you want to post what you think he faked, I'll show you how they fooled you.

Kettlewell's evidence, as I said, was the best example of NS known.

Hall's bacteria evolving a new enzyme system by natural selection is a better one. But you were going to show us where Kettlewell faked his data. I'm guessing you were told by someone who knew no more about it than you, and you have nothing to show us. We'll see.

(nothing offered) Yep. You let them lead you astray again. Do you want to know what it was all about? I can show you the evidence, and how a minister of the Unification Church made the accusation.

If he was right, then you're back in the old, old hole.

You're at a disadvantage, because I know about the issue and you don't. Suffice to say, it was based on a misrepresentation of the data by Jonathan Wells, who simply lied about what the research said.

No production of new species took place, and BOTH forms of moth existed (and still exist today) when the experiment started.

Nor did Kettlewell claim a new species evolved. He was merely showing how natural selection works in cases of industrial melanism. The issue was whether or not moths rest on tree trunks and branches. Wells claims that research showed they did not. But the very research he cited (Majuris) shows that they do.

You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

The experiment merely showed the alteration in relative numbers of the two varieties of moth as a result of environmental changes (which changes, incidentally, have now been reversed with the Clean Air Act of 1968).

Yes. The point of the research was the way that natural selection can change allele frequencies.

No evolution there, I'm afraid.

That is evolution, just as a rock falling to ground is an example of gravity. A gravity creationist would deny it was gravity, because no one ever saw a galaxy make a complete revolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Good question. First, you have to remember that natural selection does not necessarily cause evolution.

Wrong again. Natural Selection CANNOT CAUSE evolution. It selects from existing populations as shown above, and can be reversed.

If the environment changes, natural selection will cause evolution to occur again. That's how it works.

Barbarian oberves:
Surprise. In one case, it was directly observed to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system.

For heaven's sake, Barbarian, can we talk about something significant, without all this scratching round for trifles?

Redwood trees, again? C'mon, you've retreated to claiming evolution can only be evolution if it takes longer than any human can document. Do you think anyone is fooled?

Barbarian continues:
If a population is highly fitted to an essentially unchanging environment, it can actually prevent evolution. (scientists call it "stabilizing selection") So we see a sudden increase in taxa when the environment changes, or some kind of breakthrough evolution makes it possible for organisms to take advantage of new ways of life. The sudden increase in the number of taxa during the Cambrian explosion is an extreme example, but there are many others, such as the explosion of mammal species after the K-T event that killed off most large land animals.

That's not good enough, I'm afraid - merely another example of special pleading.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

If a new genus arises somewhere, colonising a new environment, possessing entirely new features, such as an exoskeleton, how does the new organism know how to handle it? Where does the instinct pre-requirement come from?

As you learned in the case of birds, a modification of something already there.

Barbarian observes:
And yet, we find soft-bodied or partially scleritized organisms in the Precambrian. When full-body exoskeletons evolved, there was a burst of speciation. That’s the “Cambrian Explosion.†Exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Complete junk.

Evidence, remember? And that's what you keep getting surprised by.

Just look at the question-begging you are forced to do. 'When full-body exoskeletons evolved'.

Evidence, again. In the Precambrian, we see the "small shelly fauna", mostly bits of sleritized plates, and mud traces of creatures with legs. Then, at the beginning of the Cambrian, we start to see fully-armored bodies, and the rate of speciation increases greatly as disruptive selection fills up the new niches.

What is the subject we're arguing here? Yes, whether evolution occurred or not. You may not assume the case is proven. You need to prove it.

Directly oberved. And even common descent is well documented. Even YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence admit it. Would you like to see that again?

(claim of absence for Precambrian metazoans)

Barbarian chuckles:
It’s already done. An extensive and varied Ediacaran fauna existed in the Precambrian. Surprise.

You seem to spend your life in a continual state ot astonishment.

The various elements of the Ediacara fauna are united by one common character, none have any hard parts. There is no evidence of mineralisation in any fossil so far found

Wrong.

Stimulated in part by an international endeavour to define the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary for the global geological time scale, investigations across the world, including Siberia, China, Europe, and Australia, have yielded an unexpected range of mineralised microfossils. Dubbed the ‘small shelly fauna’ (SSFs) in a 1975 review paper by Matthews & Missarzhevsky, they appear just before the beginning of the Cambrian, increasing in numbers and diversity towards the Tommotian. Most are either tiny shells or else the disarticulated components, called sclerites, of an overall protective armour composed of many such parts, called a scleritome (Bengtson et al. 1990; Runnegar 1992, p. 66).
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/SmaSheFau.html

No hard parts?

See above. Some people want to move the date of the Cambrian back to include the part of the Precambrian that shows hard body parts. Notice that fully-armored bodies didn't pop up out of nowhere. They were preceded by parial hard parts.

Then what's this guff about partial scleritisation?

And you're astonished once again.


(claim that disorder does not increase information)

Barbarian observes:
Picture a perfectly round ceramic plate, of uniform thickness, flatness, material, and color. Think of the amount of information necessary to completely describe it.

For the form itself, just the radius, thickness, material, and color. Four things.

Barbarian asks:
Then picture it dropped on a hard surface, where it shatters. How much information would it take to completely describe it then?

Much, much more. Now you have to describe every fragment as to shape, in detail. As you see, disorder requires more information than order.

But even then, if you wanted to account for every molecule, you’d still have to describe the location of every molecule in every particular fragment, which would take much more information than describing it in the unbroken plate.

Surprise.

Further nonsense. If I have described every molecule, then there is nothing left to describe, wouldn't you agree?

In the broken plate, you'd have to account for the fragment it was in, and where it was in the fragment, and where the fragment was relative to the rest of the fragments, and so on. As you just learned, disorder takes much more information than order.

Barbarian chuckles:
But I think it's rather pointless to call a favorable mutation "damage", don't you think?

But as we have seen, there are no significant 'favourable mutations'.

You've seen a good number of them so far.

Every one that has been touted as the saviour of evolution is a minor, trifling piece of insignificant value to the greater scheme of things!

None so far has been "touted." You're just embarrassed to learn that they are as common as they are. You see, in any given individual, they are rather rare, but when you have millions of individuals in a population, it becomes rather common in every generation to have a few improvements to fitness in the environment. And that's mostly how it works. You want to see a big magic mutation. Forget X-men. That's not how it works.

How you can presume to say that 'favourable mutations' can produce 4 separate wing types, the limbs of tetrapods and all the mighty differences between the phyla and kingdoms, I don't really know.

If you think it's not enough over millions of years, show us your numbers. I'm certainly willing to look at it with you.

With the evidence we have before us, which you have presented, evolution is going, and has gone nowhere since the very Cambrian and pre-Cambrian times.

Let's see what's new since the Cambrian...
sharks bears flowering plants dinosaurs insects crabs spiders trees reptiles amphibans birds mammals people....(long list)

Looks like a lot of stuff to me.

So take it away. It's no use whatsoever.

Except for agronomy and animal breeding, anitbiotic protocols and engineering complex systems.

I think we'll keep it.

Barbarian observes:
See some above. How many do you want to see?

I'd like to see ONE, SINGLE, materially significant mutation which has genuinely produced something new: a new organ would do nicely thanks.

As you learned, evolution only modifies what was there before. And it does so incrementally. So we can, for example trace the evolution of kidneys by fossil, anatomical, and genetic data. But if we saw a new organ pop into existence, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us that. In the sense that it is God making nature serve His purposes, it would be true, but I'm not aware of anyone being able to demonstrate it scientifically. Show us.

You have been shown.

Given your history here, your say-so isn't good enough. Show us. Checkablel source, please.

It's your turn to show that non-intelligence can produce intelligence.

Do you think and egg and sperm are intelligent?

Let's have a mighty P_A_P_E_RRRRR!

Sounds like someone missed his nap.

Barbarian chuckles:
So because man can’t yet make a computer more intelligent than a man, you think God can’t make a world where intelligence arises from His creation?

This is nonsense, don't you think?

Yes, I do. Why would you believe such a thing?

Sounds like you’re putting way too much faith in man, and not nearly enough in God. And what happens if someday we figure out how to make a computer smarter than we are? You've set man above God. Even if we use a computer we made to make the smarter computer, we still have greater intelligence produced by lesser intelligence.

Turns out, God is a lot smarter than you thought.

True. But M and NS are unintelligent, blind, random, forces, which are going nowhere.

Darwin's discovery was that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness.

Or do you believe in teleology?

Goes back to your unwillingness to accept that God is great enough to make a world in which such things can evolve.

Hypotheses are undependable. That’s why we go out and test them against the real world to see if they fit. If not, they are discarded and modified until they do fit.

Like hell they are. Why is evolution still here, then?

Evidence. Even honest creationists acknowledge that there is evidence for evolution.

As God intended. He used nature instead of magic, for reasons we don’t entirely understand. But He did a terrific job of it.

I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken there.

For me, God is the Creator. I think you're underestimating Him.

The instinctive phenomena alone finish this off.

You called phototropism "instinct" and I showed you it's a chemical process. So your assumption is disproven.

 

[Adam]

Keep running. Remember, you can't hide. If you ever find that missing in action evidence provided and I will critique for you. It will be fun.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42229&p=651523&viewfull=1#post651523

 

[spartakis]

Just got back from traveling don't have much time but noticed you started bringing up the redwood again . Not only have we not seen anything that could make microbes to man feasible, but nothing has been documented in history.

This is where your contradictions continue. You claim everything evolved from the first microbe (no evidence) to all the diversity we see today. That means a huge amount of different features was formed and new genomes. But you claim evolution is only a modification of what was already there. You say this because thats all natural selection and mutations can do, they can not add anything new and complex. And you saying everything evolved from the first microbe but it only modified what was already there makes no sense. The features we see today would not have been there and had to develop.

Do you not understand the maintenance of the respiratory function is vital to the life of a organism and the slightest modification leads to death within minutes. But yet you claim the avian lung went through this by random mutations.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Well Darwin we can find many such cases as the one above and others. Your theory is broken down.

Don't have much time to keep wasting, but we see no evidence of slow gradual change in the fossil record or any evidence that mutations and natural selection together could make men out of microbes.

You can't serve God by changing his words to fit you beliefs. You decline Genesis cause it does not fit your beliefs

 

[Barbarian]

Just got back from traveling don't have much time but noticed you started bringing up the redwood again .

Yep. The redwood defense ("giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one lives long enough to see it happen") is a common fall-back position for creationists.

Not only have we not seen anything that could make microbes to man feasible,

Mutation and natural selection. But free free to pick any step in the process you think can't have evolved, and we'll take a look for you.

but nothing has been documented in history.

As you learned, the evidence for common descent is compelling. The nested hierarchy of species discovered by Linnaeus only occurs in cases of common descent. And later, fossil transitionals and anatomical data confirmed his findings to a very high degree of precision. And much later, genetic data confirmed common descent again. And we know that works because it is tested with organisms of known descent.

And against that, you have only the redwood defense.

This is where your contradictions continue. You claim everything evolved from the first microbe (no evidence)

See above. Surprise.

to all the diversity we see today. That means a huge amount of different features was formed and new genomes. But you claim evolution is only a modification of what was already there.

So far, that's all we see. Notice that most of the microbe genes are still with us. We still have the microbe cell membrane, the microbe krebb cycle, cytochrome C, ... (very long list). But one key advance, that of eukaryotes, took at least 1 billion years to accomplish. It was a difficult thing, apparently, and was the result of endosymbiosis, where one cell took in another cell, and instead of killing it, the cell survived to produce modern eukaryotes.

You say this because thats all natural selection and mutations can do, they can not add anything new and complex.

They can only modify what's there. "Complex" was you, quote-mining me.

And you saying everything evolved from the first microbe but it only modified what was already there makes no sense. The features we see today would not have been there and had to develop.

Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

Do you not understand the maintenance of the respiratory function is vital to the life of a organism and the slightest modification leads to death within minutes. But yet you claim the avian lung went through this by random mutations.

No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Well Darwin we can find many such cases as the one above and others.

See above. Surprise. BTW, I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

Your theory is broken down.

Surprise.

Don't have much time to keep wasting, but we see no evidence of slow gradual change in the fossil record

Even Gould, the champion of punctuated equilibrium, admits there are cases of slow and gradual change. Would you like me to show you some of them?

or any evidence that mutations and natural selection together could make men out of microbes.

There are a lot of steps. Let's see if you can find one that couldn't happen. You're up.

Babarian suggests:
You can't serve God by changing his words to fit you beliefs.

You decline Genesis cause it does not fit your beliefs

I accept it as it is. As you learned, YE creationists deny what God says in Genesis.

 

[zeke]

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42229&p=651523&viewfull=1#post651523

The fossil record completely fails to prove man-chimp common ancestry and similarity supports common design as well as common ancestry - you have failed to do that which you boasted you could do---sorry my friend. Is that about all you have for us to review? You have presented a very anemic argument to support your mythology.

 

[spartakis]

Yep. The redwood defense ("giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one lives long enough to see it happen") is a common fall-back position for creationists.

No seems like you are falling back on that for an escape goat for a real answer.

Mutation and natural selection. But free free to pick any step in the process you think can't have evolved, and we'll take a look for you.

Well I named one but will name more keep reading. And anything you say happened is just your best assumption, I know darwin told you to use your imagination but remember what Paul says in
Romans 1:20-22
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

As you learned, the evidence for common descent is compelling. The nested hierarchy of species discovered by Linnaeus only occurs in cases of common descent. And later, fossil transitionals and anatomical data confirmed his findings to a very high degree of precision. And much later, genetic data confirmed common descent again. And we know that works because it is tested with organisms of known descent.

Maybe to you. But to others not so much. The evidence points to common design. Your great fossil record is full of gaps you admitted that on another post. A huge complete number of fossils are missing common ancestors. Animals appear how they are and seemed to dye like that. It has many problems like living fossils and etc...

See above. Surprise.

No see above, imagination is different than empirical evidence.

So far, that's all we see. Notice that most of the microbe genes are still with us. We still have the microbe cell membrane, the microbe krebb cycle, cytochrome C, ... (very long list). But one key advance, that of eukaryotes, took at least 1 billion years to accomplish. It was a difficult thing, apparently, and was the result of endosymbiosis, where one cell took in another cell, and instead of killing it, the cell survived to produce modern eukaryotes.

That explained by common creator you use your imagination as darwin as told you.

They can only modify what's there. "Complex" was you, quote-mining me.

No I was not quoting you. Can you not see the complex systems that would not have been there with the first microbe and would of had to develop. How can you modify something when it is not there. You keep contradicting your self here.

Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

Do you not understand the complexity of the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system, that until it was fully functionable it would be useless. And mutations to the system could easily kill the organism. Same with a lot of other systems. This is where your imagination comes in because all the empirical evidence shows making man out of microbes is not feasible. Cuvier seen this. Your theory is broken.

No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/

That don't explain how it was mutated to work properly without killing the organism it was in.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

See above. Surprise. BTW, I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

You can't show evidence it did, so why do I need to. To think these features could come along by random mutations and natural selection is pure assumption and imagination as to what the empirical evidence shows.

Surprise.

About what your imagination can come up with? No I am surprised at how broken the hypothesis is and your still agreeing with it.

Even Gould, the champion of punctuated equilibrium, admits there are cases of slow and gradual change. Would you like me to show you some of them?

As in one species. No proof of gradual changes from any of your hypothesis of common decent.

There are a lot of steps. Let's see if you can find one that couldn't happen. You're up.

See above, but I guess if you use your imagination you could believe mutations and NS can make men out of microbes

Spartakis suggests:
You can't serve God by changing his words to fit you beliefs.

I accept it as it is. As you learned, YE creationists deny what God says in Genesis.

You reject Genesis so the only thing you except is evolution. YE creationist believe what happened in Genesis so how do they deny it? Oh ya another one of your contradictions.

 

[cupid dave]

The fossil record completely fails to prove man-chimp common ancestry and similarity supports common design as well as common ancestry - you have failed to do that which you boasted you could do---sorry my friend. Is that about all you have for us to review? You have presented a very anemic argument to support your mythology.

I told you that the fossil record is supported by the genetics which tell us that two of the 24 chromosomes in the Ape fused together to create man, with only 23 chromosomes.

What we see is that the end of one chromosome fused in the middle of another, which is evidence that there were previously the 24 Ape chromosome present in the ovuum.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relicof an ancient telomere-telomere fusion ,
... and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.



In other words, the two telomeres prove there were 24 which became 23, meaning that man came from the stock of the Ape, but bt an Act-of-God, a man was formed out of this chemistry.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. The redwood defense ("giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one lives long enough to see it happen") is a common fall-back position for creationists.

No seems like you are falling back on that for an escape goat for a real answer.

If you don't want to hear it, don't use it. The notion that you can't know anything that takes longer than a human lifetime is just an excuse.

Barbarian suggests:
Mutation and natural selection. But free free to pick any step in the process you think can't have evolved, and we'll take a look for you.

(can't think of one)

Neither can anyone else.

Sparticis describes creationists:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, the evidence for common descent is compelling. The nested hierarchy of species discovered by Linnaeus only occurs in cases of common descent. And later, fossil transitionals and anatomical data confirmed his findings to a very high degree of precision. And much later, genetic data confirmed common descent again. And we know that works because it is tested with organisms of known descent.

Maybe to you.

For anyone open to the evidence.

But to others not so much. The evidence points to common design.

Sorry, we took a look at that, and found you had confused analogy and homology. Not a viable excuse for you.

Your great fossil record is full of gaps you admitted that on another post. A huge complete number of fossils are missing common ancestors.

But when I challenged you to show me two major groups lacking a transitional, you declined to do it and retreated in a cloud of excuses. So I think we can safely conclude you know that it's evidence.

Animals appear how they are and seemed to dye like that. It has many problems like living fossils and etc...

Notice that the "living fossils" confirm the same evolutionary lineages first discovered by Linnaeus.

Barbarian observes:
So far, that's all we see. Notice that most of the microbe genes are still with us. We still have the microbe cell membrane, the microbe krebb cycle, cytochrome C, ... (very long list). But one key advance, that of eukaryotes, took at least 1 billion years to accomplish. It was a difficult thing, apparently, and was the result of endosymbiosis, where one cell took in another cell, and instead of killing it, the cell survived to produce modern eukaryotes.

That explained by common creator

Nope. That's ruled out by homologous organs.

you use your imagination as darwin as told you

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

Barbarian chuckles:
They can only modify what's there. "Complex" was you, quote-mining me.

No I was not quoting you.

No kidding. I never used "complex" in that context. You just made it up.

Can you not see the complex systems that would not have been there with the first microbe and would of had to develop.

Show us something that couldn't develop.

How can you modify something when it is not there.

So far, everything is a modification of something that came before. Show me an exception. You keep contradicting your self here.

Barbarian suggests:
Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

(Declines to do so)

Neither can anyone else. Important evidence, don't you think?

Do you not understand the complexity of the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system, that until it was fully functionable it would be useless.

Silly misconception there. For example, we see living organisms today with "hearts" that are no more than thickened blood vessels with the same muscles and valves found in other blood vessels. And yet the pump blood and keep the organism alive. You've been misled again.

One of the simplest types of closed circulatory systems is found in annelids such as the earthworm. Earthworms have two main blood vessels -- a dorsal and a ventral vessel -- which carry blood towards the head or the tail, respectively. Blood is moved along the dorsal vessel by waves of contraction in the wall of the vessel. These contractible waves are called 'peristalsis.' In the anterior region of the worm, there are five pairs of vessels, which we loosely term "hearts," that connect the dorsal and the ventral vessels. These connecting vessels function as rudimentary hearts and force the blood into the ventral vessel. Since the outer covering (the epidermis) of the earthworm is so thin and is constantly moist, there is ample opportunity for exchange of gases, making this relatively inefficient system possible.
http://biology.about.com/od/organsystems/a/circulatorysystem.htm

And mutations to the system could easily kill the organism.

More often, they don't do much of anything. So most live, a few die, and a very few get improvements that make them more likely to live and leave offspring. This sort of thing accumulates every generation.

Same with a lot of other systems. This is where your imagination comes in because all the empirical evidence shows making man out of microbes is not feasible.

See above. You just don't know much about biology, so you've bought a foolish misconception about what's possible.

Your theory is broken.

Stamping your foot and insisting won't help you.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...rd-like-lungs/

That don't explain how it was mutated to work properly without killing the organism it was in.

Pretty easy. See below.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

You can't show evidence it did, so why do I need to.

That is evidence. The fact that the same flow-through process happens in us, and in all vertebrates, is no coincidence with the fact of such a lung in dinosaurs and birds.

To think these features could come along by random mutations and natural selection is pure assumption and imagination as to what the empirical evidence shows.

As you see, it is what the empirical evidence shows.

Surprise.

About what your imagination can come up with?

See above. Look up "collateral ventilation" and learn.

Barbarian observes:
Even Gould, the champion of punctuated equilibrium, admits there are cases of slow and gradual change. Would you like me to show you some of them?

(declines)

Pity. Gould mentioned horses, ammonites, and forams.

Barbarian suggests:
There are a lot of steps. Let's see if you can find one that couldn't happen. You're up.

See above,

And you lost that point. Nice try, though.

Barbarian, regarding Genesis:
I accept it as it is. As you learned, YE creationists deny what God says in Genesis.

You reject Genesis

Notice you changed "created according to their kind" to "reproduce according to kinds."

I accept it as it is. You want to change it.

BTW, it's "scapegoat", not "escape goat." Read Leviticus 16, to learn about it. There's a lot of things to learn in the Bible, if you spend a little time with it.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. The redwood defense ("giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one lives long enough to see it happen") is a common fall-back position for creationists.
If you don't want to hear it, don't use it. The notion that you can't know anything that takes longer than a human lifetime is just an excuse.

I never said human lifetime, but in fossil record and what we have documented in a lot of people's lifetime. Plus empirical evidence in genetics don't show that anything more complex can be added by mutations and NS. Dawkins also stated no examples would you like to see that again?

Barbarian suggests:
Mutation and natural selection. But free free to pick any step in the process you think can't have evolved, and we'll take a look for you.

(can't think of one)

Neither can anyone else.

Actually I named a few can you not read?

Sparticis describes creationists:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No I described evolutionist who decline the word of God about his creation of the world. Creationist believe he created the world so how could that be describing creationist.

For anyone open to the evidence.

Open to your imagination. Even darwin had to tell you to use your imagination.

Sorry, we took a look at that, and found you had confused analogy and homology. Not a viable excuse for you.

No don't think so. I showed you the difference and did not have anything confused. Then showed you homology also was not closed to common ancestor but also open to things like common creation.

But when I challenged you to show me two major groups lacking a transitional, you declined to do it and retreated in a cloud of excuses. So I think we can safely conclude you know that it's evidence.

Are you joking? I gave you many and the best you came up with was a hag fish being transition to a shark :toofunny:toofunny:toofunny You have a lot of links to find still.

Notice that the "living fossils" confirm the same evolutionary lineages first discovered by Linnaeus.

Living fossils show the same thing dead fossils show, same animals not changing into anything else.

Nope. That's ruled out by homologous organs.

Nope that is explained by a creator who created all animals. God can make things with similarities.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

Same evidence you use works against you. I have the same evidence you do, you just deny God did it how he said. Which considering what I spoke of above with NS and mutations unable to add new complex systems God explains this in Genesis, he created everything as after their kind.

Barbarian chuckles:
They can only modify what's there. "Complex" was you, quote-mining me.



No kidding. I never used "complex" in that context. You just made it up.

What are you talking about, yes I called systems complex your point?

Show us something that couldn't develop.

I did you still declined to explain the proof you have of them systems evolving without killing the organism. But you chop all my post and ignore what you don't want to or should I say can't answer. All these system have been found and are seen in there functioning system never in a transitional state. Go back and read my post seems you missed half of it.

So far, everything is a modification of something that came before. Show me an exception. You keep contradicting your self here.

The first microbe did not any complex systems we see today so it could not modify what it did not have, you really need to get this straightened out because you are denying what happens in evolution. To get men out of microbes you had to develop a lot of complex systems and new genomes. You believe it happened but decline it happened, major contradictions for you. Empirical evidence shows that this is not feasible.

Barbarian suggests:
Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

(Declines to do so)

Neither can anyone else. Important evidence, don't you think?

I have given you a lot of things systems and etc.... I just gave you the cardiovascular system, respiratory system. Previously I gave you skin, hair, feathers and etc... The thing is all you can say is how they may have been developed you have no proof or transitional to show these.

Silly misconception there. For example, we see living organisms today with "hearts" that are no more than thickened blood vessels with the same muscles and valves found in other blood vessels. And yet the pump blood and keep the organism alive. You've been misled again.

One of the simplest types of closed circulatory systems is found in annelids such as the earthworm. Earthworms have two main blood vessels -- a dorsal and a ventral vessel -- which carry blood towards the head or the tail, respectively. Blood is moved along the dorsal vessel by waves of contraction in the wall of the vessel. These contractible waves are called 'peristalsis.' In the anterior region of the worm, there are five pairs of vessels, which we loosely term "hearts," that connect the dorsal and the ventral vessels. These connecting vessels function as rudimentary hearts and force the blood into the ventral vessel. Since the outer covering (the epidermis) of the earthworm is so thin and is constantly moist, there is ample opportunity for exchange of gases, making this relatively inefficient system possible.
http://biology.about.com/od/organsystems/a/circulatorysystem.htm

Okay showing animals with these systems whats your point? You are missing the evidence showing these organs evolving into all the different ones today. By the process of random mutations and NS. The system is still used to force blood into the ventral vessel. Is your point that they call it a rudimentary heart? Thats its inefficient. Have worms ever not had this system? Has this system ever mutated into something else? You have not showed these systems mutating into fully functional systems of animals we see today, and man.

More often, they don't do much of anything. So most live, a few die, and a very few get improvements that make them more likely to live and leave offspring. This sort of thing accumulates every generation.

Okay but you use this process to show thats how we got new genomes and systems out of the first microbe and developed man and all other life. These processes never increases to any new novel features and genome. Which is what would have to occur to make men from microbes.

See above. You just don't know much about biology, so you've bought a foolish misconception about what's possible.

Well I may not know everything but I know what the evidence shows and its not microbes to man. Dawkins and all honest evolutionist agree we have no evidence for new complex systems from mutations and etc... Would you like to see this again?

Stamping your foot and insisting won't help you.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...rd-like-lungs/



Pretty easy. See below.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.



That is evidence. The fact that the same flow-through process happens in us, and in all vertebrates, is no coincidence with the fact of such a lung in dinosaurs and birds.

No I am not stomping my foot I am :toofunny And thats your evidence once again I am :toofunny we have went over this already.

As you see, it is what the empirical evidence shows.

Surprise.

No it don't, not close.

Barbarian suggests:
There are a lot of steps. Let's see if you can find one that couldn't happen. You're up.



And you lost that point. Nice try, though.

No you lost that point, you have not shown anything of these organs and etc... evolving, no evidence at all except your imagination

Barbarian, regarding Genesis:
I accept it as it is. As you learned, YE creationists deny what God says in Genesis.

Notice you changed "created according to their kind" to "reproduce according to kinds."

I accept it as it is. You want to change it.

What are you talking about and when did I say this. I said he created them after their kind. You can't take Genesis literal because its against your beliefs. But I do so you would be the one not accepting it. To say you accept it because you accept evolution is an oxymoron. How many times does this need explained to you.

BTW, it's "scapegoat", not "escape goat." Read Leviticus 16, to learn about it. There's a lot of things to learn in the Bible, if you spend a little time with it.

Ya voice text will do that sometimes. I stay in my Bible, but let me guess you are going to teach me about the Bible :toofunny Your beliefs are so far off you can't even take the Bible literal:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

 

[cupid dave]

...but in fossil record and what we have documented in a lot of people's lifetime. Plus empirical evidence in genetics don't show that anything more complex can be added by mutations and NS.
:toofunny

the fossil record is supported by the genetics which tell us that two of the 24 chromosomes in the Ape fused together to create man, with only 23 chromosomes.

What we see is that the end of one chromosome fused in the middle of another, which is evidence that there were previously the 24 Ape chromosome present in the ovuum.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relicof an ancient telomere-telomere fusion ,
... and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.



In other words, the two telomeres prove there were 24 which became 23, meaning that man came from the stock of the Ape, but bt an Act-of-God, a man was formed out of this chemistry.

 

[spartakis]

the fossil record is supported by the genetics which tell us that two of the 24 chromosomes in the Ape fused together to create man, with only 23 chromosomes.

What we see is that the end of one chromosome fused in the middle of another, which is evidence that there were previously the 24 Ape chromosome present in the ovuum.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relicof an ancient telomere-telomere fusion ,
... and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.



In other words, the two telomeres prove there were 24 which became 23, meaning that man came from the stock of the Ape, but bt an Act-of-God, a man was formed out of this chemistry.

You should do more reading on this. The fossil record and genetics missing somethings like usual.

http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm
Comments below the article have some very good info also.


Here maybe these videos will help you see the problems with the fossil record. Getting tired of explaining them.

[video=youtube;bFM1jJvnaW4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bFM1jJvnaW4[/video]
[video=youtube;yXeKk18jUTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yXeKk18jUTc[/video]

 

[zeke]

I told you that the fossil record is supported by the genetics which tell us that two of the 24 chromosomes in the Ape fused together to create man, with only 23 chromosomes.

Speculation my friend - pure speculation.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. The redwood defense ("giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one lives long enough to see it happen") is a common fall-back position for creationists.
If you don't want to hear it, don't use it. The notion that you can't know anything that takes longer than a human lifetime is just an excuse.

I never said human lifetime, but in fossil record and what we have documented in a lot of people's lifetime. Plus empirical evidence in genetics don't show that anything more complex can be added by mutations and NS.

That's wrong, too. For example, Hall's E. coli evolved a new enzyme, but then also evolved a regulator so that the enzyme was produced only in the presence of the substrate, becoming irreducibly complex, since all three components had to be present in order for the system to work. A measurable increase in complexity.

Dawkins also stated no examples would you like to see that again?

Sorry, reality overrules anyone's opinion.

Barbarian suggests:
Mutation and natural selection. But free free to pick any step in the process you think can't have evolved, and we'll take a look for you.

(can't think of one)

Neither can anyone else.

Actually I named a few can you not read?

No, I don't see that. Name one step in the process from a microbe to any organism living today that you think couldn't happen. In fact, why not start a new thread on it, so I'll be sure not to miss it.

Sparticis describes creationists:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No

Yep. Creationists are notorious for ignoring God's creation, which as St. Paul says is obvious to all. You have no excuse.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that a "space alien designer" could account for living things:
Sorry, we took a look at that, and found you had confused analogy and homology. Not a viable excuse for you.

No don't think so.

Doesn't matter. As you know, "similarities" aren't what show evolution. It's homologies.

Barbarian observes:
But when I challenged you to show me two major groups lacking a transitional, you declined to do it and retreated in a cloud of excuses. So I think we can safely conclude you know that it's evidence.

Are you joking?

Instead of two groups, you gave me a number of highly divergent taxa. Since you were unwilling to step up to the challenge, I showed you what the last common ancestor would be like for all of them. It happens that they are all craniates, a subphylum of the chordates. Hagfish are an example of primitive craniates.

I suspect you know what will happen if you step up to my challenge and give me two major groups. So you're dodging the question. If I'm wrong, you can still do it, of course.

Barbarian observes:
Notice that the "living fossils" confirm the same evolutionary lineages first discovered by Linnaeus.

Living fossils show the same thing dead fossils show, same animals not changing into anything else.

Populations evolve, not individuals. But living fossils like platypuses are transitionals. They are a mix of reptilian and mammalian characters. But note that we never see a mammal/bird transitional, or a fish/arthropod transitional. That's even more compelling than the living fossils as evidence for evolution.

(Barbarian notes more confusion over homologies)

Nope that is explained by a creator who created all animals. God can make things with similarities.

You're still having trouble with this. Similarities are analogies. Common structures that are not similar are homologies.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

Same evidence you use works against you. I have the same evidence you do, you just deny God did it how he said.

As you learned, God didn't say how He did it in Genesis. He left evidence for us to find out. You don't approve of the way He did it, for reasons that are hard to understand.

Which considering what I spoke of above with NS and mutations unable to add new complex systems

See above. Surprise.

God explains this in Genesis, he created everything as after their kind.

You'll admit that much, but you won't accept the way He did it.

Show us something that couldn't develop.

I did

Nope. You dodged that one. Just name one structure you think couldn't evolve. Highlight the word in red so everyone knows what it is.

Barbarian observes:
So far, everything is a modification of something that came before. Show me an exception. You keep contradicting your self here.

The first microbe did not any complex systems we see today so it could not modify what it did not have, you really need to get this straightened out because you are denying what happens in evolution.

So, let's take the cell membrane. The simplest one is merely a phospholipid bilayer. Things can diffuse in and out, but suppose one of the proteins in the cell is slightly modified to fit between the phospholipid molecules and protrude through the cell. Now you have an attachment point for other molecules, which if they happen to be useful to the cell, become available in lower concentrations, giving the cell an advantage over other cells. And this can happen again and again, leading to a much more effective and complex cell membrane.

Surprise.

To get men out of microbes you had to develop a lot of complex systems and new genomes.

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Barbarian suggests:
Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

(Declines to do so)

Neither can anyone else. Important evidence, don't you think?

I have given you a lot of things systems and etc.... I just gave you the cardiovascular system

I showed you that it evolved from very simple forms that were no more than thickened blood vessels.

respiratory system.

You saw the evidence from genetics, embryology, and anatomy that shows lung evolved from the upper digestive system.

The thing is all you can say is how they may have been developed you have no proof or transitional to show these.

I showed you that a very primitive transition for hearts exists in annelids, for example:

Silly misconception there. For example, we see living organisms today with "hearts" that are no more than thickened blood vessels with the same muscles and valves found in other blood vessels. And yet the pump blood and keep the organism alive. You've been misled again.

One of the simplest types of closed circulatory systems is found in annelids such as the earthworm. Earthworms have two main blood vessels -- a dorsal and a ventral vessel -- which carry blood towards the head or the tail, respectively. Blood is moved along the dorsal vessel by waves of contraction in the wall of the vessel. These contractible waves are called 'peristalsis.' In the anterior region of the worm, there are five pairs of vessels, which we loosely term "hearts," that connect the dorsal and the ventral vessels. These connecting vessels function as rudimentary hearts and force the blood into the ventral vessel. Since the outer covering (the epidermis) of the earthworm is so thin and is constantly moist, there is ample opportunity for exchange of gases, making this relatively inefficient system possible.
http://biology.about.com/od/organsys...torysystem.htm

Okay showing animals with these systems whats your point?

Just showing that what you claim is impossible is found in living organisms today. And yes, there are worms lacking these, and there are more advanced forms in organisms descended from annelids:

Notice in some onychophorans, the heart isn't much more complicated than in annelids. But in arthropods, it differentiates into a primitive heart with sinus and a primitive ventrical. Keep in mind all blood vessels have muscles that can contract and release, and one-way valves. In hearts, these become larger and more robust.

Barbarian, regarding mutations:
More often, they don't do much of anything. So most live, a few die, and a very few get improvements that make them more likely to live and leave offspring. This sort of thing accumulates every generation.

Okay but you use this process to show thats how we got new genomes

No. As you learned, we still have most of the microbe genes. We just have a modification of the earlier genome.

and systems out of the first microbe and developed man and all other life.

You just learned how hearts developed from simpler things. Surprise.

Well I may not know everything but I know what the evidence shows

You know some of it now, but it clearly caught you by surprise. There's a lot more that you don't know.

Dawkins and all honest evolutionist agree we have no evidence for new complex systems from mutations and etc... Would you like to see this again?

Sorry, reality trumps anyone's opinions. Find some evidence, or you're pretty much out of luck.

Stamping your foot and insisting won't help you.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...rd-like-lungs/

Pretty easy. See below.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

That is evidence. The fact that the same flow-through process happens in us, and in all vertebrates, is no coincidence with the fact of such a lung in dinosaurs and birds.

 

[zeke]

But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs."

LOL - where is your 'proof' via science that theropods morphed into birds? Let me guess, still missing. Feduccia was right all long - yes? You need to get out more often and try to keep up - you are out of date. Today Darwinians are re-thinking theropd to bird - tomorrow...anyone's guess.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say. Article here​

Your worldview appear to be falling like a house of cards. Dinos were always dinos - birds have always been birds. Darwinians - you gotta love 'em they just can't get it right.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs."

LOL - where is your 'proof' via science

Carnivorous Dinosaur With Bird-Like Lungs Discovered
A 33-foot long, carnivorous dinosaur that lived 85 million years ago had a breathing system similar to that used by modern birds, and researchers say the finding is further evidence of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. A fossil found in a riverbank in Argentina shows evidence of efficient air sacs that pumped air into the dinosaur’s lungs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/

I thought you already knew that.

Let me guess, still missing.

Surprise.

Feduccia was right all long - yes?

This is one of the reasons I think Feduccia is wrong to suppose birds evolved from thecodonts. But it's possible someday we'll find thecodonts also had bird lungs. Brings up some problems regarding convergent evolution, though. And this came about after Feduccia had written his theory, so I'm not sure if he's modified his views, given this recent find.

You need to get out more often and try to keep up - you are out of date.

Surprise. As usual, you've been blindsided by things you didn't know.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say. Article here


This at your link, more evidence:
The University of Manchester team, comprising biologists and palaeontologists, has found that theropod dinosaurs like the Velociraptor had similar respiratory systems to present-day diving birds, such as marine birds and wildfowl.

The findings present for the first time an explanation of how these dinosaurs may have breathed.

"A number of studies have shown that dinosaurs were the direct ancestors of birds and have identified a suite of avian characteristics in theropods," said Dr Jonathan Codd, who led the research in the Faculty of Life Sciences.

"Our findings support this view and show that the similarities also extend to breathing structures and that these dinosaurs possessed everything they needed to breathe using an avian-like air-sac respiratory system."

Did you even read what it said?

Your worldview appear to be falling like a house of cards.

Surprise. As you see, a few scientists still think that birds and dinos have a common ancestor, but as new evidence accumulates, that seems less and less likely. Archaeopteryx, BTW, did not have a thighbone restricted to a horizontal position as found in birds. Neither did the dinosaurs found to have the avian lung system. So that theory is kaput for the time being.