[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

Zeke, your awfully close to trolling in my eyes.

Well Jman - everyone is entitled to express their opinion - it is an open forum.

 

[Jman96]

I am aware, but still either step up or don't complain is how I see it. Moving on, I'm dropping the subscription on this thread

 

[Barbarian]

A shame. What seemed like a perfectly good and rational participant went away disgusted.

We can all do better. We need to try. All of us.

 

[lordkalvan]

I gave you the reference for Gould's remarks – are you saying you are incapable of looking it up?

I have answered your question twice. Are you saying that you are incapable of understanding my answer? Nevertheless, let me answer it again: I cannot find a primary source on line, so I am unable to confirm that Gould says what you allege he says and that the context supports what you claim it supports. Furthermore, you have implied that you sourced the Gould comment at second-hand. Is this correct or not and can you specify that secondary source? If not, presumably you have the primary source available and can confirm Gould's exact words and the context in which he uses them? I regard this as important because elsewhere, for example, AiG quotes Gould as specifically stating that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period' (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/homology). This rather leads me to suppose that if Gould had said something to the contrary, as you allege, they would have seen fit to mention it.

That is amusing.

Not nearly as amusing as your unwillingness to confirm where you sourced Gould's alleged comment from and your inability to provide its context.

You still haven't answered the question – does homology support common design as well as it does common ancestry?

And let me point out yet again that you might be entitled to complain about lack of answers to your questions if you displayed a willingness to answer those asked of you. As this thread is littered with questions I and Barbarian have asked you arising from the various unsupported claims, assertions and opinions you have offered, perhaps you can explain why you are entitled to demand answers when you are not prepared to give any? Or perhaps this is a question you would rather not answer either?

Gould thought it did...

Unfortunately, you have still not shown that he thought any such thing. Indeed, the AiG reference rather suggests the opposite.

I think it does - logic would agree.

Why do you think this and what leads you to argue that 'logic' agrees with you?

In your mind - is it scientifically impossible for a Designer to use successful design principles over and over again?

There you go again, expecting others to answer your questions when you don't answer theirs. On what grounds do you expect a discussion to proceed positively when you demonstrate this attitude throughout it?

Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer, despite you having established no grounds on which you are entitled to receive one: your question implies a supernatural designer which, ipso facto, lies outside the field of naturalistic explanations. Science is engaged with the natural world and naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena in that world, so therefore the hypothesis of a supernatural designer lies outside the parameters of scientific explanations.

Can you demonstrate via the scientific method that the mechanism that transformed organisms from an alleged universal common ancestor to you and me did not involve design?

Another expectation that you are entitled to have questions answered when you do not feel obligated to answer them. If you posit the possibility of a supernatural designer as the originator of specific and unique organisms, it is up to you to provide the evidence and argument to support that possibility, not up to me to demonstrate to your satisfaction that such a supernatural designer did not do this.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well Jman - everyone is entitled to express their opinion - it is an open forum.

But not entitled to expect answers when unwilling to provide them. Are you proud to have driven Jman from the thread in such a short series of posts? Did you not find even one thing to reflect on in his comments?

 

[zeke]

I cannot find a primary source on line, so I am unable to confirm that Gould says what you allege he says and that the context supports what you claim it supports.

I gave you the primary source. Check the science section in your local library.

AiG quotes Gould as specifically stating that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period'.

Lol -are you a fan of AiG? You miss the point - as a Darwinist, Gould certainly believed in common ancestry via faith from the evidence he saw. He was, however smart enough to admit that homology does not prove common ancestry.

As this thread is littered with questions I and Barbarian have asked you arising from the various unsupported claims, assertions and opinions you have offered, perhaps you can explain why you are entitled to demand answers when you are not prepared to give any.

But I have answered your questions – you just don’t like the answers.

Why do you think this and what leads you to argue that 'logic' agrees with you?

Because logic says that that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If not, why not. See if you can follow Kenyon’s logic below? Dean Kenyon is/was Professor Emeritus of Biology (San Francisco State).

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

Do you agree with Kenyon - can homologies support common design as well as it does common ancestry? If you continue to struggle let me know. The key point being – homology can only raise questions of relationship - it cannot answer them.

Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer, despite you having established no grounds on which you are entitled to receive one: your question implies a supernatural designer which, ipso facto, lies outside the field of naturalistic explanations.

Then we agree – you cannot scientifically demonstrate that a Designer could not have use successful design principles over and over again?

Follow up questions - if the existence of a Designer remains outside of the realm of scientific discovery does that mean a Designer cannot exist? Is science the only avenue we have to understand ‘origins’? Can you demonstrate scientifically that there is no intelligent design in nature?

 

[zeke]

Are you proud to have driven Jman from the thread in such a short series of posts? Did you not find even one thing to reflect on in his comments?

Jman said - "Guys...Stop turning it on each other." It certainly appears that 'guys' is used in the plural and includes more that just me, mate.

This is a discussion on the reliability of Darwinian philosophy as it relates to science. This is not a "Miss Congeniality" contest where we all line up in our stiletto heels. Things get a little intense from time to time. I apologize to Jman if my posting style was not to his liking but it is what it is - just as your style and that of Barbarian are what they are. We can certainly turn it down a notch or two if that would help.

 

[Free]

You all certainly will turn it down a notch.

Thanks.

 

[lordkalvan]

I gave you the primary source. Check the science section in your local library.

So did you or did you not source this alleged statement by Gould directly from the primary source, or are you reporting it as hearsay having seen the passing reference in the Davis and Kenyon article, which neither quotes Gould's actual words nor provides the context in which he allegedly spoke them? This is a very simple question and as you are persistently dodging it I can only assume that you have never seen the primary source yourself, have no clue what Gould's actual words are and are equally ignorant of the context. I would further assume that you probably sourced the Davis and Kenyon quote at second-hand too. Is this right? Can you tell us where you found it?

Lol -are you a fan of AiG?

Why would you imagine I am, but at least they quote Gould directly - which is more than you have managed to do so far.

You miss the point - as a Darwinist, Gould certainly believed in common ancestry via faith from the evidence he saw.

No, you miss the point. First, by asserting without evidence that 'Gould believed in common ancestry via faith'; secondly by failing to tell us why, if Gould said that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period', he would also say that it supports common design.

He was, however smart enough to admit that homology does not prove common ancestry.

You seem to be changing the thrust of your assertion now, from Gould saying that homology supports common design to Gould saying that it does not prove common ancestry. Given that Gould said, according to the AiG citation, that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period', I wonder if you would care to square this particular circle?

But I have answered your questions – you just don’t like the answers.

Really? Where? Links and/or post numbers would be helpful. Clearly you have not answered the direct questions I have been asking about where you sourced the alleged Gould comment from and, if he said what you assert he said, what the context of that comment was. Nor have you provided any details of the alleged 'Darwinian horse hoax', despite being requested to three times. I can go on. Do you want me to?

Because logic says that that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If not, why not.

So show us how 'logic says that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry'. This appears to be another question you have failed to answer, despite being asked it several times.

See if you can follow Kenyon’s logic below? Dean Kenyon is/was Professor Emeritus of Biology (San Francisco State).

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

I don't see any 'logic' there, simply a number of unsupported assertions: that the existence of homologous structures cannot answer questions of relationship (Why not?), that 'design proponents can explain the existence of homologies' (How?).

Do you agree with Kenyon - can homologies support common design as well as it does common ancestry?

Why would I agree with Kenyon when he has given no reason to support the conclusion you have posted? It is, again, simply an assertion without apparent foundation.

If you continue to struggle let me know.

I only struggle to understand how you imagine this farrago of unsupported assertion, opinion and claim is supposed to provide substance to your argument.

The key point being – homology can only raise questions of relationship - it cannot answer them.

Okay, now tell us why this is so. Can you?

Then we agree – you cannot scientifically demonstrate that a Designer could not have use successful design principles over and over again?

Science cannot be used to demonstrate that which is outside the realm of naturalistic explanations. You are the one trying to argue that evolutionary theory is myth and that the evidence for common ancestry is equally valid as evidence for common design, but you have singularly failed to show how this is so scientifically. And yet here you are saying that because the existence of a supernatural designer cannot be scientifically demonstrated to be false, then in some way I must be agreeing with you that the existence of such a supernatural designer remains an evidentially valid alternative to naturalistic explanations for the development of life on Earth.

Follow up questions - if the existence of a Designer remains outside of the realm of scientific discovery does that mean a Designer cannot exist?

So far you have failed to present evidence of any such supernatural agent, nor have you been able to show how naturalistic explanations for the variety of life on Earth are less satisfactory than supernatural ones, so whether or not such a supernatural agent exists appears to be less important than noting that if it does it has no effect on the natural world than is any different from what we would expect to see if it didn't exist at all.

Is science the only avenue we have to understand ‘origins’?

It seems to offer better grounds for understanding than mythology, legend and pre-scientific story-telling. But, on the other hand, as the question of origin of life is quite different from the question of evolution as the explanation for how that life developed, let's for the sake of argument grant that a supernatural agent brought about the conditions in which life could form and that evolution is that agent's mechanism for leading to the diversity of life we see in the history of Earth. How would you go about falsifying such an hypothesis?

Can you demonstrate scientifically that there is no intelligent design in nature?

Can you demonstrate scientifically that there is? If you can't, then why prefer a supernatural hypothesis over a natural one?

 

[lordkalvan]

Jman said - "Guys...Stop turning it on each other." It certainly appears that 'guys' is used in the plural and includes more that just me, mate.

I think he was being generous.

This is a discussion on the reliability of Darwinian philosophy as it relates to science. This is not a "Miss Congeniality" contest where we all line up in our stiletto heels. Things get a little intense from time to time. I apologize to Jman if my posting style was not to his liking but it is what it is - just as your style and that of Barbarian are what they are. We can certainly turn it down a notch or two if that would help.

If you tell me what problems you have with my posting style, I will do my best to address them. I have done my best to retain the conventionalities of polite discourse and I thank you for ceasing to use the mode of address which I asked you to. Maybe in some few more posts I will be happy to have you address me as 'my friend'.

 

[lordkalvan]

You all certainly will turn it down a notch.

Thanks.

I hope we have. Thanks for your patience.

 

[zeke]

So did you or did you not source this alleged statement by Gould directly from the primary source…

You are repeating yourself. As noted - I saw it on the internet in the past. It may still be available - if not you can look it up at your local library – do you need assistance? Do you think Kenyon would quote it if it were not fact?

First, by asserting without evidence that 'Gould believed in common ancestry via faith'

Anyone who “believes” in common ancestry “believes” via faith – that is what belief is. The science remains missing. If you choose to believe in atheism's creation myth then go for it but don’t try to pass it off as science.

secondly by failing to tell us why, if Gould said that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period', he would also say that it supports common design.

I have told you why – you didn't like the answer. He wanted to believe it was true. Like you, he had no other choice but his common sense required him to admit (correctly) that homology supports both common design and common ancestry.

You seem to be changing the thrust of your assertion now, from Gould saying that homology supports common design to Gould saying that it does not prove common ancestry.

No shift at all. Gould understood correctly that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry – thus it ‘proves’ neither. Kenyon concurred - neither side can disprove the others interpretation of homology. Or maybe you think you can?

Really? Where? Links and/or post numbers would be helpful.

This site has a search feature.

So show us how 'logic says that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry'

Been there, done that.

Why would I agree with Kenyon when he has given no reason to support the conclusion you have posted?

Because he is correct. What part of his explanation do you not understand?

So far you have failed to present evidence of any such supernatural agent, nor have you been able to show how naturalistic explanations for the variety of life on Earth are less satisfactory than supernatural ones, so whether or not such a supernatural agent exists appears to be less important than noting that if it does it has no effect on the natural world than is any different from what we would expect to see if it didn't exist at all.

But I have evidence - the same evidence you have. You assume that because bat’s have wings and dolphin's have flippers that it constitutes proof for common ancestry. But it doesn’t. Where is your proof using the scientific method that your assumption is correct? You have none. If you did you would have presented it already.

You are the one trying to argue that evolutionary theory is myth and that the evidence for common ancestry is equally valid as evidence for common design, but you have singularly failed to show how this is so scientifically.

Correction - biological evolution is science – Darwinian lore is mythology. Stephen Gould was correct - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You have failed to prove common ancestry is a fact. Were you thinking about doing that anytime soon?

Can you demonstrate scientifically that there is?

We will understand from your evasive answer that you cannot demonstrate scientifically that there is no intelligent design in nature?

If you can't, then why prefer a supernatural hypothesis over a natural one?

Because I see no compelling evidence from science that random natural processes have the ability to transform non-life into life with the end product being me and you. We do, however have another source of knowledge that clearly tells us there is a Designer who by definition exists outside of nature – a Designer who created everything in the universe.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyone who “believes†in common ancestry “believes†via faith

Evidence. Things like innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of living things found only in cases of common descent, genetic data that can be confirmed by checking organisms of known descent, observed speciation, evolution of irreducibly complexity and so on. One of the most convincing things is that evolutionary theory predicted so many transitionals, but there are none to be found where the theory doesn't predict them to be.

that is what belief is.

Hmm... "Based on data from probes, scientists believe that the rings of Saturn are made of...." Doesn't seem like faith to me.

"I believe it will rain today." Not that either.

"I believe I'll have another Guinness." Nor that.

So the argument depends on conflating different meanings of "believe."

But I have evidence - the same evidence you have. You naively assume that because bat’s have wings and dolphin's have flippers that it constitutes proof for your dogma of common ancestry.

I don't think so. The fact that they have common genes for limbs, and that each set of limbs is jury-rigged from the same bones that were adapted for walking does constitute important evidence.

You remain confused. Biological evolution is science – Darwinian lore is mythology

It's been established that you don't even know what Darwin's theory is. Several times I asked you to discuss it, and each time, you changed the subject.

Because I see no compelling evidence from science that random natural processes have the ability to transform non-life into life with the end product being me and you.

Neither could Darwin. His great discovery was that evolution of living things was not random. This is why we know you don't know what Darwin's theory is about.

We do, however have another source of knowledge that clearly tells us there is a Designer who by definition exists outside of nature – a Designer who created everything in the universe.

For a Christian, there is no mere "designer." That is the god of the gnostics. We have a Creator, who has no limitations and does not need to design.

 

[zeke]

Maybe in some few more posts I will be happy to have you address me as 'my friend'.

Well let's hope so.

 

[zeke]

Evidence. Things like innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of living things found only in cases of common descent, genetic data that can be confirmed by checking organisms of known descent, observed speciation, evolution of irreducibly complexity and so on. One of the most convincing things is that evolutionary theory predicted so many transitionals, but there are none to be found where the theory doesn't predict them to be.

You're stuck in a pipe-dream. Do you not have any originality? Homologies, nested hierarchies, genetic similarities, etc do not prove common ancestry. Is that all you have?

So the argument depends on conflating different meanings of "believe."

Do you believe that?

The fact that they have common genes for limbs, and that each set of limbs is jury-rigged from the same bones that were adapted for walking does constitute important evidence

Yes - important evidence for common design.

It's been established that you don't even know what Darwin's theory is. Several times I asked you to discuss it, and each time, you changed the subject.

You are mistaken again. What it is you need to know about the ToE – I am here to help you and you need help.

For a Christian, there is no mere "designer." That is the god of the gnostics. We have a Creator, who has no limitations and does not need to design.

To create is to design.

design - to create or contrive for a particular purpose.​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evidence. Things like innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of living things found only in cases of common descent, genetic data that can be confirmed by checking organisms of known descent, observed speciation, evolution of irreducibly complexity and so on. One of the most convincing things is that evolutionary theory predicted so many transitionals, but there are none to be found where the theory doesn't predict them to be.

You're stuck in a pipe-dream.

It's all evidence. Facts are the way science gets done. If you don't have them, you're out of luck.

Do you not have any originality?

Evidence is more important than originality. Creationists have lots of originality. But they don't have any evidence.

Homologies, nested hierarchies, genetic similarities, etc do not prove common ancestry.

It's just evidence showing common ancestry. And yes, we can test DNA comparisons with organisms of known ancestry. It works.

Is that all you have?

Nope. There's a lot more. For example, the opossum fetus initially has the jawbones of a therapsid reptile. Only later do those bones migrate slightly back into the middle ear, as we see happening in the fossil record. Want to learn about that?

And there's a lot more after that.

that is what belief is.

Hmm... "Based on data from probes, scientists believe that the rings of Saturn are made of...." Doesn't seem like faith to me.

"I believe it will rain today." Not that either.

"I believe I'll have another Guinness." Nor that.

So the argument depends on conflating different meanings of "believe."

Do you believe that?

As you see, the evidence so indicates.

Barbarian observes:
The fact that they have common genes for limbs, and that each set of limbs is jury-rigged from the same bones that were adapted for walking does constitute important evidence/

Yes - important evidence for common design.

Nope. That would be demonstrated by the bones being specifically organized for each function, not modified to kinda/sorta do it. For example, our hands are prone to carpal tunnel damage and subsequent disability, because the early tetrapods needed to run both the tendons and the radial nerve down the same channel to make the feet set correctly. Didn't matter when it was just for walking. Later, when the thumb and grasping became effective, it was a flaw. A competent designer wouldn't have done that.

Barbarian
It's been established that you don't even know what Darwin's theory is. Several times I asked you to discuss it, and each time, you changed the subject.

You are mistaken again.

It's a matter of record. I've challenged you to show us that you know what it is, and each time, you refuse to do it.

What it is you need to know about the ToE – I am here to help you and you need help.

Great. Tell us the four points of Darwinian theory, and your evidence for any of them being a "myth."

Barbarian observes:
For a Christian, there is no mere "designer." That is the god of the gnostics. We have a Creator, who has no limitations and does not need to design.

To create is to design.

No. To create as God creates is to produce without any effort or calculation at all.

We sometime flatter ourselves by thinking that we can create. But we can make nothing from nothing. God is a great deal more competent than YE creationists are willing to let Him be.

 

[zeke]

"I believe I'll have another Guinness." Nor that.

<snip>

The fact that they have common genes for limbs, and that each set of limbs is jury-rigged from the same bones that were adapted for walking does constitute important evidence/

There you have it folks - this is what it looks like when junior Darwinians have run out of ammunition. Jury-rigged gibberish with "common genes for limbs" whatever that means...with an opossum fetus...and zero science. Sad. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

You are repeating yourself. As noted - I saw it on the internet in the past. It may still be available...

So it's hearsay, then and you are unable to provide Gould's words or their context so you have no idea what he actually wrote nor its context. Again, as the only reference you have provided is Davis and Kenyon, my guess is you sourced it there.

...if not you can look it up at your local library – do you need assistance?

It is not my obligation to research original articles in order to substantiate unsupported assertions you have made. That would be your job.

Do you think Kenyon would quote it if it were not fact?

I have no idea of whether or not Davis and Kenyon would misrepresent Gould. As Gould has been extensively quote mined by creationists sources, including at least one other DI individual (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/gould_daubert.html), why would I be surprised to see it happening again? Again, you have provided this comment as second-hand evidence to support your claim, so it is your responsibility to validate its authenticity and not to expect others to take your unvarnished word for it.

Anyone who “believes” in common ancestry “believes” via faith – that is what belief is.

Repeating an unsupported assertion in a slightly different way does not make it any less of an unsupported assertion. You have failed to show that Gould believes in universal common ancestry via faith.

The science remains missing.

Clearly untrue, unless you have been failing to read Barbarian's posts.

If you choose to believe in atheism's creation myth then go for it but don’t try to pass it off as science.

Can you tell us what 'atheism's creation myth' is and how you know it is a myth? Can you also explain how this relates to evolutionary theory, which in and of itself says nothing at all about the origins of life?

I have told you why – you didn't like the answer. He wanted to believe it was true. Like you, he had no other choice...

Your presenting as fact a series of unsupported assertions does not make those unsupported assertions facts.

...but his common sense required him to admit (correctly) that homology supports both common design and common ancestry.

I am sorry, but you have still failed to support this claim, let alone that 'common sense' was what motivated him to say what your only source for the statement allege he said.

No shift at all. Gould understood correctly that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry – thus it ‘proves’ neither. Kenyon concurred - neither side can disprove the others interpretation of homology. Or maybe you think you can?

I am still waiting for you to show us how homology supports common design. Let me say this clearly: simply asserting something to be so and referencing in support someone else who asserts it is so, indirectly reporting a third party as supposedly agreeing with this assertion, does not amount to an explanation of how homology supports common design. This is your claim, so you have to explain it with reasoned argument.

This site has a search feature.

I take this to mean you are unwilling to either link or provide the number of the posts in which you do what you claim you have done. As you have never replied to my questions on the alleged 'Darwinian horse hoax', I think we can draw the obvious conclusions from this evasive reply.

Been there, done that.

Then it Will be no trouble for you to re-present this explanation again, because clearly I missed it the first time around. Or you can simply link or post the relevant post number and I will look it up for myself. Or am I to use the search feature for myself?

Because he is correct.

Perhaps he is, but his assertions are not evidence that he is. Can you show why he is correct?

What part of his explanation do you not understand?

I understand something that you appear not to, and that is that the reference you have given explains nothing.

But I have evidence - the same evidence you have. You assume that because bat’s have wings and dolphin's have flippers that it constitutes proof for common ancestry. But it doesn’t. Where is your proof using the scientific method that your assumption is correct? You have none. If you did you would have presented it already.

You are the one arguing that this evidence supports common design as well as common ancestry. I am making things easy for you: I have never asked you to show how it supports common ancestry, but simply asked you to show how it supports common design. That you have continually failed to do so requires nothing else to be said.

Correction - biological evolution is science – Darwinian lore is mythology.

Please explain what you understand by 'biological evolution' and 'Darwinian lore' and how the two differ.

Stephen Gould was correct - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

You have still not shown that, even if Gould says what you allege he says, that this is correct? Can you do so?

You have failed to prove common ancestry is a fact. Were you thinking about doing that anytime soon?

Trying to move the goalposts doesn't do your argument much good. You have alleged that the evidence for common ancestry supports common design equally well. I am simply asking you to show how it supports common design, but you seem unwilling or unable to explain this for us.

We will understand from your evasive answer that you cannot demonstrate scientifically that there is no intelligent design in nature?

Again, you are the one making the positive claim, so it is up to you to support it. If you didn't understand my answers to your questions, tell me where your difficulty lies and I will do my best to clarify what I was saying.

Because I see no compelling evidence from science that random natural processes have the ability to transform non-life into life with the end product being me and you. We do, however have another source of knowledge that clearly tells us there is a Designer who by definition exists outside of nature – a Designer who created everything in the universe.

What would you regard as 'compelling evidence'? Given your misunderstanding of chemistry and evolution as 'random natural forces', I can begin to see where your problem lies. Can you direct me towards this 'source of knowledge' that offers a better, more consistent and consilient account of the origin and development of life than scientific inquiry has so far provided us with and can you explain how it does this?

 

[lordkalvan]

There you have it folks - this is what it looks like when junior Darwinians have run out of ammunition. Jury-rigged gibberish with "common genes for limbs" whatever that means...with an opossum fetus...and zero science. Sad. ;)

If you imagine this is a reasoned refutation of Barbarian's several points, that would be the only sad thing here.

 

[Barbarian]

There you have it folks - this is what it looks like when junior Darwinians have run out of ammunition. Jury-rigged gibberish with "common genes for limbs" whatever that means...

It means the HOX genes for limbs show a common origin for all tetrapods. Although it superficially looks like the fins of a whale or the diggers of a mole, or the wings of bats or birds are entirely different, they evolved from the same basic structures.

with an opossum fetus...

Scientists have observed the same changes we see in the fossil record, taking place in a mammal as it develops. And it confirms that the last two bones in the middle ear were initially part of the lower jaw (which is used by reptiles to conduct sound to the middle ear)

Science 11 February 2005:
Vol. 307 no. 5711 pp. 910-914

Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians
Thomas H. Rich James A. Hopson Anne M. Musser Timothy F. Flannery
Patricia Vickers-Rich

Abstract

A dentary of the oldest known monotreme, the Early Cretaceous Teinolophos trusleri, has an internal mandibular trough, which in outgroups to mammals houses accessory jaw bones, and probable contact facets for angular, coronoid, and splenial bones. Certain of these accessory bones were detached from the mandible to become middle ear bones in mammals. Evidence that the angular (homologous with the mammalian ectotympanic) and the articular and prearticular (homologous with the mammalian malleus) bones retained attachment to the lower jaw in a basal monotreme indicates that the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).

and zero science.

See above. Denial isn't much good against evidence.

Sad.

For creationists, perhaps. There's a lot more. Do you need to see more? Here's another transitional, that shows new evidence for the way mammals evolved from reptiles:

http://www.physorg.com/news174230741.html