[_ Old Earth _] Scopes

[Barbarian]

tob writes:

I'll believe Gods word, no smoke and mirrors there..

It would have been better for you, if you had believed Him, instead of the ICR. They lied to you, as you just learned. The problem is, they think they are God.

 

[turnorburn]

That's what i just said, oh i see you just want to get the last word in, be my guest..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

That's what i just said,

You were telling me about this research that refuted the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. But the research you cited, said exactly the opposite. I don't think you intended to be dishonest, I think you just read what the ICR told you it said, and never checked for yourself. As you see, the ICR will lie to you, if they think they can get away with it.

And they would have, if you hadn't posted it here.

 

[turnorburn]

Must have gotten it mixed in with the other fraudulent claims of evolution..

To their shame, many scientists and educators do not correct the falsehoods or fallacies presented to students in textbooks. Can a theory be considered legitimate if it must be protected by deceit?

The alleged missing links and evidences for evolution that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are often fraudulent claims. The remainder of the evidences are disputable and inconclusive interpretations or irrelevant to the debate.

The persistence of fraudulent evidence and one-sided presentations of disputable claims in textbooks to "prove" evolution reveals the extreme bias of evolutionists and their control of the educational and scientific communities. Having concluded that evolution is a fact, the evidence is obviously insignificant! The end apparently justifies whatever means is necessary to convince others to believe in evolution.

Check out your local school textbooks to see if students are being deceived by fraudulent examples and claims.

http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

I'm surprised that you still pursue the doctrine of evolution, Gods word is the only truth we have..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Having internal gills, a lateral line system, and a finned tail (the only chordates having these are fish), but also complete limbs with digits, femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, etc. Is what, according to you?

A tetrapod…not a fish!

You were given a bit of misdirection. Neither coelacanths nor lungfish are on the particular line that led to Acanthostega

Since I never said they did, I guess I was not misled (and since no one led me, I also was not misled)…

But there were fish closely related to them, which did have the same limb bones as we do.

Homology is not real science….but please give us some examples…thanks

Your other example was also a tetrapod….

Any fish?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Having internal gills, a lateral line system, and a finned tail (the only chordates having these are fish), but also complete limbs with digits, femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, etc. Is what, according to you?

A tetrapod…not a fish!

By definition, it's a fish. Only fish have those things. But only tetrapods have limbs. What you've just discovered is a transitional form, incorporating apomorphic characters of both groups. Precisely the evidence predicted to exist by evolutionary theory.

You were given a bit of misdirection. Neither coelacanths nor lungfish are on the particular line that led to Acanthostega

Since I never said they did, I guess I was not misled (and since no one led me, I also was not misled)…

Well, let's take a look... you wrote;

(though it is perceived by some that members of the lungfish and coelacanth may be called limbs, but in no wise resemble arms or legs as commonly defined)

But there were fish closely related to them, which did have the same limb bones as we do.

Homology is not real science…

Homology is evidence. The real science is in finding what it means. In this case, the predicted homologies were found to exist.

In the case of Acanthostega, we have a fish with lateral line system, internal nares, internal gills behind opercula, and a finned tail. All features only found in fish. But it has functional legs. Not only functional legs, but functional legs incorporating bones found in fins of other fish without legs.

This was predicted by scientists long before the actual fossil was found. But there's more. It's not just the tissues and development of legs in these transitionals. The genetic evidence is quite clear:

Exploiting human–fish genome comparisons for deciphering gene regulation
Human Molecular GeneticsVolume 13, Issue suppl 2
An important observation emerging from these studies was that a significant portion of these human–fish conserved non-coding sequences are located in the vicinity of genes involved in early embryonic development, whose products frequently are DNA-binding proteins, suggesting their roles as transcription factors (16). Many of these transcription factors, thought to be regulated by these non-coding human–fish elements, are involved in various morphogenic processes during embryonic development that are, by and large, shared by most vertebrates. The molecular mechanisms underlying these similarities in morphogenesis have been gradually uncovered, and appear to be predicated precisely on the regionalized and/or dynamic expression throughout embryogenesis of these transcription factors, in whose chromosomal neighborhoods many human–fish conserved non-coding sequences reside. Thus, the observation that both the genes encoding the transcription factors and the genetic switches controlling their expression appear to have been conserved throughout hundreds of millions of years of evolution supports the notion that this set of sequences, literally ‘fossil DNA’ embedded in our genomes, constitutes the ‘core genome’ elements of vertebrates.

 

[Barbarian]

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds.

But you couldn't name any? I think I know why.

The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

A popular magazine bought a fossil which was presented to be a single organism. Scientists urged the magazine to hold off publishing until the fossil was examined by others, and peer review of the findings was done. But the magazine publisher didn't wait, and they were embarrassed when the suspicions of the scientists were confirmed. Interestingly, the two halves of the fraud turned out to be important fossils themselves.

It's an interesting story. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Barbarian]

If you'd just accept His word, you wouldn't need smoke and mirrors.

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian suggests:
Give us a testable definition for "fish" and we'll see how that belief stands up.



Hmm... so this fellah... (Acanthostega)

Having internal gills, a lateral line system, and a finned tail (the only chordates having these are fish), but also complete limbs with digits, femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, etc. Is what, according to you?

You were given a bit of misdirection. Neither coelacanths nor lungfish are on the particular line that led to Acanthostega, and ultimately to all tetrapods. But there were fish closely related to them, which did have the same limb bones as we do. Would you like to learn about that?

BTW, because the connections of limbs to spine were so weak in this one, it could not walk on land. Seems that it moved around on the bottom of shallow ponds this way. But this one...

...could do so quite easily. Still looks more like a fish than a tetrapod, but now it can move about on land. And since this clade of fish always had lungs, it isn't hard to see how it adapted easily.

First off this indicates Acanthostega did NOT walk up on land and also lived wholly in water, but that is a fact we simply cannot know for sure. Secondly, carefully notice the wording in WIki…(in the subjunctive mood…no real established fact only “best guess” from the point of view of their greater theoretical position -opinion, conjecture)…without the assumed theory already accepted as if it were a fact (in other words if looked at objectively) it can be INTERTRETED differently to PROABABLY be something other and thus SURMISED to indicate a different conclusion…

… paleontologists surmise that it probably lived in shallow, weed-choked swamps, the legs having evolved for some other purpose than walking on land. Jennifer A. Clack interprets this as showing that

A) This was primarily an aquatic creature descended from fish that had never left the sea, and that

B) tetrapods had evolved features which later proved useful for terrestrial life, rather than crawling onto land and then gaining legs and feet as had previously been surmised.

Thirdly, some see this as not a predecessor but as having come after Ichthyostega, while others see it as possibly a juvenile form of Ichthyostega (thus the internasal fontanelles). So though in actuality it COULD BE any of these, the CONSENSUS agrees with Clacks spin which if accepted fits the pre-concluded theory nicely.

Finally, we really have no way of knowing Acanthostega did not have some sort of organs which functioned as lungs (despite its broader and flatter rib cage – most fossils being crushed down from above) and since we have no soft tissue examples we cannot be positive it even had what you call “inner gills”, though it well could have had both (just like some reptiles had back fins). Sorry Barbarian but neither of these demonstrate fish becoming amphibians. Go only by the evidence and can the "accepted theory" based speculations.

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Evolutionist J.R Norman, Associate Curator, in the Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, London, has said, "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes.” Which means we really do not know how they came about (well at least sold out EBs don't), but why? Because they appear in the geo column all at once and fully formed.

Secondly as to the theory that they evolved into amphibians we have an additional problem. The fact is that in many cases they appear in these same early layers along with the fish and in some places in layers preceding fish. So if we only go only by the evidence, these are two separate unrelated creatures, or possibly the amphibians may have evolved into fish…

Ahhh, but that would not fit the accepted theory so let’s re-interpret to fit…otherwise any attempt to be published in peer reviewed Journals will be moot because your work will be selectively excluded.

If there was an evolutionary progression demonstrated the fish would precede the amphibians by 100s of thousands or millions of years in the layers, but alas if we view the whole objectively that simply is not there. Let the actual evidence shape or determine the hypothesis and do not by concluding the hypothesis to be true interpret the evidence to prove it.

So it is apparent that "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl, "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", McGraw-Hill, NY 1974 pg. 148&195) YES!!! See how easy it is to be objective with the actual data? Stahl is an internationally renowned Ph.D. in Paleoichthyology. But rather than trying to make it fit (and sometimes that is deceptive) she just tells it like it is.

 

[Barbarian]

First off this indicates Acanthostega did NOT walk up on land and also lived wholly in water, but that is a fact we simply cannot know for sure.

We can be sure. The connection of limbs to the spine was far to weak to support an animal that size on land. It walked about on the bottom of ponds and streams, but didn't go on land. There are other reasons: the fish tail would have been rather vulnerable to damage on land, the internal gills would have collapsed out of water, and the lateral line system would have been useless.

It wasn't yet capable of leaving the water. Icthyostega, a bit later, had a more robust skeleton, and was able to walk on land.

Thirdly, some see this as not a predecessor but as having come after Ichthyostega, while others see it as possibly a juvenile form of Ichthyostega (thus the internasal fontanelles). So though in actuality it COULD BE any of these, the CONSENSUS agrees with Clacks spin which if accepted fits the pre-concluded theory nicely.

Sorry, that's not a viable idea. We have fossils of juvenile Ichthyostega:
The CT slices revealed that Clack had found the first juvenile forms of Ichthyostega. Previously known fossils of Ichthyostega had come from adults.


Anatomies can morph as animals move towards adulthood, Callier said. And such shifts can help scientists deduce when in development the animal acquired the terrestrial habit. The fossils suggest that Ichthyostega juveniles were aquatically adapted, and that the terrestrial habit was acquired relatively late in development. The fossils bore evidence that the muscle arrangement in adults was better suited to weight-bearing, terrestrial locomotion than the juvenile morphology. It is possible that Ichthyostega came out of the water only as a fully mature adult.


In contrast, in Acanthostega "there is less change from the juvenile to the adult. Although Acanthostega appears to be aquatically adapted throughout the recorded developmental span, its humerus exhibits subtle traits that make it more similar to the later, fully terrestrial tetrapods," Callier said
Emerging onto a Tangled Bank
Science 17 April 2009:
Vol. 324 no. 5925 pp. 341-342

Finally, we really have no way of knowing Acanthostega did not have some sort of organs which functioned as lungs

It would be a shock if it didn't. All the sarcopterygian fish we know about did. Lungs evolved long before tetrapods. Would you like to learn about that?

we cannot be positive it even had what you call “inner gills”,

Internal gills. No vertebrate has an operculum and gill arches without having gills. You might was well imagine it didn't have a nervous system.

though it well could have had both

Pretty much like saying that it could have had two extra hearts. It would have tossed the entire circulatory system and started from scratch. Which we never see in the real world. Would you like to learn why?

(just like some reptiles had back fins)

No reptile had dorsal fins. The "fin-backs" like dimetrodon were extensions of the spine,

while true dorsal fins in fish are separate structures:

Sorry Barbarian but neither of these demonstrate fish becoming amphibians.

As you see, your objections are based on misunderstandings of the evidence. They evaporate once you realize what the evidence actually shows. Go only by the evidence and can the "we think it might be" based speculations.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionist J.R Norman, Associate Curator, in the Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, London, has said, "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes.”

I'm guessing you never actually read the paper. He published it 52 years ago.

Which means we really do not know how they came about

One of the dangers of basing your belief in God on what we don't know, is that tends to change. A lot of things have been learned in the past half-century.

Because they appear in the geo column all at once and fully formed.

But Nelson never wrote that. Would you like to learn why? Let's go take a look...

The first thing that could be called a "fish" was a cephalochordate. Pikaia gracilens dates from the the Mid-Cambrian, and is the first known chordate (the phylum including fish and us among others). Some of them still live; this is the body plan of Amphioxus, a cephalochordate.

Notice no gills, no fins, no eyes, no brain, etc. Hardly "fully formed."

Let's move on.

A bit later in the Cambrian, we have Haikouichthys.

A little more fishlike, but still not fully formed. No jaws, no opercula, no pectoral fins, no anal fins. But now there's a cranium. Animals like this still live, the hagfishes, and the lampreys. But we're getting closer to "fully formed."

Here's one a bit later, with primitive jaws, and complex bones forming a face:
At first blush, Entelognathus appears to be an ordinary placoderm, an extinct type of heavily armored fish. All placoderms discovered before now have sported simple jaws and cheeks, with only a few large bones making up their outer surfaces.


"But the original fossil of Entelognathus proved to be something far more bizarre and significant," Zhu told LiveScience.

On closer inspection, the fish possesses a complex arrangement of smaller bones known as a premaxilla and maxilla on its upper jaw, a dentary, or mandible, on its lower jaw, as well as cheekbones. These complex facial bones are characteristic of bony fish and land animals, including humans, making this bizarre-looking fish the most ancient animal with what humans would recognize as a face, Zhu said.
http://www.livescience.com/39937-fossil-fish-oldest-creature-with-face.html

And so on. How far to "fully formed" would you like to go? Or shall we get back to the original point about how fish gave rise to tetrapods/

Secondly as to the theory that they evolved into amphibians we have an additional problem. The fact is that in many cases they appear in these same early layers along with the fish and in some places in layers preceding fish.

You've been misled about that. There are no land animals at all from the time the fish discussed above, were alive.

If there was an evolutionary progression demonstrated the fish would precede the amphibians by 100s of thousands or millions of years in the layers

See above. There you are.

(and now another quote-mining attempt)

So it is apparent that "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl, "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", McGraw-Hill, NY 1974 pg. 148&195)

Better, this one is only forty-one years out of date. However, as you learned, progress goes on. Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and many others have shown up since then. This is one of the real dangers for creationists inclined to quote-mine.

YES!!! See how easy it is to be objective with the actual data?

It would have been safer for you to go with the data, instead of quote-mining.

Stahl is an internationally renowned Ph.D. in Paleoichthyology. But rather than trying to make it fit (and sometimes that is deceptive) she just tells it like it is.

And now you know better. Think about it, and consider using data instead of old quotes.

 

[brother Paul]

Good luck with that...

In His love

Paul

 

[turnorburn]

More smoke and mirrors Barbarian, stories of fraud abound in mans definition of creation..

"When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).

Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word "proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a "fact."]

Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ...

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,

2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer,

3) most people will not know the difference, so use it.

http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Gods word does no such thing.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

"When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).

If anyone doesn't know, Hoyle was the guy who gave the name to the Big Bang, and decided that insects are smarter than humans.

Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed.

But you can't think of any? Not surprising.

Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ...

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,

Usually, it's evidence that upsets creationists most. There's a way to test your belief. As a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he starts citing evidence, you got it wrong. If he says "Because Darwin said so", you're right.

The evidence for evolution is voluminous, and includes:

• the family tree of living things, first discovered by Linnaeus
• DNA and genetic evidence which is verified because we can test it on organisms of known descent
• Numerous transitional forms living or as fossils.
• Directly observed speciation
• ERVs and broken genes in organisms
• and so on.

this is the best evidence evolution has to offer

Some of the best, yes. But not all. Would you like to see some more?

 

[turnorburn]

Hey i got an idea hows about evidence for a young earth?

No smoke and mirrors..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

All I see is a video. Is this another one of those "I can't tell you about the evidence, but just watch this video" situations. My experience is that if you can't tell me what it says, it's just a waste of time.

So if you or anyone else can tell me what the best evidence presented might be, we can talk about it. If no one can find even one thing worth bringing forward, then we'll move on.

 

[Barbarian]

Did a little research on this guy. He trots out the usual stuff that's been shot down again and again.

Should be interesting to see which ones get put up as convincing here. Let's see what we get...

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian...A true legend in your own mind!

 

[turnorburn]

This video and others like it are for those that are having a problem believing that the bible is the literal word of God, myself i have no problem believing that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Its been this way since the day Satan said "hath God said" and it will remain so until Jesus returns to establish his new kingdom.. people have been trying to refute God for thousands of years evolution isn't a new trend, there's nothing new under the sun..

tob