[_ Old Earth _] The misconception of "the missing links"

[TOG]

But you no more need every link to determine the relationship, than you need to know every individual in your own family history to positively correlate that you are directly descended from your great-great-grandmother.

Actually, you do. Imagine an orphan who doesn't know who his real parents were. How is he going to know who his grandparents were, or his cousins, aunts or uncles? My sister-in-law's grandmother had a daughter (my sister-in-law's mother) out of wedlock. She never revealed who the father was. My sister-in-law will never know who her great-grandmother was, because she doesn't know every individual in her family. If you don't know every individual, then you run into a dead end. You can make something up, but it won't be real. My sister-in-law could make up a story about her grandmother having an affair with the president and then continuing the genealogy from there, but it wouldn't be true.

Evolutionists run into dead ends like that all the time. When they do, they often tend to make things up, but that doesn't make them true. Here's one example. Here we have an explanation of the evolution of bat wings.

View attachment 3435
Image source

Now look at this fossil of the oldest known ancestor of modern bats:

View attachment 3436
Image source

And here's a skeleton of an actual modern bat:

View attachment 3437
Image source

Notice that the oldest known ancestor of modern bats looks like... well... a bat. Everything else in that first picture is pure fiction. I'm sure someone will object to that last statement and say that it isn't fiction, but science. But science is based on observable facts, and where bats are concerned, there are no observable facts to support that first picture above. As far as the fossil record is concerned, bats have always been bats, and have never been anything else. This is what is meant by "missing links". Where there should be one (actually many), there is no link. It's missing. Pretending it's there when there is no evidence to support it isn't science, it's fiction. Science-fiction maybe, but still fiction.

The TOG
​

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, you do. Imagine an orphan who doesn't know who his real parents were. How is he going to know who his grandparents were, or his cousins, aunts or uncles?

Genetic analysis. Routinely solves problems like that. In the case of fossils, one has to look for homologies which will show you how different lines descended. Would you like some examples?

Evolutionists run into dead ends like that all the time. When they do, they often tend to make things up, but that doesn't make them true. Here's one example. Here we have an explanation of the evolution of bat wings.

Click image for larger version Name: i-37b5984c0f093511064aed1f3746a3d9-protobats-3-Smith-1977-Mar-2011-redo.jpg Views: 3 Size: 117.4 KB ID: 4535
Image source

It's a reasonable hypothesis, supported by both bat development in utero (they use the same pathways, genes, and processes as other mammals, but the apoptosis of membranes between digits is suppressed in bats, and the development of the hand and digits is prolonged. So your diagram fits the data nicely.

And then there's this surprise:

Now Karen Sears, at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, has discovered why intermediate forms may be missing in the fossil record. In a bid to understand where bats’ specialised finger digits evolved from, Sears compared their embryological development with that of the finger digits of mice. In both animals, digits form from cartilage cells which divide and mature into bone in regions called growth plates.

But in bats, a key region of the growth plate called the hypertrophic zone is much larger than in mice, which allows their digits to grow much longer. That difference is controlled by a single gene known as BMP2, one of a family of genes important for limb development in mammals. Sears found that a protein produced by BMP2 is present in the hypertrophic region of bats, but not in mice. When she applied the protein to the digits of mouse embryos growing in the lab they elongated just like bat digits. Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver.

Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms. “We’ve never had an adequate explanation†for the sudden appearance of bats, Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History in New York told New Scientist. “This sounds like a remarkable discovery.â€
http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-11-11-82718-510.html

Relatively uncommon for such a change to be mediated by just one mutation.

Now look at this fossil of the oldest known ancestor of modern bats:

Click image for larger version Name: Bat2.article.jpg Views: 2 Size: 23.4 KB ID: 4536
Image source

Oh, yes, the longer legs include a different pelvis and a much longer tail. These seem to have lagged behind the lengthened digits.

Transitional between modern bats and more primitive ones we don't yet have. Bats have fragile skeletons, and rarely fossilize. But we still have those genetic, developmental, and anatomical clues.

And here's a skeleton of an actual modern bat:

Lots of important differences here:

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

It might seem remarkable that the wings of the recently-discovered fossil, fit the hypothetical evolution of bats. But it's really not. Those hypothetical drawings used other data to make very solid projections, which turned out to be correct.

Although it's a microchiropteran, it has no ecolocation abilty, (structure of the ear shows this) And it retains the primitive mammalian trait of claws on the digits of the wing. Again, transitional.


Click image for larger version Name: batskeleton.jpg Views: 2 Size: 29.5 KB ID: 4537
Image source

Notice that the oldest known ancestor of modern bats looks like... well... a bat.

See above. The large number of differences makes this bat the most primitive of those so far discovered.

Everything else in that first picture is pure fiction.

And now you know better. The shorter wings of a more primitive bat were correctly predicted based on genetic information, and the way bats develop as embryos. Pretty cool, um?

I'm sure someone will object to that last statement and say that it isn't fiction, but science.

As you just learned.

But science is based on observable facts, and where bats are concerned, there are no observable facts to support that first picture above.

Genetic and embryological data. That's why it so accurately predicted the newly-discovered transitional bat. Would you like to learn more about this one?

 

[TOG]

Evolutionists run into dead ends like that all the time. When they do, they often tend to make things up, but that doesn't make them true. Here's one example. Here we have an explanation of the evolution of bat wings.

...

Everything else in that first picture is pure fiction.

It's a reasonable hypothesis,

Word games are fun, aren't they?

fiction
noun

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories:detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

When I said that the supposed evolution of the bat wing shown in the picture was fiction, I was using definition 5 - an imaginary thing or event (or series of events in this case), postulated for the purpose of argument or explanation.


hypothesis
noun

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that, when you say that the picture shows a "reasonable hypothesis", you are using definition 1 - a proposition... either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture... or accepted as highly probable. Let's look a little closer at that definition. (Note: to save space, I'll only post the relevant, or most relevant definitions. Anyone who wants to can look up the full definitions on dictionary.reference.com, which is where I got them.)

proposition -anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.
conjecture -the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
probable - likely to occur or prove true

So, according to these definitions, and if I'm understanding you correctly, then you're saying that the series of events presented in the drawing is "something affirmed for discussion or illustration, which is either as an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof or likely to prove true." In other words, it may be likely (at least in the opinion of some), but there is no actual proof.

TOG - postulated for the purpose of argument or explanation.
Barbarian - affirmed for discussion or illustration.
TOG - there are no observable facts
Barbarian - without sufficient evidence for proof

In spite of your using better-sounding words, we're really saying the same thing - there is no proof to support the proposed evolution of the bat wing. Like I said, word games are fun, but they do not provide scientific evidence where there is none.

The TOG
​

 

[TOG]

And then there's this surprise: Now Karen Sears, at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, has discovered why intermediate forms may be missing in the fossil record. In a bid to understand where bats’ specialised finger digits evolved from, Sears compared their embryological development with that of the finger digits of mice. In both animals, digits form from cartilage cells which divide and mature into bone in regions called growth plates. But in bats, a key region of the growth plate called the hypertrophic zone is much larger than in mice, which allows their digits to grow much longer. That difference is controlled by a single gene known as BMP2, one of a family of genes important for limb development in mammals. Sears found that a protein produced by BMP2 is present in the hypertrophic region of bats, but not in mice. When she applied the protein to the digits of mouse embryos growing in the lab they elongated just like bat digits. Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms. “We’ve never had an adequate explanation” for the sudden appearance of bats, Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History in New York told New Scientist. “This sounds like a remarkable discovery.” http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-11-11-82718-510.html

In plain English - There was an animal similar to a mouse (not a mouse, but something that looked similar to one). As the result of a single mutation, one of it's offspring was a bat. I don't care what fancy words you use, that's fiction.

The TOG
​

 

[Barbarian]

Word games are fun, aren't they?

It might seem like a good idea initially, but there are some pitfalls for you...

fiction
noun

the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
works of this class, as novels or short storiesetective fiction.
something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

When I said that the supposed evolution of the bat wing shown in the picture was fiction, I was using definition 5 - an imaginary thing or event (or series of events in this case), postulated for the purpose of argument or explanation.

That's what got you in trouble. A hypothesis is not from imagination, but must be based on previous knowledge. As you saw, the scientists, using genetic and embyological data, were able to accurately predict what the wing of a transitional bat would look like.

hypothesis
noun
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
a mere assumption or guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that, when you say that the picture shows a "reasonable hypothesis", you are using definition 1 - a proposition... either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture... or accepted as highly probable.

In science, the latter is used.

proposition -anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.
conjecture -the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
probable - likely to occur or prove true

So, according to these definitions, and if I'm understanding you correctly, then you're saying that the series of events presented in the drawing is "something affirmed for discussion or illustration, which is either as an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof or likely to prove true." In other words, it may be likely (at least in the opinion of some), but there is no actual proof.

Wasn't, until the hypothesis was confirmed by finding the transitional bat.

Here's the next place you got yourself in trouble:

TOG - postulated for the purpose of argument or explanation.
Barbarian - affirmed for discussion or illustration.
TOG - there are no observable facts
Barbarian - without sufficient evidence for proof

There is no "proof" in science, since it's inductive, working by inferences on evidence. In this case, the hypothesis (transitional bats should have shorter wings, with less-specialized digits) was confirmed by subsequent evidence, and therefore moves from a mere hypothesis (likely explanation) to a verified one.

In spite of your using better-sounding words, we're really saying the same thing

Nope. And barring you learning a little more about the way hypotheses and theories work in science, you likely won't figure it out.

- there is no proof to support the proposed evolution of the bat wing.

Hypotheses which make accurate predictions are regarded as verified. And as you just learned, this one is. In science, this is considered compelling. It might seem a bit unreliable to you, but that process has been spectacularly successful at gaining new knowledge about the world.

Like I said, word games are fun, but they do not provide scientific evidence where there is none.

And now you see that the evidence, predicted before it was found by using existing understanding, has explained another part of bat evolution.

And in the end, your word games took you right back to the same place.

 

[Barbarian]

In plain English - There was an animal similar to a mouse (not a mouse, but something that looked similar to one).

You probably wouldn't have called it a mouse. Almost certainly much larger than a mouse.

As the result of a single mutation, one of it's offspring was a bat.

No. It merely had much longer digits, which due to the developmental effects of this gene, did not undergo apoptosis of the tissue between the digits. For a reasonably small animal, this made leaping from branch to branch more effective, and falling less of a hazard. A protobat, so to speak. When an earlier fossil of bat is found, it will have digits shorter than the transitional we have, longer hind legs, capable of jumping, and a skeleton lighter than typical for animals of its size.

Remember, you heard it here, first.

I don't care what fancy words you use, that's fiction.

Surprise. There's a lot more to this. Want to learn more about it?

 

[Vaccine]

Hi all! I just thought I'd add this to the conversation. View attachment 3438
This is the actual fossil. Quite a difference between the real thing and the recreation. Things like the scapula, pelvis, humorous and forearm are missing or incomplete. Pretty important features to determine if it was related to whales or could swim.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Vaccine. Yes I saw a number of "what they looked like fossils" compared to what they actually found and was dumbfounded at their liberal use of artistic licence. Fragments made to look like full animals. Its like finding a few bricks and saying "woohoo, this is what the house looked like" and showing a grand mansion when it was actually bricks from a one bedroom cottage.

 

[Asyncritus]

Ahhhhhh....

You've finally dcided to talk about bat evolution.

And guess what? Guesses galore again. Aren't you ashamed to be propagating this nonsense, barbarian: Did you read what the writer did say?

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/...ion-to-flight/

Snigger!

So bats 'evolved' from sloths or the like! :toofunny

The slowest mammal on the planet, which hangs from tree limbs, and moves about 1 metre per hour, if that, evolved into the fastest flier on the planet (in terms of body length)!!!!!

Falling off the trees probably did it!!

Amazing nonsense! How often have you seen or heard about sloths (or the like) jumping off cliffs and trees waving their FINGERS IN THE AIR, AND BREAKING THEIR FOOL NECKS in the hope of flying?

Remember, bats fly USING THEIR FINGERS, not the whole arm as wings, like birds.

How did a sloth manage that little trick, I wonder?

And of course, let us not forget that the microchiropteran bats have the most advanced aerial echolocation system on the planet too.

Was the sloth locked up in a room, listening for the echoes as it hit the floor while it was waving its fingers in the air trying to fly? And that's how the bats' echolocation system 'evolved'?

Is it time for the man in the chicken suit to make another appearance, do you think?

Snigger! Ha ha ha!!!!!

 

[Barbarian]

Hi all! I just thought I'd add this to the conversation. Click image for larger version Name: AmbulocetusBonesPhoto.jpg Views: 2 Size: 32.0 KB ID: 4538
This is the actual fossil. Quite a difference between the real thing and the recreation. Things like the scapula, pelvis, humorous and forearm are missing or incomplete. Pretty important features to determine if it was related to whales or could swim.

You've been taken, yet again. The one in the inset is merely the first one found, Thewissen's initial fossil. Several other specimens have been found, and from them, we know what the other bones look like.

 

[Barbarian]

Ahhhhhh....

You've finally dcided to talk about bat evolution.

Last time I offered to show you the genetic and embryological data, you bailed out of the thread. Glad to see you've developed a little more staying power.

And guess what? Guesses galore again.

As you learned before, the hypothesis about the way wings developed in bats was confirmed by this new bat, with transitional wings as predicted by scientists, based on the data I showed you before.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs.

But precisely like a step hypothesized on the above-mentioned data. Verification of predictions based on data are compelling.

In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/...ion-to-flight/

Yep. The precise gene that is found in organisms like sloths, tree shrews, ungulates and others, is found in bats, only slightly modified by a single mutation that allowed greater growth in the hand. Would you like me to show you again?

So bats 'evolved' from sloths or the like!

No. I suppose you're pretending to have poor reading comprehension, again.

Remember, bats fly USING THEIR FINGERS,

No, that's wrong. Pterosaurs flew using their fingers. Bats use their hands. You've forgotten everything you learned before.

And of course, let us not forget that the microchiropteran bats have the most advanced aerial echolocation system on the planet too.

Actually, many insects do to. For example, there are moths that that not only have a great echolocation system, they have countermeasures systems to mess with bat echolocation. And of course, cetaceans have a better echolocation system than bats.

And of course you have the same echolocation ability that bats have, just not as refined as theirs. Humans have, in various circumstances, used it to navigate. Surprise.

Is it time for the man in the chicken suit to make another appearance, do you think?

He shows up whenever you lack an effective argument, so yes, it would seem so.

 

[TOG]

Surprise. There's a lot more to this. Want to learn more about it?

Yes, please tell me more. I enjoy science fiction (and if you can get any real science into it, I enjoy that also). You can start by telling what that symbol means.

The TOG
​

 

[Barbarian]

Just a test. Nothing more.

 

[TOG]

There is no "proof" in science

No proof? None at all? Then let me ask you some questions:

Is the earth (approximately) spherical and orbiting the sun, or is it a flat disk resting on the backs of four elephants who in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle? How do we know which is true? Could it be that science has proved it?

Are diseases caused by imbalances in the four humors, or by microscopic organisms? Since there is no proof in science, I suppose we can't really know.

If I throw a solid piece of lead into the lake, can you tell me whether it will it sink or float, and why? Remember, there is no proof in science, so we don't know for sure that it has anything to do with density... Right?

Those are just three examples of things we all know today because science proved them. Science has also proved many other things that we use every day, such as that electricity can be produced either using chemical reactions (leading to the development of batteries) or interaction between a conductor and a magnetic field (leading to the development of generators). Science has proved the existence and nature of radio waves and how to create and detect them, leading to the invention of the radio. As a result of these proofs, and others, you are able to listen to the radio while you type on our computer about how science hasn't proved anything (since there's no proof in science). The fact is that you and I use things that are the result of scientific proof every day.

It is obviously not true to say that there is no proof in science. It is true to say that there is no proof in evolution. What does that tell you about the relationship between the theory of evolution and science?

The TOG
​

 

[TOG]

Here's something I forgot to address yesterday:

Actually, you do. Imagine an orphan who doesn't know who his real parents were. How is he going to know who his grandparents were, or his cousins, aunts or uncles?

Genetic analysis. Routinely solves problems like that. In the case of fossils, one has to look for homologies which will show you how different lines descended.

Evolutionists seem to be good at word games. First let's look at the dictionary.

homology
noun

2.Biology.
​

a. a fundamental similarity based on common descent.
b. a structural similarity of two segments of one animal based on a common developmental origin.
​

And then let's take a look at Wikipedia

Although Owen's definition was based on archetypes and not ancestors, homology is defined by most biologists today strictly in an evolutionary context. That is, organs in two species are homologous only if the same structure was inherited from their last common ancestor.

In other words, you first determine by definition that similar traits in different species are similar because they have a common ancestor, and then you use these traits, which you assume are derived from a common ancestor to prove that they had a common ancestor.

Really? You call that science? This reminds me of a hypothetical conversation I once heard:

Evolutionist: This layer of rock is 5 million years old.
Creationist: How do you know that?
E: It has a 5 million year old fossil in it.
C: How do you know the fossil is that old?
E: It was found in a 5 million year old layer of rock.

I've seen that hypothetical conversation many times in discussions about dating methods, and evolutionists always answer that they don't use that kind of "logic". But that's exactly what you're doing when you use homologies to prove common ancestry.

Evolutionist: These two species had a common ancestor.
Creationist: How do you know that?
E: Because of the homologies.
C; What are homologies?
E; Traits that come from a common ancestor.
C: How do you know they came from a common ancestor?
E: Because they're homologous.

The TOG
​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There is no "proof" in science

No proof? None at all?

Nope. Science is inductive, simply making inferences from evidence. You can only use deduction when you know the general rules beforehand. In math, we define the rules, and then deduce the particulars. In science, we observe the particulars, and make inferences about the rules. Logical certainty is only possible when you know all the rules.

Then let me ask you some questions:

Sigh...

Is the earth (approximately) spherical and orbiting the sun, or is it a flat disk resting on the backs of four elephants who in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle? How do we know which is true?

We have sufficent evidence to know what it is, and how it moves. However, we cannot prove it. There are alternative, ugly and complicated theoretical models in which the Sun orbits the Earth. We accept that the Earth orbits the sun, because the theory is simpler, more accurate, and has more evidence supporting it. No one actually proved the Earth orbits the Sun.

Could it be that science has proved it?

Nope. You know the Earth orbits the Sun the same way you know the Sun rises in the East each morning. Induction. You've got enough evidence to infer that it will always do so.

Are diseases caused by imbalances in the four humors, or by microscopic organisms? Since there is no proof in science, I suppose we can't really know.

Koch's Postulates did not prove the germ theory of infectious disease. He merely showed that his theory was a better fit for the evidence.

If I throw a solid piece of lead into the lake, can you tell me whether it will it sink or float, and why?

It will sink. We know this, because we have a great deal of evidence showing that objects with greater density than the surrounding fluid, will sink in the fluid. No one ever did a proof that it happens.

Remember, there is no proof in science, so we don't know for sure that it has anything to do with density... Right?

You're assuming that we can't be sure about inductively reasoned inferences. In fact, we can often tell you numerically how sure we are, in such cases. We call those numerical measurements "confidence levels."

Those are just three examples of things we all know today because science proved them.

Nope:

We don't prove theories (and hypotheses) true. We just use the observations to convince ourselves (and others) that we have a good idea. Scientists have a lot of confidence in scientific theories, because they know there is a lot of evidence to back them up.
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

Read this site completely. It's a great explanation, and written in a very simple and understandable way. This is well worth your time.

 

[Barbarian]

If God is USING nature and biology, then it is NOT evolution. PERIOD.

I know you want us to think so, but the fact is, you've misunderstood the nature of God and His creation. Please do a little reading about this; St. Thomas Aquinas lays it out very well in Summa Theologica but there are also Protestant theologians who can explain it to you, as well.

I think you have no idea what evolution is.

I have studied it for over 40 years, and have taught it in classes and seminars. If you were wondering, biological evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Nor have any idea of the mechanisms of evolution.

I have directly observed some of them. Perhaps you've been misled about what they actually do. Given your issues with God and His relationship to biology, you might want to read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, a devoted Christian and a very capable biologist. Or if Catholics aren't your choice, you could read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins, an evangelical Protestant, and the director of the Human Genome Project.

If could be an opening to a richer and more rewarding relationship with God.

 

[Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by TOG View Post

Actually, you do. Imagine an orphan who doesn't know who his real parents were. How is he going to know who his grandparents were, or his cousins, aunts or uncles?

Barbarian observes:
Genetic analysis. Routinely solves problems like that. In the case of fossils, one has to look for homologies which will show you how different lines descended.

Evolutionists seem to be good at word games. First let's look at the dictionary.

Word games won't really help you. Redefining words is always a losing proposition, since words mean things, and if you don't use them the way others do, you simply fail to communicate.

Dictionary definition:
homology
noun

2.Biology.

a. a fundamental similarity based on common descent.
b. a structural similarity of two segments of one animal based on a common developmental origin.

Scientific definition:
Definition

noun, plural: homologies

(1) A degree of similarity, as in position or structure, and that may indicate a common origin; a correspondence of structure

(2) (evolutionary biology) A state of similarity in structure and anatomical position but not necessarily in function between different organisms indicating a common ancestry or evolutionary origin

(3) (genetics) A condition denoting to the pair of chromosomes having corresponding genes for a particular trait or characteristic

Biology online

Since we're arguing scientific theories, we'll use the definition biologists do.

Really? You call that science?

Yep.

Faked "conversation" between "evolutionist" and creationist:
Evolutionist: This layer of rock is 5 million years old.
Creationist: How do you know that?
E: It has a 5 million year old fossil in it.
C: How do you know the fossil is that old?
E: It was found in a 5 million year old layer of rock.

Let's see how it would actually go:
Evolutionist: This layer of rock is 5 million years old.
Creationist: How do you know that?
E: Physicists, using known dating processes, have measured it to that age.
C: How do you know the fossil is that old?
E:It's embedded in rock that physics shows to be that age.

You've fallen for one of the oldest scams professional creationsts play on their followers.

I've seen that hypothetical conversation many times in discussions about dating methods, and evolutionists always answer that they don't use that kind of "logic".

And you see, it's based on a dishonesty by creationists.

But that's exactly what you're doing when you use homologies to prove common ancestry.

Nope. The usual scam there, is they pretend it's just a matter of "looks alike."

Let's look at your second scam:
Evolutionist: These two species had a common ancestor.
Creationist: How do you know that?
E: Because of the homologies.
C; What are homologies?
E; Traits that come from a common ancestor.
C: How do you know they came from a common ancestor?
E: Because they're homologous.

Actual conversation:
Evolutionist: These two species had a common ancestor.

Creationist: How do you know that?

E: Because of the homologies.

C; What are homologies?

E; Apomorphic traits that show common descent. They are often dissimilar structures, but derived from the same primitive structure in an ancestor. This is how, for example, we know that even though thylacines look remarkably like canids, they are not closely related, because the structures that look alike are not homologous but are derived from other structures. And, of course, embryological and genetic data, when we have it, support the conclusion.

C: How do you know they came from a common ancestor?

E: You just asked that. And I just told you.

 

[TOG]

Word games won't really help you.

Actually, you're the one playing word games. You're just using scientific sounding words without any actual science behind them.

Dictionary definition:
homology
noun
2.Biology.
a. a fundamental similarity based on common descent.
b. a structural similarity of two segments of one animal based on a common developmental origin.

Scientific definition:
Definition
noun, plural: homologies
(1) A degree of similarity, as in position or structure, and that may indicate a common origin; a correspondence of structure
(2) (evolutionary biology) A state of similarity in structure and anatomical position but not necessarily in function between different organisms indicating a common ancestry or evolutionary origin
(3) (genetics) A condition denoting to the pair of chromosomes having corresponding genes for a particular trait or characteristic

So, to make the theory work, you have to invent a new definition, and call it scientific. Isn't plain English good enough for you? Doesn't matter though. Having a common ancestor is still part of the definition, so you end up using the same circular reasoning. First you assume that two species have similar traits because they have a common ancestor, then you use that common trait to prove common ancestry. In your version of of the conversation about homologies, the only change you've actually made is to make the evolutionist use more words and act smug at the end. He still uses the same circular reasoning.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've never written anything here that I didn't believe to be true. Shame on you.

If you believe that the fabrications you continually post are true, then I'm afraid the shame is on you.

I don't think so. As you learned, the "quotes" were carefully edited to make it look as though the authors believe what they clearly do not believe.

I won't go down the road with this, as I will merely earn myself an infraction of some sort. But this is pathetic, and I regret that you have deluded some people into following your errors.