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

[Barbarian]

At the conclusion of his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton sums it up like this:

"...no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms [Darwin's many small steps] linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.

As you learned, there are many, many such transitional forms. Indeed, even Denton has been convinced. In his more recent book, Nature's Destiny, he's revised his opinions:

Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos, which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
Ppg xvii-xviii

However, if you doubt what Denton and I are telling you, feel free to name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi again Meatballsub. No I did not assume anything, you will notice that I was returning to the original post on this thread, wasn't that what this was about to start with. I thought I would return to the main topic. My reference to the Platypus is it looking like a mish mash, If my choice of words was incorrect then I apologise for that. I will reword it. Just because another creature is found that looks like a mish mash like the Platypus does, what does that prove. Lots of them in the rivers too where I live, freaky little creatures. Nah, I checked up about those insects and if there was new info and there was not. About the alphabet is not nonsensical at all. It is an example of how replicating something over and over and over does not create anything new. Why is that nonsense? Replicating what is already there is not adding new, its replicating. Now if you could add wings to a horse that would be new, or legs to a worm...
No I don't buy it. By the way the wings hindered it and in the real world would have meant its early demise. So im not allowed to imagine things "no that isn't the case" yet evolutionists can do so in showing us pictures of animals from just a tooth! Been ages since I was called a Dude. Have a good one Meatballsub. Oops, nearly forgot. Yes I have seen that bird and don't get what you mean by it? Someone found/discovered a previously undiscovered bird! In a forest where like I said, in jungles, things went/go un-noticed. Its happened before and will again. Its like the old saying, if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there does it make any sound? Of course it does. Just like if a bird exists in a forest but no-one see's it does it mean it does not exist? Or if its found that it proves evolution or that it recently evolved? No, it does not. Unless Im missing your point with it, I don't get what it has to do with evolution.

 

[Asyncritus]

At the conclusion of his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton sums it up like this:

"...no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms [Darwin's many small steps] linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.

So you're saying that Denton is wrong. Or rather, that Denton says Denton was wrong.

Which is an interesting point. When was he wrong? In Nature's Destiny, or in Crisis?

Having read both, I still fail to see the logical position in Destiny as being valid. He has accumulated a vast amount of information, such as would have delighted Paley - all of which points up the necessity for a Designer: of the physical, the chemical. the biochemical, the astronomical etc etc worlds.

And yet can make that utterly nonsensical statement you highlighted.

It's the idiot looking at the watch on Hampstead Heath, and saying that it all happened by chance. Utter, ridiculous nonsense.

The opinion he expresses in Destiny is totally belied by the facts he records. And the facts he records in Crisis are still facts, which you or anybody else cannot gainsay. It's the foolish opinion that you're hanging on to support your feeble position.

He sounds as if he was told that if he didn't recant, he'd never be employed again!

I'm still waiting to hear about these 'transitional forms'. I've quoted several people saying there are NO forms leading up to the bats.

So I again ask you, give the ancestry of the bats.


Oh, I just noticed. You're muttering about Onychonycteris being the ancestor of the bats. Surprise! :crazyOnychonycteris WAS a bat . :toofunny :shades



AND it used laryngeal echolocation.


Wiki:
However, an independent evaluation of the Onychonycteris reference fossil in 2010 provided some evidence for other bone structures indicative of laryngeal echolocation, raising the possibility that Onychonycteris finneyi possessed the ability to echolocate after all.


Heh heh heh! .


Try again.


In the meantime, let me enlighten you further.


About 1000 bat fossils have been found by now - maybe more.

"We don't have any non-flying bats, and so we can't pull something out of that, any kind of information out of that, that tells us how they might have evolved" Dr. N.Czeplewski Staff Curator of Palaeontology Sam Noble Museum of Science and Natural History.


Gary Morgan:


"...There's a 10 million year period of early mammal evolution where you would guess that there'd be some sort of bat precursor but once again, nothing. Bingo, they just show up...we don't have any precursor... you get this perfectly formed bat that shows up at the earliest time period in the Eocene..."

And in case you missed it, Here's Gunther Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum in Germany:

"We have no evidence for this evolution. The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene".

From Evolution : The Grand Experiment p101.

 

[Barbarian]

Async tries again:

At the conclusion of his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton sums it up like this:
"...no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms [Darwin's many small steps] linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.

As you learned, there are many, many such transitional forms. Indeed, even Denton has been convinced. In his more recent book, Nature's Destiny, he's revised his opinions:

Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos, which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
Ppg xvii-xviii

However, if you doubt what Denton and I are telling you, feel free to name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

So you're saying that Denton is wrong.

Not any more, on that topic, anyway. ;) And I'm saying you're going to dodge my challenge about transitionals, again.

Or rather, that Denton says Denton was wrong.

He says creationism is wrong.

Which is an interesting point. When was he wrong? In Nature's Destiny, or in Crisis?

Most people learn more over time. As you see, Denton did so.

Having read both

You have? What does he have to say about circulatory vs. tracheal delivery of oxygen?

I still fail to see the logical position in Destiny as being valid.

Yep. Pity. BTW, would you show me from "A Theory in Crisis" where he endorses creationism?

He has accumulated a vast amount of information, such as would have delighted Paley - all of which points up the necessity for a Designer: of the physical, the chemical. the biochemical, the astronomical etc etc worlds.

All that "Gee whiz" stuff is of course, not based in data, but in "I don't see how this could have happened if it wasn't just poofed" kinds of thinking. But there is a sensible teleology in supposing a God that created a universe in which such things appear as He willed.

And there's evidence for that. Adrian Bejan, in Design In Nature, has demonstrated a common feature of all evolving systems that can be mathematically demonstrated to produce stable, increasingly efficient behavior. And he's not even a theist; it just came to him that the universe is set to work that way. You might want to read it; it's not complex, and you won't need more than high school math.

It's the idiot looking at the watch on Hampstead Heath, and saying that it all happened by chance.

As I showed you, nature isn't by chance. Read the book and some of the things that are troubling you will be answered.

The opinion he expresses in Destiny is totally belied by the facts he records. And the facts he records in Crisis are still facts, which you or anybody else cannot gainsay. It's the foolish opinion that you're hanging on to support your feeble position.

I can see you're unhappy the way your presentation of Denton as an authority turned out for you. But read his second book carefully (I believe you would not have presented the first quote, if you had realized what he had written in his more recent book).

He sounds as if he was told that if he didn't recant, he'd never be employed again!

Since he received an appointment as a senior research fellow in biochemistry at a New Zealand university after writing his first book and stayed there fifteen years until receiving another appointment as a research fellow (which he still holds),that seems a bit, um, speculative. If there's a persecution, it's a remarkably slow and inefficient one.

I'm still waiting to hear about these 'transitional forms'. I've quoted several people saying there are NO forms leading up to the bats.

Just showed you one. And not surprisingly, it was transitional in ways that had been predicted. Pretty good, um?

Oh, I just noticed. You're muttering about Onychonycteris being the ancestor of the bats. Surprise! Onychonycteris WAS a bat .

Just a transitional one. And yes, transitional in ways predicted prior to its discovery.

AND it used laryngeal echolocation.

As you learned, one researcher thinks that if his unconventional theory is right, and if there was a specific anatomical feature in the bat (which we don't know), then we should re-investigate the issue.

Reading carefully is important. Try it. Heh heh heh! .
Try again.


Gary Morgan:
"...There's a 10 million year period of early mammal evolution where you would guess that there'd be some sort of bat precursor but once again, nothing. Bingo, they just show up...we don't have any precursor... you get this perfectly formed bat that shows up at the earliest time period in the Eocene..."


Not quite perfectly formed. It lacks the echolocation apparatus of modern bats, it has longer hindlimbs (allowing it to walk) and shorter forelimbs (as predicted) and claws on digits. A transitional between bats and other mammals, as you learned earlier. If it could echolocate better than you can, it had to do it with a much more primitive ear than modern bats.

Surprise.

And in case you missed it, Here's Gunther Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum in Germany:

"We have no evidence for this evolution. The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene".

Gunter seems to have missed the latest news on bats. Or, since there's no cite, you might have copied from very old sources. Doesn't matter; facts shoot down anyone's opinion.

 

[Vaccine]

However, if you doubt what Denton and I are telling you, feel free to name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

Hello Barbarian! I wonder about that. Denton has been described as an intelligent design advocate by most scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

However, he seems to support "theistic" evolution:
"Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage..."

I've been told there is no difference between theistic evolution and evoltion. But that seems to be hinge on different definitions of random or chance. The International Association of Biology Teachers have one definition and theists have another. It seems to me people now recognize the need for some kind of direction or involvement for evolution to work. To me it looks like people see evolution is broken but still don't like the alternative.

 

[Sparkey]

I've quoted several people saying there are NO forms leading up to the bats.

I think that one day God just made animals that fly. The English version of the bible uses the word "birds" and/or fowl but the Hebrew isn't that precise. kanaph `owph: roughly translated as winged or flying creatures, including birds, insects, and who knows, bats too, or at least that's what I think. It's similar to the rough descriptive, "creeping things" for all manner of animals that crawl on the ground. This time it's describing all creature "of the air".

Of course this won't line up with those who insist that all things were created in the order of the simplest to the most complex.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian! I wonder about that. Denton has been described as an intelligent design advocate by most scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

However, he seems to support "theistic" evolution:

Michael Behe is a theistic evolutionist. Denton is not a Christian. He sees some kind of intelligence behind the universe, but I think he's more of a a deist or a pantheist.

"Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage..."

I can't think of one. Can you explain? The bird respiratory system, for example, is merely collateral ventilation enlarged and expanded. Which system is he talking about?

I've been told there is no difference between theistic evolution and evoltion.

Theistic evolution is merely the acknowledgement that God is the Lord, with power over nature. Evolution is a process. Evolutionary theory is the way we explain the process.

But that seems to be hinge on different definitions of random or chance.

The International Association of Biology Teachers have one definition and theists have another.

Theists vary on what they consider chance. It's really a word meaning "we don't know why."

It seems to me people now recognize the need for some kind of direction or involvement for evolution to work.

It's called "natural selection." God built it into nature to do it His way.

To me it looks like people see evolution is broken but still don't like the alternative.

Nope. God knew what He was doing. It's just that some people are uncomfortable with the way He does it. It's neither God nor His creation that needs correction.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi again Meatballsub. No I did not assume anything, you will notice that I was returning to the original post on this thread, wasn't that what this was about to start with.

It would be easier if you quoted posts then. That way, I know what you are addressing.

My reference to the Platypus is it looking like a mish mash, If my choice of words was incorrect then I apologise for that. I will reword it. Just because another creature is found that looks like a mish mash like the Platypus does, what does that prove. Lots of them in the rivers too where I live, freaky little creatures.

Then let me inform you of something. Biologists where looking for a Bird/Dinosaur long before the discovery of the several intermediate bird species. Due to the genetics of birds and the known homology of Dinosaurs, sever Hypothesis surfaced about the connections. Then low and behold, Archeopteryx. Biology predicted this discovery based on what is known by observing organisms adapt.

The theory of evolution is based on the fact that organisms adapt. Based on what is observed in nature, after so long the adaptation will build up enough that the organisms can be seperated into different groups.

Nah, I checked up about those insects and if there was new info and there was not.

Mutation is new information.

About the alphabet is not nonsensical at all. It is an example of how replicating something over and over and over does not create anything new.

With that logic, Child birth doesn't create new children. Counting doesn't produce new numbers. Write stories doesn't produce new books. The big problem is, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Mainly because you really don't care to actually research what information means in genetics.

Replicating what is already there is not adding new, its replicating.

Let me explain how traits are passed on. When a mommy and Daddy have children, the chilldren are borne with a copy of Mommy's DNA and Daddy's DNA. DNA is not perfectly copied. So all children ( even you) are born with mutations. These change the genetic information. The information is different. With the exception of Identical twins, triplets, etc. No one has the same DNA sequence. The information is different/ new.

This is new information because when the Sperm and egg cells are made again by the children, there will be even more mutations. Its different, aka new. The information is different. With the exception of Identical twins, triplets, etc. No one has the same DNA sequence. The information is different/ new.

Now if you could add wings to a horse that would be new, or legs to a worm...

We will never see this. Mainly because the modern theory of evolution and genetics both say, this won't happen.

No I don't buy it. By the way the wings hindered it and in the real world would have meant its early demise.

No, in our modern world that organism would have a hard time. Think of it this way. If a block buster opens up now, in this era of Internet video streaming and on demand video. It would fail. However, in its time it was a great business plan.

So im not allowed to imagine things "no that isn't the case" yet evolutionists can do so in showing us pictures of animals from just a tooth!

This statement is nonsense. Biologists don't make stuff off teeth. Where ever you got this information, is very dishonest.

Unless Im missing your point with it, I don't get what it has to do with evolution.

Answer me this, and please quote me so I know you answered it and don't have to by chance notice it in a popular thread, Do you understand that all evolution means is change over time? Do you understand this?

 

[Barbarian]

The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

They are, however, feathers. Turns out that some of them have been preserved in amber, and they are anatomically feathers, not hair.

The protofeathers may look very hair-like, but the researchers confirmed they were feathers by looking at them under a microscope, Wolfe said. Hair, found on mammals, has microscopic scales. Feathers, found in birds and dinosaurs, have features called nodes and internodes instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur-feathers.html

They will eventually be able to do a biochemical analysis of them. Want to make a little side bet on whether they turn out to be more like modern feathers than they are like hair?

And have you found out which lungs those are, that your source thinks couldn't possibly have evolved?

Oh, and Async, have you found that part in Denton's first book where he endorses creationism?

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Meatballsub. I would have thought that the mere mention of Archaeopteryx would be clear and obvious that it was in reference to the original post. Funny too that evolutionists have found birds that were dated by their own methods of dating that showed to be older than Archaeopteryx! Not sure what you mean about the blockbuster bit to be honest. I don't think a fly with wings that had no muscles to move them would be in a good position in any time in history. Neither would they with legs where the antennae should be as those fruit flies in those Frankenstein experiments had! So legs where antennae should be and wings that don't work would have some time or other been a good business plan? No it is not dishonest what I said about small fragments being artistically made to look like whole creatures. What about the small number of bones that were made to look like a whole whale intermediate? Or bone fragments of several creatures glued together to make it look like one? Moths glued to trees to depict an untrue/unreal scenario? Doctored skeleton's of so called early man in a museum in France? All done by evolutionists and all actual acts of dishonesty. Im very dishonest you say The evolution that I am told is evolution is microbe to man, or by some, ape man to man, others ape to man. Or simply, summed up "goo to you". I still am amazed about that bird in the forest though being any type of thing that proves evolution, other than it is just a bird that was not seen and now, its seen! I don't get what you put it up for being any proof of! They just found or documented another creature in the past few days from South America somewhere. The teddy bear something or other is its nick name. Just was never properly noticed before that's all and no biggy. For a check up on my honesty have a look at Discovery News US and the article on Nebraska Man. Or just google up "picture of Nebraska Man"

 

[Milk-Drops]

Funny too that evolutionists have found birds that were dated by their own methods of dating that showed to be older than Archaeopteryx!

I bet you don't think you need to back this up or anything. Either show us the "birds", or admit you just heard it somewhere and don't know for sure.

Not sure what you mean about the blockbuster bit to be honest.

Probably because I went to school to study biology, and you are just reading random articles with no back ground knowledge of the subject.

I don't think a fly with wings that had no muscles to move them would be in a good position in any time in history.

Neither do I. The theory of evolution doesn't state that all changes are going to be good. Its almost as if there is this mechanic that gets rid of this stuff, like Natural selection.

Neither would they with legs where the antennae should be as those fruit flies in those Frankenstein experiments had! So legs where antennae should be and wings that don't work would have some time or other been a good business plan?

Yep, not all mutations are positive. The theory of Evolution never says they all are.

No it is not dishonest what I said about small fragments being artistically made to look like whole creatures.

That isn't what you said. That means you are trying to pull some dishonest nonsense on me. Please provide evidence that Biologists create animals out of just teeth. Come one, you can do it. Its not that hard.

What about the small number of bones that were made to look like a whole whale intermediate?

You mean the multiple full skeletons of multiple organisms? I'd hardly call a full skeleton, or a nearly whole skeleton bone fragments. Please link to the specific case if you want me to take you seriously.

Or bone fragments of several creatures glued together to make it look like one?

Sorry, I don't see random claims with no backing as evidence.

Moths glued to trees to depict an untrue/unreal scenario?

Nope, considering I know exactly what you are talking about and the photos were just a presentation, however the moths themselves do perform said behavior. Mainly because the experiment itself has been duplicated a few times. You do know if you are just flipping through answers in Genesis, or a similar site, you really aren't doing any research. You are just accepting, for the most part, already debunked frauds. I actually went to college to learn this stuff. I spent a few years learning from people in the very field. I've held fossils, seen new species, done experiment with Plants and bacteria, and tracked information on wild life. I even occasionally volunteer with the biology department of a nearby college to help with clean up and conservation of some of wild life around where I live.

I've heard these arguments hundreds of times. I've seen them debunked hundreds of times.

I'm frustrated because I spent years learning abut this subject, and now I'm talking to people who probably mean well, but have been sold misinformation by hacks. Here is a humbling notion for you. What you are doing here is similar to if you just read a single issue of a car trader magazine, and now try to claim yourself knowledgeable about engine mechanics. You might know a few things, and you picked up a few people's opinions, but overall you really don't know to much about the field. Your knowledge is limited. I'm sorry you have been lied to about what the theory of evolution really is. I'm sorry your high school biology class probably skipped it due to huge controversies.

Doctored skeleton's of so called early man in a museum in France?

I bet you don't know how it was discovered to be a fraud, your copying a random article.

All done by evolutionists and all actual acts of dishonesty.

Yeah, guess what. It doesn't destroy the theory of evolution. Some random person lying doesn't change the rest of the evidence. Does anyone here other than Barbarian understand that scientific theories are dis proven by actually making a better model?

The evolution that I am told is evolution is microbe to man, or by some, ape man to man, others ape to man. Or simply, summed up "goo to you".

Who is telling you what? What is you actual educational background when it comes to the theory of evolution? You do understand that Common decent is its own theory right? You do understand that genetics is its own theory right? You do understand that theory of Evolution, proposed by Darwin merely states that Organisms adapt and change based on selection pressures right?

I still am amazed about that bird in the forest though being any type of thing that proves evolution, other than it is just a bird that was not seen and now, its seen!

I'll explain it simply. The Bird itself doesn't prove evolution. There is no one thing that proves or disproves evolution. The theory of evolution is based off of several fields of study and is a cohesive theory that binds together all of biology. Genetic information, the fossil record, homology, taxonomy, ecology, etc. all together provide observed results that is used to back up the theory.

I don't get what you put it up for being any proof of!

Specieation.

For a check up on my honesty have a look at Discovery News US and the article on Nebraska Man.

Then you should have learned that Nebraska man was not accepted by biologists as a human ancestor. Popular news media ran with the story, and the guy who made this entire thing up, even apologized when he was found out. The scientist was shamed and lost his credibility. Science never accepted Nebraska man.

 

[Barbarian]

Hi Meatballsub. I would have thought that the mere mention of Archaeopteryx would be clear and obvious that it was in reference to the original post. Funny too that evolutionists have found birds that were dated by their own methods of dating that showed to be older than Archaeopteryx!

So your argument is that if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead? It's quite common for older species to exist long after newer ones evolve. And so far, the "birds" that are older, turn out to be a mix of more than one fossil, or feathered dinosaurs.

Not sure what you mean about the blockbuster bit to be honest. I don't think a fly with wings that had no muscles to move them would be in a good position in any time in history.

The fact that flies are not really two-winged, but are actually four-winged, with one set inhibited by mutations, is consistent with evolution. On the other hand, it's inexplicable to creationism.

Neither would they with legs where the antennae should be as those fruit flies in those Frankenstein experiments had!

It merely verifies the fact of tagmosis (reduction in and modfications of body segments in arthropods). It shows that the mouthparts of insects are actually legs which have been modified by mutations to make useful organs.

What about the small number of bones that were made to look like a whole whale intermediate?

This?

An almost complete skeleton, and this is just one of several. You've been misled about that.

Or bone fragments of several creatures glued together to make it look like one?

Ironically, you cited one of those as proof. One of your "early birds" was such.

Moths glued to trees to depict an untrue/unreal scenario?

I never understood what that was about. There's a picture, where several different color morphs of moths were pinned (not glued) to a tree, to show the difference in appearance. I have a hard time believing that any creationist is naive enough to think that such an obviously posed picture (which was not presented as an unposed picture) was an attempt to deceive.

Doctored skeleton's of so called early man in a museum in France?

Never heard of it. Show us. Checkable source.

All done by evolutionists and all actual acts of dishonesty.

As you see, you were fooled about that. An actual act of dishonesty by whoever fed you that stuff.

Im very dishonest you say

I don't think you are. But you trust some dishonest people.

The evolution that I am told is evolution is microbe to man, or by some, ape man to man, others ape to man. Or simply, summed up "goo to you".

It's why you were so easy to fool. Learn about the real thing, and you'll be harder to fool.

 

[Vaccine]

Good evening MBS, "science can correct itself when new information is discovered" For example:
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]most mutant substitutions detected through comparative studies of homologous proteins (and the nucleotide sequences) are the results of random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations. This is in sharp contrast to the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that practically all mutant substitutions occurring within species in the course of evolution are caused by positive Darwinian selection[/FONT]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v267/n5608/abs/267275a0.html

This doesn't disprove my point, or evolution. Its stating that not all mutation are positive, I'll end that with a DUH!

You were asserting mutations as a source of evolution. The latest evidence says otherwise.

"These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955616

Yep, I'm familar with this. I took classes on taxonomy and Phylogeny.

Are you saying you learned about that in your taxonomy and phylogeny classes? That article is from 2012.

Another correction:

The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

Yeah, this is just nit picking.

I personally don't care to much about whether people accept the theory of Evolution. I just want to clear up the misconceptions around the theory.

I question the sincerity of someone who calls a correction "nitpicking".

 

[Milk-Drops]

You were asserting mutations as a source of evolution. The latest evidence says otherwise.

Present the latest evidence that states that Mutations don't change organisms and helps trigger newer adaptations. If your evidence doesn't state this, then you are misrepresenting it. Also, produce your educational back ground.

I question the sincerity of someone who calls a correction "nitpicking".

Considering your correction is based on you denying the origin of feathers, my call was justified.

I also call your sincerity into question considering you are trying to call evolution out for not being scientific when you can't even produce an actual scientific model yourself, and when called out on it and asked about it, you'll play games and refuse to give straight answers. Even use studies you have been repeatedly told don't say what you claim they say. Not to mention when you are called out on a quote mine, you flat out said you didn't care and ignored its context.

So you calling out my sincerity means next to nothing when it comes from someone who I can't trust with being able to display basic information and academic honesty.

 

[Vaccine]

They are, however, feathers. Turns out that some of them have been preserved in amber, and they are anatomically feathers, not hair.

You are confusing Sinosauropteryx with the feathers found in amber. One has nothing to do with the other.

The so-called feathered Sinosauropteryx:
The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

The protofeathers may look very hair-like, but the researchers confirmed they were feathers by looking at them under a microscope, Wolfe said. Hair, found on mammals, has microscopic scales. Feathers, found in birds and dinosaurs, have features called nodes and internodes instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur-feathers.html

They will eventually be able to do a biochemical analysis of them. Want to make a little side bet on whether they turn out to be more like modern feathers than they are like hair?

You would lose that bet since they have already determined Sinosauropteryx did not have modern feathers. The article you linked to was about feathers found in amber and had nothing to do with Sinosauropteryx. Then again MBS didn't cite any source for his feathered dinosaur, so I just linked to Sinosauropteryx to show how science can correct errors. However, there were some red flags in the article you linked to: "Feathers believed to be from dinosaurs have been found beautifully preserved in Alberta amber.
The primitive, hair-like feathers known as protofeathers likely belonged to theropods"

There were some comments about the feathers found in amber in the Scientific journal:
McKellar et al. (Reports, 16 September 2011, p. 1619) analyzed Late Cretaceous amber specimens from Canada and identified some filaments as dinosaurian protofeathers. We argue that their analysis and data do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that such filaments are feather-like structures. Further investigation, including destructive sampling, must be carried out for more convincing conclusions.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/796.2.abstract

And their answer:

unequivocal assignment to either birds or dinosaurs remains impossible, as we stated originally.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/796.3.short

And have you found out which lungs those are, that your source thinks couldn't possibly have evolved?

I think Async posted this before, but here's a link:
http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/NetCevap/147849/The-Unique-Structure-of-Avian-Lung-Refutes-Evolution

 

[Vaccine]

You were asserting mutations as a source of evolution. The latest evidence says otherwise.

Present the latest evidence that states that Mutations don't change organisms and helps trigger newer adaptations. If your evidence doesn't state this, then you are misrepresenting it.

The latest evidence is "The whole Human Genome Structure uses the Universal Genetic Code Table as a tuning model. It predetermines global codons proportions and populations. The Universal Genetic Code Table governs both micro and macro behavior of the genome"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12539-010-0022-0#

“ENCODE project has concluded 80% of the genome is reproducibly transcribed, bound to proteins, or has its chromatin specifically modified.” The C-Value paradox, junk DNA, and ENCODE by Sean R Eddy HHMI Janelia Farm Research Campus Ashburn, VA

What those mean are this is not a source for evolution anymore:
"...the sequence can be changed and duplicated. This adds new information since the combination of the proteins determines the function"

 

[Milk-Drops]

The latest evidence is "The whole Human Genome Structure uses the Universal Genetic Code Table as a tuning model. It predetermines global codons proportions and populations. The Universal Genetic Code Table governs both micro and macro behavior of the genome"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12539-010-0022-0#

Liar liar pants on fire. The very article Barbarian has does not say what you think it says. There is no universal code. The genome we have came through billions of years of adaptation.

“ENCODE project has concluded 80% of the genome is reproducibly transcribed, bound to proteins, or has its chromatin specifically modified.” The C-Value paradox, junk DNA, and ENCODE by Sean R Eddy HHMI Janelia Farm Research Campus Ashburn, VA

This does not say what you think it does. You don't understand how genetics works. Guess what, DNA copies itself, by copying itself. Its almost like we've known this for years. Also, did you notice that 80% is not 100% meaning there is about 20% of the genome that mutates. Wow, its almost like ignoring data that doesn't correspond to your viewpoint.

What those mean are this is not a source for evolution anymore:

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution means change over time. look there is about 20% of genome that changes. Evolution still stands, because I don't know, maybe because this experiment, the fossil record, genetics, and taxonomy, all correspond to show the same.

I still don't understand the idea of lying for Jesus is. Whats the point?

 

[Vaccine]

@Meatballsub I notice your post is awful heavy with personal attacks and light with facts. I wonder how anyone expects to grow if they respond in such a way anytime someone posts something that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've quoted several people saying there are NO forms leading up to the bats.

I think that one day God just made animals that fly. The English version of the bible uses the word "birds" and/or fowl but the Hebrew isn't that precise. kanaph `owph: roughly translated as winged or flying creatures, including birds, insects, and who knows, bats too, or at least that's what I think. It's similar to the rough descriptive, "creeping things" for all manner of animals that crawl on the ground. This time it's describing all creature "of the air".

Of course this won't line up with those who insist that all things were created in the order of the simplest to the most complex.

I believe that you're perfectly correct.

Evolution seems to say that He made dozens of errors and practice runs, and the fossils are those remnants.

Unfortunately for that idea, each fossil is perfect and shows no signs of error. They may have perished because of climatic changes, but not because of design faults.

 

[Asyncritus]

MBS, why do you keep on about this business of lying? Nobody here lies to prove anything.

Why not tone down the remarks about lying and dishonesty? You wouldn't like it if everyone accused you of lying and dishonesty, so why do it to other people?

Doesn't Jesus say 'Love your neighbour AS YOURSELF'? How about trying that for a while? You'll be a lot happier, and so will we!