I see a lot a rebuttal but I don't see any substance.
Evidence is not what most creationists accept. But that's how science works.
Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures. Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “casts doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.â€
Most likely afarensis is close to the line that led to us, but not directly on it. That's been known for some time. However...
Which do you think is most like a human? Which is most like an ape? What about the remaining one seems intermediate? Let us know.
This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,†conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.
I doubt that very much. As you see, two of them lack the "simian shelf" that internally strengthens the ape jaw, having instead the external bracing of a chin. Note also the dention of two of them is quite different than the third. It's an interesting story you have to tell, but as you see, the evidence doesn't support it.
Barbarian chuckles:
You've confused the material with the plans. Why don't you revise this and try again?
Yes, you have.
All life has a DNA structure.
But it isn't DNA that counts. It's the similarity of DNA that determines relationships, just as we use it for paternity and other human relationships.
The plans are certainly not the same unless you're arms reach your knees and you're covered by hair Mr. Barbarian. ;)
Being of northern European ancestry, I have a few Neandertal traits, but the genetic evidence shows Neandertals were about as far removed from chimps as we are. They are our closest non-human relatives.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, totally chaotic systems have more information that highly ordered ones. Do you understand what "information" is?
I have little doubt that when you state "totally chaotic systems have more information that highly ordered ones " you will refer to things such as snowflakes, stalactites, and sand dunes etc...
No. Daily weather, stock market fluctuations over short runs, turbulent systems, and so on.
However these are examples of patterns. These fall under the scientific category as “chaos and fractals†and are very well understood, and are experienced every day.
None of the things you mentioned are "chaos and fractals." I spent a good amount of time in graduate school on such issues, and you don't know much about them.
The information I am referring to is much more complicated and relevant to this discussion in relation to creation verses evolution.
Consider codes for example...symbolic codes such as music, languages computer programs, blue prints and DNA.
Chaos can produce patterns; it cannot produce a code or symbols my friend. If it can, then please give any examples.
The most recent result was a DNA code that gave the descendants of the man who had the mutation, rather good resistance to hardening of the arteries. Another is the observed evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. Another is the frameshift mutation that gave bacteria the ability to metabolize nylon oligomeres.
Information is a separate entity on an equal level with matter and energy.
No. Information is an epiphenomenon of matter and energy.
Now let’s look at DNA.
Is DNA a pattern? Well DNA is not simply a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language and an information storage mechanism.
And we know that random mutations to the code can produce beneficial changes. Which is all that evolution needs.
Every code known to mankind is created by a conscience mind.
Since the universe was created by a conscious mind, even natural things like DNA fit that category.
Therefore DNA is designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of God.
It is highly disrespectful to suggest God "designs" like a mere creature. He is the Creator.
Barbarian observes:
Same old DNA. You see evolution doesn't proceed by making totally new things. It's always a modification of existing things.
OK, so please explain how a so called simple single cell which has no DNA information for an arm for example could modify in order to accomplish this task.
First, you'd need a colonial animal like a sponge. But since sponge cells very closely resemble single-celled organisms, that's not much of a change. Then you'd need to have some way of differentiation. HOX genes, clearly modified versions of organisms without tissues do that. And then, limb buds can be mere bumps and slowly modify to appendages as they become useful. Would you like to learn the evidence for this?
With respect, you really don’t have a good grasp on the theory of genetic evolution...at least not macro evolution.
I've spent about 50 years in the study of biology. Boy, did you get a wrong number.
No one is arguing against micro evolution. We see micro evolution happening all the time.
And macroevolution from time to time. Did you know that most "creation scientists" now admit that new species evolve?
However macro evolution – Darwinian evolution is not found in the fossils, or DNA. Every example of macro evolution to date has either been an outright fraud, or has been found false alarms.
Take the so called whale evolution.
I can remember a time when creationists declared that the discovery of a whale with functional legs would make them into evolutionists. Then we found some. Their response? "Can't be a whale, whales don't have legs." That's the kind of dishonesty we see among them.
Evolutionist artists took some sparse bone fragments and in their extreme desire to “prove†their preconceptions and biases, they “created†some extremely important MISSING bones (bones which were never part of the actual animals anatomy, because it was never a transitional animal at all) which conveniently enabled their imaginary transitional animal to swim in a way that was most definantly not possible without the specific artistically added parts! That is desperate at best and fraudulent in reality.
Well, let's take a look...
Surprise.
The most amazing thing about Darwinian evolution which is completely ignored by evolutionists, or simply unknown, is that if we take Darwinian evolution as fact, for sake of debate, then it would be a fact that the “transitional†intermediate fossils would constitute the vast majority of the fossil record, but as ardent and well known late evolution superstar Steven J. Gould stated,
It would, if evolution was generally slow and gradual. But the evidence shows that it is more often brief periods of change, in response to environmental change, followed by long periods of stasis.
(a bit of quote mining now)
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branche s; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
- Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
And Gould's comment on such edited fakery:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
Now, I'm pretty sure you aren't the one who doctored together that quote. It's a commonly used one, by the professional creationists, who depend on ignorance to sell it. But it should teach you to be cautious about believing them.
Now I know evolutionists will become enraged at this quote and will scream out the inevitable defence mantra “quote mining!â€
In fact, Gould himself takes you to task for that misrepresentation.
The fact is that this quote is exactly as stated and reflects one of the most devastating “trade secrets†of evolution theory...the graduated transitional fossils are not there my friends.
Notice that Gould says they are. In fact, he also says that there are a number of examples of slow and gradual evolution, citing horses, ammonites ,and others.
Barbarian asks:
What materials would you find in a high rise that are entirely absent from a bungalow? More importantly, what structure do you find in a human that could not have evolved from something simpler?
I’ll answer your question with another question.
A straight answer will be fine, thank you. If you can't do that, we'll note it and go on.
You can order multiple pieces of any material. You can attach any materials together. This is what you claim happens in evolution...
No. It's what they told you the theory says. The fact that we don't see "attaching any materials together" is another reason the theory is accepted.
So you can modify the material but you cannot order any new materials that are not already in the original bungalow. You can only use the tools and equipment that were used to build the bungalow. For example; if you can build a high rise super crane from a bobcat or forklift then go ahead my friend.
Again, you're supposing that's what evolutionary theory says. As Everett Dirkson used to say, you're down on the stuff you aren't up on.
As for the biological question; You are aware that no scientist has ever created life in the lab right?
The theory isn't about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, thought God just created the first living things.
Isn’t it odd that evolutionists believe a fluke, random non intelligent accident produced everything,
It's odd you actually think that's what they say.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, that's deeply wrong. Gene duplication, followed by mutation seems to be a most important part of evolution. Would you like to learn about it?
Yep. For example, that enzyme against hardening of the arteries came about that way.
Wow that’s amazing because scientists across the board know this to be fact.
Show us.
While natural selection and beneficial mutations “may increase an organism’s adaptation,†no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions†for building a new physical trait).
The enzyme is both a trait and physical. So you're wrong again.
All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether.
Yep. Most do very little. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.
It’s not surprising that one of the most well-known evolutionists openly criticized the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. On the faculties of Harvard and New York University, the late Stephen Jay Gould was the author of over 15 books on scientific topics and contributed monthly essays to the periodical Natural History since January 1974. His essays have also appeared in other scientific periodicals and his work can be found quoted in educational textbooks at all levels. He wrote that although he had been “beguiled†by the unifying power of neo-Darwinism when he studied it as a graduate student in the 1960s, the weight of the evidence pushed him to the reluctant conclusion that neo-Darwinism “as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.â€
Darwin was wrong about some things. Neo-Darwinists more accurately described evolution, and the New Synthesis was even more accurate, and now with Punctuated Equillibrium, still more accurate. If you check chemistry, you'll find the same process. It doesn't mean Dalton was wrong to infer atoms and atomic mass; it just means we know more about it now, even if Dalton's theory is dead.
Today, there is a growing realization that the presently accepted concept of natural selection and mutations really explains nothing of evolutionary significance.
Even most non-scientists would know that your claim is false.
One leading creationist summarized the situation well: “All of our real world experience, especially in today’s ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.â€
And yet, such processes produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Maybe your "leading creationist" should have paid attention in class, um?
In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.
So you think there's an intelligence in hurricanes? Information arises there, and we can detect it. And it's pretty easy to show that every mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers?
