Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[iouae]

Paleontologist Kurt Wise says the best interpretation of the evidence fits the Biblical account of a young earth. He says "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".

I have explained all this before, but for you 6days, I will explain it again.

This Wise Guy is one voice, and not an Apostle, so his is just an opinion.

Your rejection of Genesis has lead you to your heretical beliefs, and your idolatry. You have placed yourself above Him...as if you can be His judge.

God is happy to confess His mistakes You could take a leaf out of His book.

Scripture tells us that God is not like man who changes His mind. He tells us "For I, the LORD, do not change".

I love God because He DOES change His mind and answer my prayers.
He does not change His plan or good character. If He does not change then He could not create.

So with Gen. 6:6, should we interpret that to mean God does change His mind? If that is true, then on what basis do we trust other things in scripture?... Our salvation is on pretty shaky ground if God changes his mind and makes mistakes. As many theologians suggest the word 'repented' is anthromophic, to help us understand how grieved God's heart was. Even the word 'heart' is anthromorphic in this verse. We should use scripture to help interpret Scripture... God is unchanging.

God has emotions. He has heart as well as brain. Look at times He is busy punishing, say Israel, and repents and relents, and ceases punishing. If God did not change His mind, then He was a liar saying Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days.

Humans became mortal when first Adam sinned.

I thought Adam was created from dust of the ground and air breathed by God into his lungs.

No... you are confusing distance with time.

Does the Wise Guy think that the speed of light c changes? Light from distant galaxies formed 13 billion years ago, has travelled at c for 13 billion years to get here across the vast expanse of the universe. All scientists in the mainstream know the universe is huge and that it takes light longer than 6000 years to get here.

Science helps confirm the truth of God's word and shows us how most of the dinosaurs died. Dinosaurs died and were buried rapidly in water-borne sediment. This is puzzling to secularists. https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/dinosaur-death-pose-mystery

Agreed - due to a meteor strike and resulting tsunami.

Playing word gymnastics with God's Word, has lead you into heretical beliefs of a God who makes mistakes. Here is what God says about the cosmos in the creation account. (from Youngs Literal) "16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth...19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth."

I explained to you before, that one cannot measure day one, and have an evening and morning comprise the first day, unless the sun was there from the get-go to measure days.

Ex. 20:11 God tells us He created "everything" in six days.

Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,...

Note this is the three parts of earth, not the Cosmos.

We could also look at a variety of other verses but I think the only place that the word Cosmos is used in scripture is Romans 1:20 Paul tells us that the invisible things of God have been seen and percieved since the creation of the world. The Greek word used here is 'kosmos... the orderly universe. along with the Greek words 'Noeo' and 'horao'. Paul clearly is placing human intelligence existing from the time of the creation of the cosmos... the creation account in Genesis 1

The angels were there at creation of the Cosmos to marvel and sing for joy. Job 38;4-7

Science says nothing.

At least you are honest about your disdain for mainstream science, while feeling free to quote fringe science with authority.

Science is the method of how we investigate the world around us. God's Word tells us that in six days He created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them. (stars and humans in the six days) Science is one of the ways that helps confirm the truth of God's word.

You would be amazed at how mainstream science confirms the truth of God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Clete, have you considered the concept of what the Intelligent Design people call "front-loading", wherein God builds into His creation, the ability of life to adapt and change to produce the different kinds of living things?

I've not ever heard it discussed specifically, no. It is clear, however, that living things can and do adapt to their environment to one degree or another. The production of "different kinds" of living things is a loaded statement. Poodles and Rotweilers are "different kinds" of dogs, but they're still dogs. There are tens of thousands of different kinds of spiders but they are all still spiders.

Why do you ask?

I ask because it's a theologically sound way of coming to grips with the evidence for evolution of new kinds of living things. And yes, "kinds" is a very vague term. The differences between spiders is vast, because there are so many different um, "sorts" of spiders. Much more diverse group than primates, for example. However, just as spiders have mites as a transitional form, so do primates have tree shrews, which are sometimes considered to be primates, and sometimes considered to be insectivores.

In the long view, all known living things on Earth are the same "kind", with documented genetic relationships. You have about as much in common with bacteria as way in which you differ, genetically.

That being said, all things are possible with God, and He could have poofed all the different kinds into existence, with genomes that only looked like common descent. There is no conceivable evidence that could absolutely prove that He did not do it so, other than the observation that God is Truth, and would not be deceptive. But that is a theological argument; not everyone agrees with it, and it has no place in a scientific argument.

The pre-loading argument is consistent with scripture as written, consistent with the evidence, and acknowledges God's role in creation. The difficulty is that it is not consistent with many modern doctrines of creationism.

In the past, creationists were good with many millions of years, but many now have moved to a position that demands the Earth be only a few thousand years old.

I don't see a way around that for YE creationists.

Again, pardon the bluntness. But I'd be happy to hear your ideas, blunt or not.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence for evolution. You guys really do need to take a class in sound reasoning. Everything you guys claim as evidence isn't evidence, it's just another claim. You find a fossil that is similar to another fossil and CLAIM that it is evidence of evolution. You find similar genetics in animals with similar biology (BIG SURPRISE THERE!) and CLAIM that it not just evidence but proof of evolution. The idiot in that video even goes so far as to make the argument in relation to the human's genetic similarity to apes, "Can it just be coincidence?"

It goes beyond that. Although we can test the issue of DNA similarity by seeing if it works for organisms of known descent (it does), even more convincing is the chromosome evidence.

Humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other apes. But one human chromosome looks just like two ape chromosomes together. On inspection, the remains of a telomere (end of a chromosome) is found right where the fusion would happen. There are other known fusions, BTW; Domestic horses have one less pair than Prezwalski's horse, with a fusion of chromosomes 23 and 24.

Interestingly, research has indicated that the surviving telomere now has evolved a new function in humans not found in apes. It has become a part of another gene which again, does not exist in apes.

So much of evolution is like that. Darwin made the point that vestigial (he called them "rudimentary") features often evolve a new function after losing the old. Our appendix, for example, no longer is necessary for digesting plant material, but serves as a refuge for normal bacterial flora in the event of an intestinal infection, and has Peyer's Patches, which contain WBCs.

 

[The Barbarian]

Another honest creationist testified:
"My belief as far as the time of the flood is concerned is based largely on Scripture...My opinion, not so much based on science as based on my confidence in Scripture, is that it is just a few thousand years old, life upon this Earth."
Dr. Harold Coffin, McLean vs. Arkansas

Coffin also said that were it not for his understanding of scripture, he could accept that the world was many millions of years old.

"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

COFFIN: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

COFFIN: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible."
Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, I believe Darwin had problems with the Cambrian explosion.

It's not surprising. In his time there were no known pre-Cambrian fossils.

But he believed that with more fossils, we would see a connection between Pre-Cambrian (Ediacaran) biota, and Cambrian biota.

Although one such fossil had been found by 1868, it was incorrectly assigned to the Cambrian. Darwin had no idea of the extensive Precambrian biota, including some forms that appear to be precursors of Cambrian animals.

This little bilaterally-symmetrical organism with a segmented body organization and a clear shield of sorts at the front, resembles a sort of worm or trilobite.

There are complete lists of Precambrian multicellular animals, and Cambrian multicellular animals. There is still no connection between the two lists.

See above. Even more interesting, we find that the exoskeletons of the Cambrian animals had antecedents in the Ediacaran:



Geological Magazine
Volume 152, Issue 6
November 2015 , pp. 1145-1148
Ecdysozoan-like sclerites among Ediacaran microfossils

MAŁGORZATA MOCZYDŁOWSKA (a1), GRAHAM E. BUDD (a1) and HEDA AGIĆ (a1)
https://doi.org/10.1017/S001675681500045X
Published online: 05 August 2015

We report the occurrence of organically preserved microfossils from the subsurface Ediacaran strata overlying the East European Platform in Poland, in the form of sclerites and cuticle fragments of larger organisms. They are morphologically similar to those known from Cambrian strata and associated with various metazoan fossils of recognized phyla. The Ediacaran age of the microfossils is evident from the stratigraphic position below the base of the Cambrian System and above the isotopically dated tuff layers at c. 551±4Ma. Within this strata interval, other characteristic Ediacaran microorganisms co-occur such as cyanobacteria, vendotaenids, microalgae, Ceratophyton, Valkyria and macroscopic annelidan Sabellidites. The recent contributions of organic sclerites in revealing the scope of the Cambrian explosion are therefore also potentially extendable back to the Ediacaran Period when animals first appear in the fossil record.

The beginning of the Cambrian marked a sort of arms race between predators and prey:

The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the Late Ediacaran and Early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span.

Some of the fossils represent the entire skeletons of small organisms, including the mysterious Cloudina and some snail-like molluscs. However, the bulk of the fossils are fragments or disarticulated remains of larger organisms, including sponges, molluscs, slug-like halkieriids, brachiopods, echinoderms, and onychophoran-like organisms that may have been close to the ancestors of arthropods.

One of the early explanations for the appearance of the SSFs – and therefore the evolution of mineralized skeletons – suggested a sudden increase in the ocean's concentration of calcium. However, many SSFs are constructed of other minerals, such as silica. Because the first SSFs appear around the same time as organisms first started burrowing to avoid predation, it is more likely that they represent early steps in an evolutionary arms race between predators and increasingly well-defended prey. On the other hand, mineralized skeletons may have evolved simply because they are stronger and cheaper to produce than all-organic skeletons like those of insects. Nevertheless, it is still true that the animals used minerals that were most easily accessible.

Although the small size and often fragmentary nature of SSFs makes it difficult to identify and classify them, they provide very important evidence for how the main groups of marine invertebrates evolved, and particularly for the pace and pattern of evolution in the Cambrian explosion. Besides including the earliest known representatives of some modern phyla, they have the great advantage of presenting a nearly continuous record of Early Cambrian organisms whose bodies include hard parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_shelly_fauna

The Ediacarans died out and (almost) all the modern Phyla appear in the Cambrian. That is a creation event.

Apparently not. While the vast number of Ediacaran organisms died out at the beginning of the Cambrian, some of them gave rise to new forms. This is surely as much a creation event as the Earth bringing forth Precambrian forms.

Thanks for your posts.

And my thanks for your thought-provoking ideas.

 

[Nihilo]

. . . all things are possible with God, and He could have poofed all the different kinds into existence, with genomes that only looked like common descent. There is no conceivable evidence that could absolutely prove that He did not do it so

This is basically what I believe. It's the "appearance of age" idea.

, other than the observation that God is Truth, and would not be deceptive.

And I don't think He's deceptive, because He said it took Him all of six days to create this.

But that is a theological argument; not everyone agrees with it, and it has no place in a scientific argument.

I agree, and I don't advance it in scientific discussions. Basically, whatever scientists think happened, I fold that into the appearance of age I mentioned above. There's no inherent contradiction between what credentialed and serious scientists say things look like, and God creating things to look that way rather recently.

 

[Clete]

Barbarian asks:
Clete, have you considered the concept of what the Intelligent Design people call "front-loading", wherein God builds into His creation, the ability of life to adapt and change to produce the different kinds of living things?



I ask because it's a theologically sound way of coming to grips with the evidence for evolution of new kinds of living things. And yes, "kinds" is a very vague term. The differences between spiders is vast, because there are so many different um, "sorts" of spiders. Much more diverse group than primates, for example. However, just as spiders have mites as a transitional form, so do primates have tree shrews, which are sometimes considered to be primates, and sometimes considered to be insectivores.

In the long view, all known living things on Earth are the same "kind", with documented genetic relationships. You have about as much in common with bacteria as way in which you differ, genetically.

That being said, all things are possible with God, and He could have poofed all the different kinds into existence, with genomes that only looked like common descent. There is no conceivable evidence that could absolutely prove that He did not do it so, other than the observation that God is Truth, and would not be deceptive. But that is a theological argument; not everyone agrees with it, and it has no place in a scientific argument.

The pre-loading argument is consistent with scripture as written, consistent with the evidence, and acknowledges God's role in creation. The difficulty is that it is not consistent with many modern doctrines of creationism.

In the past, creationists were good with many millions of years, but many now have moved to a position that demands the Earth be only a few thousand years old.

I don't see a way around that for YE creationists.

Again, pardon the bluntness. But I'd be happy to hear your ideas, blunt or not.

I've never seen any evidence for evolution and so don't need a special kind of theological paradigm to get around it or to live with it.

All of the so called evidence is only (at best) data interpreted by those who already think evolution happened. It's the clearest example of worldview/paradigm level question begging that I can think of. Calvinists make a similar error when they read the bible and "see" their doctrine written in it's pages. Just as the Calvinist brings their doctrine to passages of Scripture and then turns around and calls it evidence, so the evolutionist brings evolution to his view of the data and thereby "sees" all kinds of evidence that isn't really there. It's just a bunch of pink stuff as seen through rose colored glasses.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

I've never seen any evidence for evolution and so don't need a special kind of theological paradigm to get around it or to live with it.

Well, that's why there are creationists. Not everyone agrees about that. The good news is that it doesn't matter to your salvation.

All of the so called evidence is only (at best) data interpreted by those who already think evolution happened.

If that was true, Darwin and Huxley would have remained opposed to evolution.

It's the clearest example of worldview/paradigm level question begging that I can think of.

Even many YE creationists accept that there is a lot of evidence for evolution. That's why I think the idea of front-loading can help.

Calvinists make a similar error when they read the bible and "see" their doctrine written in it's pages. Just as the Calvinist brings their doctrine to passages of Scripture and then turns around and calls it evidence, so the evolutionist brings evolution to his view of the data and thereby "sees" all kinds of evidence that isn't really there.

One might say gravitationists bring gravity to their view of the data. It's hard to deny things that are directly observed to happen. And I realize that Darwin's theory has been directly observed to be true, while common descent of all living things on Earth(a consequence of his theory) cannot be directly observed any more than the position of Halley's Comet 10,000 years ago can be directly observed,even if we can use the evidence to find out what it was. However, there is considerable evidence for common descent, including genetic data and the existence of transitional forms where they are predicted to be and never where they should not be.

Reading back, that sounds a bit blunt. However, we seem to be able to talk this way to each other without being offended. So I'll leave it. Feel free to lay on as you see fit.

 

[Clete]

It goes beyond that. Although we can test the issue of DNA similarity by seeing if it works for organisms of known descent (it does), even more convincing is the chromosome evidence.

Humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other apes. But one human chromosome looks just like two ape chromosomes together. On inspection, the remains of a telomere (end of a chromosome) is found right where the fusion would happen. There are other known fusions, BTW; Domestic horses have one less pair than Prezwalski's horse, with a fusion of chromosomes 23 and 24.

Interestingly, research has indicated that the surviving telomere now has evolved a new function in humans not found in apes. It has become a part of another gene which again, does not exist in apes.

So much of evolution is like that. Darwin made the point that vestigial (he called them "rudimentary") features often evolve a new function after losing the old. Our appendix, for example, no longer is necessary for digesting plant material, but serves as a refuge for normal bacterial flora in the event of an intestinal infection, and has Peyer's Patches, which contain WBCs.

NONE OF THAT IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

I wish that there was some sort of magic set of words that I could use that would make you see it. I really honestly do wish that.

Everything you've said here is evidence that humans and apes are biologically similar. That's all it's evidence of! It does not argue FOR evolution because if God created both humans and apes, there's no reason to think that He would have to reinvent the wheel every time He made a different creature. What works for apes would work equally well for humans and where a difference is needed or desired then a difference is made. The differences don't have to mean a complete re-engineering of the entire system. If two creatures have similar biology one would expect them to have similar DNA whether they were created or whether they evolved. A piece of data that can work equally well as an argument on either side of the debate, doesn't count as evidence for either side. And if I have to be an evolutionist in order to see a piece of data as evidence for evolution then that's called begging the question and, therefore, that piece of data isn't evidence either. Every piece of "evidence" for evolution that I can ever recall being presented with falls into that category.

Take the comment you made about mites being a transitional form of spider (arachnid - whatever). It isn't a transitional form at all. Spiders and mites both have eight legs (usually) and sort of look like similar creatures but their life cycles are dramatically different and there is no evidence at all that spiders used to be mites or that mites are somehow on their way to becoming spiders nor is there any such creature that is sort of neither a spider nor a mite but something inbetween the two. I think I mentioned in a previous post that Darwin's "slight successive variations" has been turned into "significant quantum leaps". Mites just very simply are not "transitional forms" and the only reason you see them as such is because you think evolution happened. That is THE ONLY reason!

Clete

P.S. I'll let this post stand as response to your post 128. It essentially makes the same points as I covered here (i.e. what you see as genetic evidence and transitional forms are seen because of your evolutionary paradigm, not because they stand as actual evidence.)

 

[The Barbarian]

NONE OF THAT IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

I'll explain why I think it is, in a moment.

I wish that there was some sort of magic set of words that I could use that would make you see it. I really honestly do wish that.

Maybe, we can eventually make some progress to at least understand the thinking of each other.

Everything you've said here is evidence that humans and apes are biologically similar.

Much more than that. It's evidence, for example, of a chromosome fusion, wherein two chromosomes became a single one, accounting for the difference in chromosome number. We find numerous transitional forms between forest apes and modern humans, intermediate in many different characteristics.

It does not argue FOR evolution because if God created both humans and apes, there's no reason to think that He would have to reinvent the wheel every time He made a different creature. What works for apes would work equally well for humans and where a difference is needed or desired then a difference is made.

This is an important point. If God made similar organisms, and did it by separately creating them, he would surely use the same components again,and again. So we would see the same sorts of structures for apes and humans, dolphins and sharks, bats and birds, and so on. Those things functionally alike would be biologically and genetically alike as well.

But this is not what we see. dolphins are functionally very like sharks, but they are genetically and anatomically more like us than like sharks.

On the other hand, we and ostriches are bipeds, but we are genetically more like quadrupedal primates.

This goes to homology vs. analogy. Dolphins and sharks are analogous, but they aren't homlogous. They are functionally quite similar, but the actual structures are quite different. The fact that dolphins swim with vertical movements and sharks swim with horizontal movements is due to their ancestry. The first whales had no flukes, and used broad rear feet to swim as otters do, which is a modified running movement common to mammals. Sharks move laterally, because the first chordates used that movement, and passed it on to fish.

Many, many such examples show that evolution is the only adequate way to understand life's diversity.

The differences don't have to mean a complete re-engineering of the entire system. If two creatures have similar biology one would expect them to have similar DNA whether they were created or whether they evolved.

Let's look at that primates,(including humans) and guinea pigs have similar biology with regard to vitamin C. Both of them have a gene to produce vitamin C, but it's broken, and no longer works. Because both primates and Guinea pigs have diets that normally give them all the vitamin C they need, it doesn't matter that a mutation inactivated the gene in primates.

But the gene in humans is broken in the save way as it is in every other primate. And it's different than the way it's broken in Guinea pigs. So same biology, but a different genetic change. And the change happens to fit nicely into the prediction of evolutionary theory that it should be different in Guinea pigs.

A piece of data that can work equally well as an argument on either side of the debate, doesn't count as evidence for either side. And if I have to be an evolutionist in order to see a piece of data as evidence for evolution then that's called begging the question and, therefore, that piece of data isn't evidence either. Every piece of "evidence" for evolution that I can ever recall being presented with falls into that category.

I don't see how you can put a creationist interpretation on this. As Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record of whales is not comprehensible in creationist thinking. Granted, he puts faith in his understanding of scripture ahead of evidence; he quite honestly says so. And one has to give him credit for maintaining his faith.

Take the comment you made about mites being a transitional form of spider (arachnid - whatever). It isn't a transitional form at all. Spiders and mites both have eight legs (usually) and sort of look like similar creatures but their life cycles are dramatically different

Spiders themselves have dramatically different lifestyles. Mammals do, too.

and there is no evidence at all that spiders used to be mites or that mites are somehow on their way to becoming spiders nor is there any such creature that is sort of neither a spider nor a mite but something inbetween the two.

That's not what a transitional is. Archaeopteryx is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. However it is not an ancestor to birds, but an offshoot from the line that led to birds. Transitional forms are those that have apomorphic characters of two different groups.

Mites have a number of characteristics of less evolved chelicerates, and a few of those of spiders.

I think I mentioned in a previous post that Darwin's "slight successive variations" has been turned into "significant quantum leaps". Mites just very simply are not "transitional forms" and the only reason you see them as such is because you think evolution happened. That is THE ONLY reason!

Do you think this is a spider or a mite? Or what?

 

[User Name]

There is no evidence for evolution.

:rotfl:

 

[Clete]

I'll explain why I think it is, in a moment.



Maybe, we can eventually make some progress to at least understand the thinking of each other.



Much more than that. It's evidence, for example, of a chromosome fusion, wherein two chromosomes became a single one, accounting for the difference in chromosome number. We find numerous transitional forms between forest apes and modern humans, intermediate in many different characteristics.



This is an important point. If God made similar organisms, and did it by separately creating them, he would surely use the same components again,and again. So we would see the same sorts of structures for apes and humans, dolphins and sharks, bats and birds, and so on. Those things functionally alike would be biologically and genetically alike as well.

But this is not what we see. dolphins are functionally very like sharks, but they are genetically and anatomically more like us than like sharks.

On the other hand, we and ostriches are bipeds, but we are genetically more like quadrupedal primates.

This goes to homology vs. analogy. Dolphins and sharks are analogous, but they aren't homlogous. They are functionally quite similar, but the actual structures are quite different. The fact that dolphins swim with vertical movements and sharks swim with horizontal movements is due to their ancestry. The first whales had no flukes, and used broad rear feet to swim as otters do, which is a modified running movement common to mammals. Sharks move laterally, because the first chordates used that movement, and passed it on to fish.

Many, many such examples show that evolution is the only adequate way to understand life's diversity.



Let's look at that primates,(including humans) and guinea pigs have similar biology with regard to vitamin C. Both of them have a gene to produce vitamin C, but it's broken, and no longer works. Because both primates and Guinea pigs have diets that normally give them all the vitamin C they need, it doesn't matter that a mutation inactivated the gene in primates.

But the gene in humans is broken in the save way as it is in every other primate. And it's different than the way it's broken in Guinea pigs. So same biology, but a different genetic change. And the change happens to fit nicely into the prediction of evolutionary theory that it should be different in Guinea pigs.



I don't see how you can put a creationist interpretation on this. As Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record of whales is not comprehensible in creationist thinking. Granted, he puts faith in his understanding of scripture ahead of evidence; he quite honestly says so. And one has to give him credit for maintaining his faith.



Spiders themselves have dramatically different lifestyles. Mammals do, too.



That's not what a transitional is. Archaeopteryx is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. However it is not an ancestor to birds, but an offshoot from the line that led to birds. Transitional forms are those that have apomorphic characters of two different groups.

Mites have a number of characteristics of less evolved chelicerates, and a few of those of spiders.



Do you think this is a spider or a mite? Or what?

This is just glazing my eyes over. None of what you said here sounds more reasonable than anything that weirdo with big hair says on that silly Ancient Aliens show. He sees aliens under ever ancient rock because he believes that they showed up and hung out with the Egyptians and Aztecs (and practically every other ancient civilization). He hunts for "evidence" to suit his theory and you, and ALL evolutionists, do the exact same thing for essentially the same reasons. Science, on the other hand, works in the opposite direction. What evolutionists, as well as modern cosmologist by the way, do is just 180° out of phase with the way science is supposed to work. The result is an unfalsifiable worldview that has more in common with a religion than it has with a real scientific endeavor.

You show pictures of an extinct spider like creature and think it's a transitional form - IT ISN'T! You can't prove that it is, all you can do is make the claim. A claim that is exactly as valid as the claim that it is supposed to be evidence of! You (evolutionists) find something that could be an example of a transitional form but doesn't have to be that and then say "SEE! Evolution!" I say, "No, I see a spider like thing that went extinct. Why would I think that it's progeny turned into full blown spiders with spinerettes and skinny waste lines? Why would I think that? There are creatures that exist right now that look a lot like spiders too!

And guess what? Sharks are cold blooded fish while dolphins are warm blooded mammals! Take a wild guess, using only those to bits of data, whether a dolphin's biology will be more similar to human biology or Tuna biology. You get only one guess. Based on your guess, whatever it might be, do you suppose that dolphin DNA is more similar to human or Tuna DNA?

Also, if you were designing a water born mammal, would you shape the thing more like an ape or a fish?

Everything you think you can bring up, unless its just total lunacy, can just as easily be used to argue for creation as it can evolution and as often as not even more so for creation as in the case of the wildly complex machines and other structures in every living cell, no matter how "primitive" evolutionary theory wants to claim them to be. As such your evidence isn't evidence, it is (at best) data that you're looking at through evolutionary colored glasses.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

This is just glazing my eyes over. None of what you said here sounds more reasonable than anything that weirdo with big hair says on that silly Ancient Aliens show. He sees aliens under ever ancient rock because he believes that they showed up. He hunts for "evidence" to suit his theory and you, and ALL evolutionists, do the exact same thing for essentially the same reasons. Science, on the other hand, works in the opposite direction.

Scientists often say the same thing about creationists. And yet we have people like Gould and Collins who look at the evidence and say "we need to amend the theory to fit this."

You show pictures of extinct spider like creatures and think it's a transitional form - IT ISN'T!

Remember, a transitional form has apomorphic characters of two separate groups. This organism is transitional between basal chelicerates and arachnids because of this. It's not a spider, but it has some characteristics found only in arachnids. It lacks spinnerets. But it had 8 legs and book lungs like those of spiders.

The tetropulmonata split from this group and gave rise to whip scorpions and spiders.

You can't prove that it is, all you can do is make the claim.

Lacking DNA, we can only go with those apomorphic characters. However, the common origin of whip scorpions and spiders is documented by genetics. Again, it's impossible to prove that God didn't just make everything look like it was evolved. But the evidence indicates evolution.

And guess what? Sharks are cold blooded fish while dolphins are warm blooded mammals!

Yes. Very similar function "common design", but very different details. Dolphins are mammals, more closely related to horses than to sharks. This is the analogy/homology issue I mentioned.

Take a wild guess, using only those to bits of data, whether a dolphins biology will be more similar to human biology or Tuna biology.

Tuna happen to be warm-blooded. So that isn't a very good way to tell. But if you look at the genes, or the fact that they have horizontal flukes, or that they have fins that with bones like those of mammals, then it makes sense.

You get only one guess. Based on your guess, whatever it might be, do you suppose that dolphin DNA is more similar to human or Tuna DNA?

If I used warm-bloodedness, I'd say it was a wash, since tuna and dolphins are both warm-blooded.

Also, if you were designing a water born mammal, would you shape the thing more like an ape or a fish?

I'd definitely make it fish-shaped. Similarly, bats, pterosaurs and birds are all "bird-shaped", but again, the analogous nature of their shapes is quite difference from the homology shown in horse legs, dolphin fins, and bat wings. From scratch, I'd make it able to get oxygen from water, and to have a lateral swimming motion. But dolphins are constrained by their history, so they have to breath air and their swimming motion is mammalian,not like that of fish.

Everything you think you can bring up, unless its just total lunacy, can just as easily be used to argue for creation as it can evolution and as often as not even more so for creation as in the case of the wildly complex machines and other structures in every living cell, no matter how "primitive" evolutionary theory want to claim them to be.

Some of that is very instructive. Let me ask you this; what is the absolutely most important structure necessary for a cell to exist?

Let me know what you think.

If I'm being too aggressive here, PM me or say so on the board, and I'll back off. I'm not trying to be offensive.

 

[6days]

This Wise Guy is one voice, and not an Apostle, so his is just an opinion.

Yup... That scientist is just one (But there are thousands of PhD scientists who say something similar) "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis". Iouae.... truth is not dependant on how many people say or believe something.

God is happy to confess His mistakes

The idol you have created is a god who makes mistakes. However "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless". Psalm 18:30 And, "His works are perfect" Deut. 32:4

I thought Adam was created from dust of the ground and air breathed by God into his lungs.

Yes... very good! Then Eve was created from Adam's side. When they sinned, they become subject to death.

Does the Wise Guy think that the speed of light c changes?

If you mean Kurt Wise, he is a paleontologist, so I have not seen him commenting on speed of light. But... we could check with God's words on that subject. God's Word tells us that He spread the stars. How long do you think that took him and how fast did he spread them? We don't know, but it seems Adam could see the stars that had been created two days earlier.

We could also check with some secular astronomers who say that the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster in the past. We could even check Einstein's theory of relativity to see what the one way speed of light is. We could also check with astronomers and astrophysicists who accept that God created the sun moon and stars about 6,000 years ago.

All scientists in the mainstream know the universe is huge and that it takes light longer than 6000 years to get here.

Fortunately science is not determined by popularity, or you still might believe our bodies are full of junk DNA and pseudogenes; and that our appendix is useless. If you thought truth was determined by the mainstream then you still might be trying to deny the humanity of Neanderthals. Mainstream 'science' seems to believe that life came from non life, ..... in aliens....in multiple universes etc.


Didn't your momma ever teach you that you don't need to jump off a cliff and drown in the ocean, just because that's what all the other lemmings are doing?

Agreed (dinosaurs drowned)- due to a meteor strike and resulting tsunami.

You should perhaps present your idea to those scientists who referred to it as a mystery. It is not a mystery when we trust God's Word.

I explained to you before, that one cannot measure day one, and have an evening and morning comprise the first day, unless the sun was there from the get-go to measure days.

Yes, you did 'explain that. God explains it differently. "Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.

Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,..." Note this is the three parts of earth, not the Cosmos.

I'm going to trust the Bible on this one. We are told He created the Sun, moon a d stars during those six days.

The angels were there at creation of the Cosmos to marvel and sing for joy. Job 38;4-7

Yes... The angels were there by the 4th day. It would seem, since angels are created beings, and since everything was created in six days, that the angels had been created somewhere between day 1 And 4.

At least you are honest about your disdain for mainstream science, while feeling free to quote fringe science with authority.

Hmmm.... that seems like a bit of a straw man... or perhaps moving the goal post. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment which was "Science says nothing. Science is the method of how we investigate the world around us. God's word tells us that in six days He created the heavens and the Earth and everything in it"



BTW... science helps improve our lives with new technologies and advancements in medicine. "Mainstream" beliefs about our origins has never contributed a single new technology... nor a single medical improvement. Instead we can list examples where mainstream evolutionary beliefs have hindered science and harmed millions of people.

 

[The Barbarian]

Clete, is it your understanding that a limited amount of variability and natural selection has led to different species within a created kind?

If so, maybe it would make more sense for us to look at a single kind and the evidence there. Could we do that?

 

[oatmeal]

Clearly, pants had evolved long before legs did so of necessity, legs had to evolve so that pants would not go to waste

 

[iouae]

Although one such fossil had been found by 1868, it was incorrectly assigned to the Cambrian. Darwin had no idea of the extensive Precambrian biota, including some forms that appear to be precursors of Cambrian animals.

This little bilaterally-symmetrical organism with a segmented body organization and a clear shield of sorts at the front, resembles a sort of worm or trilobite.

Barbarian, have a look at the following spindle diagram which shows how most Ediacara came, they "saw", they conquered, then they died out.

Look at the shape or body plan of the Ediacarans. Its an experiment in fractal geometry, like the bilateral symmetry of the one you posted above. The one you posted had the two halves slightly offset by one segment I believe. And the Ediacarans fed and breathed by osmosis and diffusion, thus needed a large surface area. This is the simplest way of being.

Here is a nice site which explains the Precambrian, and from which I obtained the spindle diagram.

http://www.bevpease.force9.co.uk/p.Ediacara-Fauna.htm

We have not cracked the code as to how genes function. Genes seem to be able to turn on or off other genes (epigenetics) making cracking the gene code far more difficult to understand since there seem to be iterations of genes the one turning the other on, which eventually turns the first off again. This is a very compressed form of coding, just like using fractals to create complex shapes from simple principles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Spriggina, the fossil I posted, was clearly a bilateran, and looks a lot like a trilobite. The small shelly fauna of the late Ediacaran included some mollusks.

But it is true, as you say, that the vast majority of Ediacaran organisms died out at the onset of the Cambrian.

Only a few seem to have persisted into the Cambrian, but they ended up restocking the world. I would like to talk about how we know this, if you'd like to go down that path.

Your notion of the organization of genes as a fractal structure has some validity. Living things are very opportunistic in the way that they can seize on new variation to enhance fitness. So pretty much anything chemically possible that doesn't require a fitness-reducing intermediate step will eventually show up.

 

[iouae]

Yes, you did 'explain that. God explains it differently. "Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.

Do you know what you have done here 6days? You have disconnected days from the sun. This means that days could be any length, even millions or possibly billions of years. Thank you. I would never have thought of this.

 

[iouae]

But it is true, as you say, that the vast majority of Ediacaran organisms died out at the onset of the Cambrian.

Only a few seem to have persisted into the Cambrian, but they ended up restocking the world. I would like to talk about how we know this, if you'd like to go down that path.

I would like to discuss this.

Also, I would like to ask you about Syn 3.1 a man-made species of bacterium, with the smallest number of genes that any living thing has, and it was man-made by cutting out unnecessary genes. It has only 473 genes and was made by Craig Venter in 2016.

It strikes me as a sensible way of cracking the gene code, to start by making the simplest living cell and seeing what each gene does, because, presumably every other cell on the planet will contain the genes necessary to preserve life, and then more genes to make specialised cells. And gene splicing is routine these days. One can design a genome on the computer, almost 3-d print the genome's DNA/RNA, and insert it into cytoplasm. Voila - a new "kind". This should help unlock unicellular organism life. Then it will be a whole another mystery unravelling multicellular life.

See http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-fewer-500-genes

Syn 3.0