Dissecting ID

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pookie wrote:
… the same old, already refuted arguments. [/quote]

Darwinian evolution is rapidly becoming the “old, already refuted argument”. It is tired. It is laughably void of evidence. It is cultic Kool Aid and there is enough to go around for all would drink from the cup. I believe it will rest in peace with the flat earth theory by the 22nd century.

The cutting edge of macroevolutionism thought has left YOU behind. The new fad in macroevolution theory is the aforementioned quantum leap side track. Even your intellectually honest evolutionist brethren are moving on to newer (and sillier) attempts to explain the lack of evidence.

142

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Darwinian evolution is rapidly becoming the “old, already refuted argument”. It is tired. It is laughably void of evidence. It is cultic Kool Aid and there is enough to go around for all would drink from the cup. I believe it will rest in peace with the flat earth theory by the 22nd century. [/quote]

Creationists has been saying that for almost 150 years now. There have been changes since Darwin, you might want to keep abreast. Our side has more than one book, you know.

Well, that’s one way to look at it. It’s the way science is done. Theories are always works in progress. They have problems, flaws and errors. People come up with new ideas to better explain this or that phenomenon, and the theory evolves. What we’ll have in the 22nd century is probably a better Theory of Evolution and hopefully not an entrenched ID passing itself off as science.

But I could be wrong. We’ve had dark ages previously, who says we won’t have another one. Here’s to the next Renaissance.

143

[quote]pookie wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
There is nothing more unscientific than blindly accepting a theory as fact when that theory has no evidence and cannot pass any basic scientific tests.

You just described ID to a T.
[/quote]

I guess this is where we differ. I see ample amounts of evidence of I.D. I see no evidence of macroevolution and none has been presented on this thread, for sure.

I’ll bet you a 10 year supply of Grow, I could present more evidence of an instantaneous introduction of life with subsequent microevolution than you could of large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. If you do decide to take this challenge, DO NOT trot out examples of microevolution. We all agree that it is abundantly evident, testable and proveable.

One thing we both should agree on is that neither side can offer incontrovertible PROOF. We can merely present our evidence and then develop our ideas and proceed from there.

Thanks, guys. It’s been fun!

144

I thought this was interesting. This is from http://www.talkorigins.org/

Claim:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Response:

  1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

  2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

  3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

  4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

  5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

Claim:
Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
Response:

  1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

    Creationists have created another category for which they use the word “macroevolution.” They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

    Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

    Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

  2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct “kinds.” This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory

Claim:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Response:

  1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine “transitional” as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

  2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

    1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

    2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

    3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a “Globigerinoides-like” shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

    4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

    5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

    6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

    7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

    8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

    9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

    10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one “ear” of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

    11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

    The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

    1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

    2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

    3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

    4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake’s stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

    5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

    6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

    7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

    The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

    1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk’s foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk’s mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

    2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

    3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

145

[quote]throttle132 wrote:

Tom, Sorry but these are examples of MICRO-evolution not MACRO.

The warblers remained warblers. They did not change into bald eagles or aardvarks. Only a truly religious person (one who believes something based on faith) can extrapolate that if variations within species and sub-species can occur, then wholescale changes way up the taxonomic tree can and have happened.

Macroevolution is generally used by creationists to define “evolution that has not been observed.” In the scientific literature, it is a deliberately vague term. The deliniation between so called micro and macro evolution is one that I would be interested in having defined.

Since you’re having a tough time here, let me help. As defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:

[b]
Microevolution - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Macroevolution - Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
[/b]

It’s not THAT difficult. The first is observable and testable and therefore a scientific fact. The second is sheer speculation without one single solitary shred of scientific evidence.
[/quote]

You proved my point perfectly. I claimed that creationsists generally define macroeveolution as evolution that has not been observed. You then present me with a definiton of macroevoultion as LARGE SCALE evolution occuring over GEOLOGIC TIME. Do you not see the absurdity of asking to directly observe and test this??

If you are talking about macroevolution in terms of the divergence of higher level taxa over evolutionary time, then that is obviously not something we can directly observe or test. But if you accept the process of speciation, soemthing we can observe and test, then why would macroevolution not be possible?

I will assume that you are not kooky enough to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Are you telling me that speciation over a few hundred thousand, a million, or even billions years would not result in new taxa? How many speciations can a given organism undergo until until it has macroevolved??

Different taxonomic distance estimates can be inferred with respect to the degree of relatedness of high level taxa. Genetic markers and sequences are especially valuable in this regard and can generate very plausible phylogenetic trees for higher level taxa. They are testable to the extent that they are supported by other independent lines of inference such as the fossil record.

With respect to macro-evolution of higher taxa, there is perhaps no definitive testability at this time. But we sure have the tools to accumulate a lot of independent lines of evidence that, in many cases, converge on a ‘most likely’ phylogeny for particular groups. It’s the best existing procedure for approximating actual cladistic relationships.

Most creationists would now like to retreat to a defense of creation acting ONLY at higher level taxa. Unfortunately for them, molecular biology is quickly quantifying degrees of relatedness among families and orders.

146

[quote]3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word “macroevolution.” They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.[/quote]

This is great, and is exactly what I said in my post: Throttle is proving it on this thread. Creationsists have retreated to this absurd position that macroevolution is now evolution ABOVE the species level. Creation takes place at the high taxa level and speciation provides the rest. LOL

147

[quote]throttle132 wrote:

One thing we both should agree on is that neither side can offer incontrovertible PROOF. We can merely present our evidence and then develop our ideas and proceed from there.

Thanks, guys. It’s been fun![/quote]

I think you’re confusing a lack of evidence with your decision to ignore all available evidence.

148

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.[/quote]

Hmmm. The opposite view is also in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 1, KJV:

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

So? Who’s wrong here, you or the Bible?

149

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.

Hmmm. The opposite view is also in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 1, KJV:

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

So? Who’s wrong here, you or the Bible?[/quote]

Neither, and your ability to pull random quotes from the bible keeps showing your inability to understand it as a whole. The Earth is written to be destroyed in the bible…and recreated. Perhaps you should read Revelations…instead of Google. Anymore questions?

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Neither, and your ability to pull random quotes from the bible keeps showing your inability to understand it as a whole.[/quote]

Next time I’ll post the whole thing.

I fail to see how you choosing some parts of it to support your points shows any more ability to understand it. The last time this was discussed, you reinterpreted entire passages and had “convenient” definitions for simple words.

The Earth is written to last forever. Perhaps you should read Ecclesiastes, instead of conveniently ignoring the parts that contradict your pet arguments.

It appears that you have to do a lot of interpreting, redefining of words and ignoring of parts to actually have the Bible fit your beliefs. Calling the whole process “understanding” is a nice touch, though.

151

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Neither, and your ability to pull random quotes from the bible keeps showing your inability to understand it as a whole.

Next time I’ll post the whole thing.

I fail to see how you choosing some parts of it to support your points shows any more ability to understand it. The last time this was discussed, you reinterpreted entire passages and had “convenient” definitions for simple words.[/quote]

Convenient definitions? You were answered directly. I grew up with these teachings. That is why it isn’t new to me. I know some of these passages the same way you know the alphabet. That is why I had “definitions”. Those “definitions” exist and if you actually studied any of this with the slightest inkling of an attempt to truly understand it, you wouldn’t even be posting the way you do.

You like to play games. For over two threads now I have played along and told you the meanings in the questions you asked. I gave you the answers to the best of my ability. Still, however, you attempt to degrade an entire religion. No one but you…and I assume the few who think like you (because most atheist don’t seem to be backing you on most of this)…are in the dark about what has been explained.

If you have the desire to truly understand, then ask. Otherwise, go play games with someone else.

The entire Bible is open to some degree of interpretation. This is why many can read the same passage years later and get something new from it. This is the basis of sermons world wide. This is why theologians study these texts for decades. It is why when you ask a question, other chapters and other verses are linked to it…to provide a total understanding…not the bit reading you are attempting to do.

The last question you asked was answered. You choose to discard it as if I just made it up. I didn’t. Anything else you need to know…can be found in that Bible you keep spitting on. You show no signs of wanting to understand anything. You simply want to throw rocks at it. Enjoy yourself.

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You like to play games. For over two threads now I have played along[/quote]

Riiight. When anyone disagrees with you, they’re playing games.

You’re the one who keeps bringing a religious book into scientific discussions. You expect to be taken seriously?

These threads are about ID, which claims to be scientific. For some unknown reason, it seems no one can’t give any reasonable support for ID without eventually citing the Bible. Why do you think that is?

If you bring the Bible to the discussion, don’t be surprised if it gets used to counter your points. The one thing I understand about the Bible is that you can use it to back up both sides of any arguments.

What I’d like to understand is how someone can find the teaching of ID alongside Evolution to be reasonable, but somehow be unable to give any scientific arguments to back up that position. Requiring churches to “preach both sides” from the pulpit is not any more or less ridiculous.

And why you’ve got about 2000 diverging sects of Christianity arguing about important points such as how many dunks to a baptism. Better not get any of those trivial details wrong.

That still doesn’t explain what purpose it has being in a scientific discussion.

Actually, I don’t really care how you explain away all the contradictions in the Bible. You won’t convince anyone with those pitiful answers. Why do you think they’re trying to get to young kids?

Actually, I want to understand everything. That’s why I like science and physics so much. I just wish crackpot fundamentalists would just butt out and let the scientists do their jobs.

153

Another crushing blow to Intelligent Design “theory”:

A recent article has filled another gap in our ignorance (and created two new gaps) about eye evolution.

Insight Into Eye Evolution Deals Blow To Intelligent Design

How complex and physiologically remarkable structures such as the human eye could evolve has long been a question that has puzzled biologists. But in research reported this week in Current Biology, the evolutionary history of a critical eye protein has revealed a previously unrecognized link between certain components of sophisticated vertebrate eyes - like those found in humans - and those of the primitive light-sensing systems of invertebrates. The findings, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of London and Radboud University in The Netherlands, put in place a conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time.

Abstract:A refracting lens is a key component of our image-forming camera eye; however, its evolutionary origin is unknown because precursor structures appear absent in nonvertebrates [1]. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes encode abundant structural proteins critical for the function of the lens [2]. We show that the urochordate Ciona intestinalis, which split from the vertebrate lineage before the evolution of the lens, has a single gene coding for a single domain monomeric βγ-crystallin. The crystal structure of Ciona βγ-crystallin is very similar to that of a vertebrate βγ-crystallin domain, except for paired, occupied calcium binding sites. The Ciona βγ-crystallin is only expressed in the palps and in the otolith, the pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The Ciona βγ-crystallin promoter region targeted expression to the visual system, including lens, in transgenic Xenopus tadpoles. We conclude that the vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved from a single domain protein already expressed in the neuroectoderm of the prevertebrate ancestor. The conservation of the regulatory hierarchy controlling βγ-crystallin expression between organisms with and without a lens shows that the evolutionary origin of the lens was based on co-option of pre-existing regulatory circuits controlling the expression of a key structural gene in a primitive light-sensing system.

Wow, empirical research and testing?? Who would have thought of such a thing? Certainly not the “God did it” or “it’s all in Genesis” folks!

154

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Another crushing blow to Intelligent Design “theory”:
[/quote]

After reading that, I am confused at how the vertebrate βγ-crystallins containing a single occupied calcium binding site means we evolved from prevertebrates…simply because they have a paired set of occupied calcium binding sites. Finding likeness in other biological system means they evolved from each other? It is a great finding. However, how does this prove evolution across species…and especially from vertebrates to invertebrates?

155

[quote]pookie wrote:
Actually, I want to understand everything. That’s why I like science and physics so much. I just wish crackpot fundamentalists would just butt out and let the scientists do their jobs.
[/quote]

It must irk you to death that many of those same scientists also believe in God.

156

[quote]Professor X wrote:

After reading that, I am confused at how the vertebrate βγ-crystallins containing a single occupied calcium binding site means we evolved from prevertebrates[/quote]

It doesnt, it show an evolutioanry pathway for the deveopment of an eye

LOL…this study is not meant to provide us the fucking missing link. Good God…

"Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the βγ-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved.

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles’ own visual system, including the lens."

In layman’s terms:
The paper says that a gene which codes for crystallin was already present in invertebrate ancestors before the eye had evolved. This means that vertebrate crystallin is likely to have evolved the same way the various globins did: branching off from an original functional protein.

Evolution predicts that new functions, organs, whatever, arise by modification of existing functions. Thus, evolution predicts that we’re likely to find genes like the one described in the paper - genes that are similar to the inferred ancestral gene of the vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes.

And voila - we found one (for the thousandth time).

I applaud these Oxford guys. Unlike IDers, who just sit around and come up with ways to avoid doing any work, they actually investigated how the eye might have evolved and provided evidence for it. Science in action!

157

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
Actually, I want to understand everything. That’s why I like science and physics so much. I just wish crackpot fundamentalists would just butt out and let the scientists do their jobs.

It must irk you to death that many of those same scientists also believe in God.[/quote]

You’re right–many evolutioanry bioligsts do believe in God. I think 40% most identified with the stateemnt that evolution has occured, and God exists and was the impetus for our evolution. They must be unaware theat evolutionary theory is an evil atheist humanist pinko commie plot to get Jesus out of the classroom…

Even Michael Behe himself agrees with the above statement. Behe believes in common ancestry of humans and apes over billions of years, so he’s not as nutty as those that he associates with. Unfortunately, he has latched on to the ricidulous pseudo-scinece of I.D., but he only applies it in specific cases (for some bizare reason)

158

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
Actually, I want to understand everything. That’s why I like science and physics so much. I just wish crackpot fundamentalists would just butt out and let the scientists do their jobs.

It must irk you to death that many of those same scientists also believe in God.

You’re right–many evolutioanry bioligsts do believe in God. I think 40% most identified with the stateemnt that evolution has occured, and God exists and was the impetus for our evolution. They must be unaware theat evolutionary theory is an evil atheist humanist pinko commie plot to get Jesus out of the classroom…

Even Michael Behe himself agrees with the above statement. Behe believes in common ancestry of humans and apes over billions of years, so he’s not as nutty as those that he associates with. Unfortunately, he has latched on to the ricidulous pseudo-scinece of I.D., but he only applies it in specific cases (for some bizare reason)
[/quote]

Right. Obviously, he is less enlightened than you appear to be.

159

[quote]IagoMB wrote:

  1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

  2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly.
    [/quote]

Yes, and that is why macroevolution remains a theory - nothing more. True science is established by observation and repeated testing.

  1. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred. [/quote] Nonsense. Extinct forms of life in the fossil record that share similar biological features does NOT PROVE “that macroevolution has occurred”. It DOES PROVE it in the minds of those who are already convinced that their theory cannot be wrong.

Here’s the iota of evidence. Macro is impossible to observe, test, confirm and repeatedly test and confirm. Creationists hold the higher scientific ground here. They believe that the delineating line between micro and macro is at or possibly slightly above the species level BECAUSE true science allows it there BECAUSE it is observable and testable.

[quote]Claim:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors.[/quote] “Predicts” is the key word here. It is entirely appropriate to “predict” when we are discussing a theory. It is inappropriate it when we are discussing facts.

[quote]There are many transitional fossils. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts,[/quote] Here we go again.

All this works great in discussing theory. Theories can and should be discussed, researched and explored. But my whole point is consistently and conveniently being ignored in that speculations about said theory are constantly granted “fact” status when they have not been arrived at through basic scientific principles.

[quote]1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors,[/quote] Actually the number of available human fossils is inexplicably low [quote]and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.[/quote] How convenient.

In all reality, the “human fossil” record shows a variety of humans in the past which just so happens to coincide with what we find in the present. We can find, right now, all over the globe, varieties of all shapes and sizes. We can find people with six fingers on the same hand. We can find short people with straight backs. We can find tall people with curved spines. We can find people with long arms, short arms, hunched postures, diseased bones, large craniums, small craniums, sloping foreheads, pelvis’ of various shapes and sizes, and on and on and on.

Macroevolutionists point to these variations in the fossil record as “proof” of human macroevolution. Creationists say it is a simple case of microevolution. Observable = Testable = Fact.

We can also find primates that share somewhat similar features with humans. That too in no way establishes fact in the same manner that Oldsmobiles and BMW’s both have timing chains but did not necessarily come from the same factory. It just means that timing chains work great in internal combustion engines of all sizes, designs, and ORIGINS and an intelligent designer would be wise to use a proven concept in his design.

You cite several examples of transitions but use the classic macroevolution “reach”: similar features automatically equals “proof” of macroevolution.

These are not examples of proven transitions but merely examples of the diversity and variety of our earth’s biology past and present.

160

On another point, what I continue to find fascinating and have pointed out several times is that leading, so called cutting edge, modern macroevolutionary thought recognizes the huge inadequacies of the loooooong, slooooooow, gradual changes sect and former proponents are abandoning it in droves. They recognize the lack of transitional forms. They recognize the huge inexplicalble gaps in the theory. They have moved on to newer ideas that basically say that macroevolution happened so fast and so suddenly that no transitional life forms would be available or necessary.

So why are so many of the posts here “old school”? I think the reason is that many of you have been indoctrinated by our educational system into a religion and a rigidity of rationalization that makes it exceedingly difficult for you to stray outside the fold. You are sheep waiting to be led. You are a mirror image of the religious people that you despise so much. You just worship a different god.