So basically the author of this video has trouble wrapping their head around the fact that Fossils are 1 line of evidence for evolution, they aren’t needed.
Wow in fact the video gets downright dishonest towards the end. Very common creationist trick there. Take facts in isolation then mock them to the lay audience so you don’t actually have to address the issue. What part of evolutionary theory says Humans and Tobacco would have the same number of chromosomes? None. What part of Evolutionary Theory says they can’t have the same number of Chromosomes? None. Is the mechanism for chromosome increase and reduction understood, yes it is.
The point is a prediction can be made that since according to the according to the theory of evolution The Great Apes (including us) should be related we would expect to see genetic similarities. That includes the number of chromosomes. But it’s not just the number of chromosomes, it’s what’s on the chromosomes. You would expect them to be very similar and used in a similar manner.
Ah That just means a common designer! The Creationist crows.
Sure, except that similarity extends to all the crap in our DNA, and there is a lot of crap in our DNA. We know enough about our DNA to see which genes are switched on and which are switched off, and to identify long strings of junk. And we can find out where those strings of junk come from. Endogenous Retroviruses (HIV is a well known example) can be identified in our dna, defunct strings of code that aren’t used anymore. You can map these viruses in our DNA and get a family tree, that confirms the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. For example we share ERV’s in the exact same places with Orangutans and Chimpanzees, from our common ancestor, Orangutans split off the family tree and don’t share the ERV’s that human and chimps then got from their common ancestor after the split.
Why did the common designer place in our DNA junk and viruses that make our DNA look similar? Well apparently he just did. The same reason he made the Earth look older than 6000 years. Made the Solar System look older than 6000 years. Made the Universe look older than 6000 years.
and evolution doesn’t? You’ve been digging for bones for decades to prove the lie of evolution (and haven’t found any) yet my daughter still learns this trash in SCHOOL! I can not wait to start teaching kids the truth..
Justin I agree, that non-coding dna was erronously labled junk as well. OF course I think we would disagree about how this came about and what conclusion to draw from this.
What do you guys think about atavism? That is animals born with features that those that believe in evolution regard as being traits common to their acestors, like whales born with hind legs and humans born with tails? Here is a link with some great pics.
being at work I only glanced quickly through the link you provided. Here’s the thing, some people are born formed together, some are formed with no fingers or something, or as in the case above, with “tailbones”. Does that mean that we and monkeys had the same relatives? Hardly…. regardless of whether whales had legs or a dolphins got extra flippers, is it not still a while, or a dolphin still a dolphin? look at the dog for example, some are tiny, some are hairless, some are HUGE and furry.. but they’re still dogs. My mom’s cat has 6 toes on each foot… but it’s still a cat!!
Unless I am misunderstanding… you are promoting the change within a species (microevolution) as proof for Macro evolution. Darwin made the same mistakes with finch beaks, they were all different “shapes” however they were all still belonging to finches. unless the beak changes into a trunk, or a whatever, there is no “macro” evolution.
But if you can grant that an organism can undergo such dramatic change in just a single generation doesnt it reason that with millions of years of such changes then an organism could change more dramatically? In other words (microevolution X millions of years = macroevolution)? If you are waiting to see proof of speciasation before you believe in evolutuion then you will never be convinced because it happens on a timescale that can not be witnessed in a single human lifetime besides in orangaisms that reproduce very quickly, like microbes and you have already stated that you dont think that has any relevance to multicellulered organisms.
that being said there should be, as Darwin stated “billions of transitional fossils” – Myles, there are none. not one. however we do find sea amimal fossils on mountain tops proving a global flood. we find what is likley an Ark on top of Ararat where the Bible said it would be… etc. Creation is the only option Myles.. even if this theory were even slightly possible, how did life start? how do you get life from something that is not, nor ever has been alive? that’s like laying a loaf of bread down, and expecting it to be a dog in 4 billion yrs. it’s just stupid.
wow first you said that dawrin said that there should be millions of transitional fossils and now you say that he said there should be billions. Can you reprint the exact quote by darwin?
As for transitional fossils plenty have been found. Here is a great link with pictures.
I encourage each person to look for themselves and see if they look like like transitional forms or not.
Nobody said that life came about from nothing. We evolutionists think that it came from inorganic matter. Where did matter come from? Maybe its been around for ever just like you believe God has been.
Of course wikipedia has a list of supposed transitional forms. You missed the point completely. There should be a ton of transitional forms and all you have is a handful of contested ones.
serious question myles, look at your link, and scroll down to the “Evolution of Whales” is this saying whales came from that thing that looks like a dog?
Justin I dont think I missed the point. Why should there be tons of them? The fossil record doesnt contain a example of every organism that ever lived. The formation of a fossil is a relatively rare occurance. New ones are found verday such as this ancestor of the seal http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j25USK_tuoVHbwI_8P_kxiyTTCMgD97NN4600
As far as the examples that I showed you. How are they contested?
Another point I want to make is that all orgaisms are in a state of flux due to natural selection so every fossil could be considered a “transitional form”.
To Tom. The ancestors of whales were hoofed creatures, the artiodactyls. I guess you could say that it looked like a dog in that it was four legged ,carnivorous mammal but the closest living relative to cetaceans(whales and dolphins) is the hippopotamus. And scientists have studied the dna of whales and sure enough, it shows the most similarity with hippos. Why would this be he case if they didnt evolve from common ancestors?
Ok, I read that article completely and nothing in it debunked whale evolution. The author seems to have a misconception about what natural selection entails. Species do not progress in a steady continuious manner from one form to the next but is constantly being modified by natural selection. Sometimes it can look like its going “backward” because changes in the enviorment produce certain stresses that shape organisms in certain ways.
First you agreed that whales born with hindlegs was a form of microevolution. Now you paste an article that says its s result of chimarism, that they are like mermaids. This is not the scientific meaning of the word chimera(which refers to an organism formed from more than two sex cells).
Were are the examples of modern day chimeras if they exist. Personally ive never seen a mermaid.
While full-bodied chimeric creatures, such as mermaids and mermen, do not exist, somewhat lesser examples of chimeric creatures, of which pakicetids and mesonychids are notable examples, definitely exist
The apparent absence of extremely-chimeric creatures cannot, by any standard of reasoning, be accepted as evidence for evolution. To the contrary, the existence of less-extreme chimeric creatures, notably ‘fossil whales’, argues strongly against a common evolutionary ancestry of living things.
in a nustshell whales with ‘legs’ only proves it’s still a whale. have you considered the gospel? if you reject it, thats your choice, however… i wont argue with you regarding this, I would rather plant seeds, than battle weeds.
But we that believe in evolution think that mesonychids and pakicetids are transitional forms. My point is that chimeras in the sense referred to in the article have to basis in the scientific literature. A chimera traditionally refers to either an organism produced from 4 sex cells instead of 2 or a the fossil remains of multiple organisms mistakenly assembled and regarded as a single creature.
The author of the article just made up a word in a attempt to explain away the numerous transitional fossils. Exactly what is the definition of ‘chimera’ in the sense that the author is using it? Try looking it up in a dictionary. It doesnt exist. WHERE IS A MODERN CHIMERA OF ANY KIND?
Really its to the point that creationists will say anything to deny evolution no matter how ungrounded it is in modern science or how illogical.
Have I considered the gospel? As far as I know the gospel says nothing regarding evolution. And though you say that you would rather plant seeds than battle weeds it seems like you would rather plant your own head in the sand than take a good look at the evidence.
[...] on Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, God, the Bible, you name it. Lately it’s been the pure idiocy of evolution. Slowly as I argued I came to a realization… these people are not going to change. They, like me, [...]
I have a question.If the universe is only 6,000 or so years old then how is it that we can see the light coming at us from objects that are so far away that it has taken more than 6,000 years for the light to reach us?
Haha. The answer is… creation.
BathTub said
So basically the author of this video has trouble wrapping their head around the fact that Fossils are 1 line of evidence for evolution, they aren’t needed.
Wow in fact the video gets downright dishonest towards the end. Very common creationist trick there. Take facts in isolation then mock them to the lay audience so you don’t actually have to address the issue. What part of evolutionary theory says Humans and Tobacco would have the same number of chromosomes? None. What part of Evolutionary Theory says they can’t have the same number of Chromosomes? None. Is the mechanism for chromosome increase and reduction understood, yes it is.
The point is a prediction can be made that since according to the according to the theory of evolution The Great Apes (including us) should be related we would expect to see genetic similarities. That includes the number of chromosomes. But it’s not just the number of chromosomes, it’s what’s on the chromosomes. You would expect them to be very similar and used in a similar manner.
Ah That just means a common designer! The Creationist crows.
Sure, except that similarity extends to all the crap in our DNA, and there is a lot of crap in our DNA. We know enough about our DNA to see which genes are switched on and which are switched off, and to identify long strings of junk. And we can find out where those strings of junk come from. Endogenous Retroviruses (HIV is a well known example) can be identified in our dna, defunct strings of code that aren’t used anymore. You can map these viruses in our DNA and get a family tree, that confirms the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. For example we share ERV’s in the exact same places with Orangutans and Chimpanzees, from our common ancestor, Orangutans split off the family tree and don’t share the ERV’s that human and chimps then got from their common ancestor after the split.
Why did the common designer place in our DNA junk and viruses that make our DNA look similar? Well apparently he just did. The same reason he made the Earth look older than 6000 years. Made the Solar System look older than 6000 years. Made the Universe look older than 6000 years.
Just Because.
Justin said
Bathtub, you are behind the times on this junk DNA business. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/junk-dna-part-1 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/junk-dna-part-2
Chris said
Bathtub, you are behind the times on this junk DNA business.
Getting your information on DNA from Answers in Genesis automatically renders any opinion you have on the subject moot.
Justin said
Chris, that statement was extremely predictable – attacking the organization so you feel like you don’t have to deal with the information.
theBEattitude said
Answers in Genesis is science warped through the distorted lens of religion. Far from a valid source.
Science studies facts and draws conclusions and theories from the research. Creationists start with the conclusion and look for facts to support it.
Tom said
and evolution doesn’t? You’ve been digging for bones for decades to prove the lie of evolution (and haven’t found any) yet my daughter still learns this trash in SCHOOL! I can not wait to start teaching kids the truth..
Justin said
TheBEattidtude, look at the information given in the article. Then if it is easily refuted, do so.
Myles said
Justin I agree, that non-coding dna was erronously labled junk as well. OF course I think we would disagree about how this came about and what conclusion to draw from this.
Myles said
What do you guys think about atavism? That is animals born with features that those that believe in evolution regard as being traits common to their acestors, like whales born with hind legs and humans born with tails? Here is a link with some great pics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1
Tom said
vestigial parts? here’s a few more examples for you..
http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=55
Myles said
No vestigel structures and atavism are different concepts. Im talking about the rare whales that are born with hind legs for instance?
Tom said
being at work I only glanced quickly through the link you provided. Here’s the thing, some people are born formed together, some are formed with no fingers or something, or as in the case above, with “tailbones”. Does that mean that we and monkeys had the same relatives? Hardly…. regardless of whether whales had legs or a dolphins got extra flippers, is it not still a while, or a dolphin still a dolphin? look at the dog for example, some are tiny, some are hairless, some are HUGE and furry.. but they’re still dogs. My mom’s cat has 6 toes on each foot… but it’s still a cat!!
Unless I am misunderstanding… you are promoting the change within a species (microevolution) as proof for Macro evolution. Darwin made the same mistakes with finch beaks, they were all different “shapes” however they were all still belonging to finches. unless the beak changes into a trunk, or a whatever, there is no “macro” evolution.
Tom said
please forgive my typos…
Myles said
But if you can grant that an organism can undergo such dramatic change in just a single generation doesnt it reason that with millions of years of such changes then an organism could change more dramatically? In other words (microevolution X millions of years = macroevolution)? If you are waiting to see proof of speciasation before you believe in evolutuion then you will never be convinced because it happens on a timescale that can not be witnessed in a single human lifetime besides in orangaisms that reproduce very quickly, like microbes and you have already stated that you dont think that has any relevance to multicellulered organisms.
Tom said
that being said there should be, as Darwin stated “billions of transitional fossils” – Myles, there are none. not one. however we do find sea amimal fossils on mountain tops proving a global flood. we find what is likley an Ark on top of Ararat where the Bible said it would be… etc. Creation is the only option Myles.. even if this theory were even slightly possible, how did life start? how do you get life from something that is not, nor ever has been alive? that’s like laying a loaf of bread down, and expecting it to be a dog in 4 billion yrs. it’s just stupid.
Myles said
wow first you said that dawrin said that there should be millions of transitional fossils and now you say that he said there should be billions. Can you reprint the exact quote by darwin?
As for transitional fossils plenty have been found. Here is a great link with pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
I encourage each person to look for themselves and see if they look like like transitional forms or not.
Nobody said that life came about from nothing. We evolutionists think that it came from inorganic matter. Where did matter come from? Maybe its been around for ever just like you believe God has been.
Justin said
Of course wikipedia has a list of supposed transitional forms. You missed the point completely. There should be a ton of transitional forms and all you have is a handful of contested ones.
Tom said
serious question myles, look at your link, and scroll down to the “Evolution of Whales” is this saying whales came from that thing that looks like a dog?
Myles said
Justin I dont think I missed the point. Why should there be tons of them? The fossil record doesnt contain a example of every organism that ever lived. The formation of a fossil is a relatively rare occurance. New ones are found verday such as this ancestor of the seal
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j25USK_tuoVHbwI_8P_kxiyTTCMgD97NN4600
As far as the examples that I showed you. How are they contested?
Another point I want to make is that all orgaisms are in a state of flux due to natural selection so every fossil could be considered a “transitional form”.
To Tom. The ancestors of whales were hoofed creatures, the artiodactyls. I guess you could say that it looked like a dog in that it was four legged ,carnivorous mammal but the closest living relative to cetaceans(whales and dolphins) is the hippopotamus. And scientists have studied the dna of whales and sure enough, it shows the most similarity with hippos. Why would this be he case if they didnt evolve from common ancestors?
Tom said
this is somehwat lengthy… but I think your horse to whale evolutionary theory is adequately debunked.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp
* I am posting the link because it’s to lengthy to copy and paste, and is all relevant to the discussion at hand.
Myles said
Ok, I read that article completely and nothing in it debunked whale evolution. The author seems to have a misconception about what natural selection entails. Species do not progress in a steady continuious manner from one form to the next but is constantly being modified by natural selection. Sometimes it can look like its going “backward” because changes in the enviorment produce certain stresses that shape organisms in certain ways.
First you agreed that whales born with hindlegs was a form of microevolution. Now you paste an article that says its s result of chimarism, that they are like mermaids. This is not the scientific meaning of the word chimera(which refers to an organism formed from more than two sex cells).
Were are the examples of modern day chimeras if they exist. Personally ive never seen a mermaid.
Tom said
micro evolution doesn’t mean a meat eating horse turned into a whale Myles.
Myles said
Nobody is saying that horses turned into whales. Whats evolved from the order Artiodactyla and horses are in the order Perissodactyla.
That article you linked said that whales with hind limbs are chimeras like mermaids. Please show me evidence for a mermaid.
Myles said
Umm. that is whales evolved not whats evolved. And I will accept evidence for any chimera..not just mermaids.
BathTub said
Weird, the site is telling me I am subscribed to this thread but I didn’t get a single notification.
Justin said
I didn’t even know you could subscribe. I don’t deal with all the technicals of the site.
Myles said
Im still waiting for somebody to give me an example of a modern chimera, like was talked about in that article.
Really im suprised. I thought creationists would have better arguments and wouldnt have to just make stuff up.
If you want to believe in something thats fine but why feel the need to tie it to science at all costs?
The transitional fossils are chimeras, like mermaids. lol give me a break.
Tom said
Myles, please read the articles…
in a nustshell whales with ‘legs’ only proves it’s still a whale. have you considered the gospel? if you reject it, thats your choice, however… i wont argue with you regarding this, I would rather plant seeds, than battle weeds.
Myles said
But we that believe in evolution think that mesonychids and pakicetids are transitional forms. My point is that chimeras in the sense referred to in the article have to basis in the scientific literature. A chimera traditionally refers to either an organism produced from 4 sex cells instead of 2 or a the fossil remains of multiple organisms mistakenly assembled and regarded as a single creature.
The author of the article just made up a word in a attempt to explain away the numerous transitional fossils. Exactly what is the definition of ‘chimera’ in the sense that the author is using it? Try looking it up in a dictionary. It doesnt exist. WHERE IS A MODERN CHIMERA OF ANY KIND?
Really its to the point that creationists will say anything to deny evolution no matter how ungrounded it is in modern science or how illogical.
Have I considered the gospel? As far as I know the gospel says nothing regarding evolution. And though you say that you would rather plant seeds than battle weeds it seems like you would rather plant your own head in the sand than take a good look at the evidence.
Peace out
Old Battles, and New Directions « Just Truth said
[...] on Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, God, the Bible, you name it. Lately it’s been the pure idiocy of evolution. Slowly as I argued I came to a realization… these people are not going to change. They, like me, [...]
Myles said
I have a question.If the universe is only 6,000 or so years old then how is it that we can see the light coming at us from objects that are so far away that it has taken more than 6,000 years for the light to reach us?
Justin said
Hey Myles, I do not know exactly how old the universe is, but here is the young earth Creationist answer: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove