Tuesday, December 11, 2012

How Legs Evolved: Acompañado de Otros Muchos Cambios

Where the Heavy Lifting Occurs

A report today on new research out of Spain on embryonic development of zebrafish reads “From Fish to Man: Research Reveals How Fins Became Legs.” In this study evolutionists altered the expression levels of some regulatory genes resulting in deformed fins. The idea is that the deformed fin is taking its first step toward evolving into a tetrapod limb, and that this significant evolutionary transition was due not to an altered protein changing the way fins are built, but rather a change in the levels of existing proteins. As one of the researchers explained:

First, and foremost, this finding helps us to understand the power that the modification of gene expression has on shaping our bodies.

But the results are not nearly so compelling as the evolutionists believe. First, if the evolutionary interpretation of the findings is correct, this means that evolution had already constructed all the proteins and other machinery necessary to morph a fin toward a leg. That calls for quite a bit of serendipity.

Second, the evolutionary step that was observed in the experiment did change the fin, but the result was nowhere close to a leg. In fact, what seems to have been lost in the translation, but was included in Spain’s El Mundo report, was that the result was, err, lethal to the young zebrafish. After all, they could no longer swim.

Not to worry though, for as the evolutionists assure their readers, these modified gene expression levels were undoubtedly “acompañado de otros muchos cambios.” And so it is in these “other many changes” where the heavy lifting occurs, for they would morph the fin to a leg and ensure that those modified gene expression levels “no fuesen deletéreos.” It is amazing how evolution is always able to create so many changes to arrive finally at a better design.

As usual it is the theory that informs the data rather the other way around. Imagine if evolution wasn’t known to be a fact?

260 comments:

  1. In my country Spain the telling stories are ruling the landscape, creationists, even "old earthers" are not allowed anywhere. So this stupid article has been received without opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They are not even close to rationally explaining how limbs came about. This following video is a bit more sober in illuminating the complexity that evolutionists are up against as to providing a rational explanation:

    Three-dimensional limb joint mobility in the early tetrapod Ichthyostega : Published online 23 May 2012 - video with article
    Excerpt: The origin of tetrapods and the transition from swimming to walking was a pivotal step in the evolution and diversification of terrestrial vertebrates.,,, We conclude that early tetrapods with the skeletal morphology and limb mobility of Ichthyostega were unlikely to have made some of the recently described Middle Devonian trackways.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf16z5zDm3A

    New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - May 2012 - video
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=new-research-debunks-theory-2012-05-30

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. corrected link

      New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - May 29, 2012
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=new-research-debunks-theory-2012-05-29

      This video specifically focuses in on the complexity of the supposedly 'primitive' forelimb:

      Forelimb maximal joint ranges of motion in Ichthyostega, an Early Tetrapod
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eutCIC6iCFo

      Delete
    2. That video was a fantastic find, ba77! Thanks.

      Delete
  3. Juan, sorry to hear your report of the situation in Spain! I guess creationists have it difficult in most countries, including the US.

    "The idea is that the DEFORMED FIN fin is taking its first step toward evolving into a tetrapod limb,..."

    Or then again, it might be taking it's first step towards extinction. How would anyone know?!

    Why does their idea get good press when there is absolutely no way to test it or verify it. The extinction idea makes more sense doesn't it given that the fish lost the ability to swim?

    What a ridiculous idea - a deformed limb is a first step toward tetrapod legs!

    Now, if they can take it the rest of the way and come up with a true leg, complete with the skeletal and muscular changes necessary to make it functional, then you have my attention!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So....the basic argument is that by altering these genes, scientists are taking away, not adding functionality.

    This hinders the creatures ability to swim/perform basic functions that will most likely result in extinction, not evolution. Is this correct?

    It does sound more plausible, objections?

    ReplyDelete

  5. tokyojimDecember 11, 2012 5:12 AM
    Juan, sorry to hear your report of the situation in Spain! I guess creationists have it difficult in most countries, including the US.


    In exactly what way in the US? Not in a major US political party.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason ,

    So....the basic argument is that by altering these genes, scientists are taking away, not adding functionality.

    This hinders the creatures ability to swim/perform basic functions that will most likely result in extinction, not evolution. Is this correct?



    Not a biologist,but I believe you have to consider the environment. What might be adverse in one might be beneficial when environmental conditions change or in unoccupied niches.Dinosaurs ,mammals and cosmic impacts

    . Another consideration is these experiments are being conducted on modern genotypes not the ancient ones

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would think you would have to consider whether or not the changes they are talking about are even possible via changes to the genome.

      Why don't they just take fish with fins, perform some targeted mutagenesis on the regulatory genes and see what develops? Then do it again and again to see if a fish with fins can evolve into a fish-a-pod.

      Delete
    2. Actually I think that is what they are doing. Of course they cannot be sure what the initial conditions were or have the luxury of vast time to conduct the research.

      Which experiments are being conducted on ID theory lately?

      Delete
  7. Wow. Watching you IDiots run around and squawk over a new scientific discovery is amazing. You guys must spend 4 hours a day practicing how to NOT understand.

    We already know from the fossil record that there was a fish to land dwelling tetrapod transition around 500 MYA. That is not in dispute. It took millions of years to complete, and probably took hundreds if not thousands of small mutations spread across entire populations to happen.

    All the scientists were doing is investigating the genetic nature of the changes. NOT saying they created a complete leg from a fin. What they discovered was one more piece of the puzzle - how modifications to a certain regulatory gene could cause additional cartilage growth. It's neat work that adds to our overall understand of the details of evolution, but you clowns are bound and determined to misrepresent it.

    An analogy would be researchers checking out the hypothesis that Amelia Earhart ditched her plane on Gardner Island. They find an aluminum aircraft aileron identified as coming from a 1930's Lockheed Electra. It's not proof that Earhart crashed there, but it's evidence that supports the hypothesis.

    Now some IDiot comes along and starts screaming "Earhart could never have flown with just that piece of aluminum! It can't fly by itself, it has no motor or wings! What are those fraudulent scientists trying to pull??!?"

    That's exactly why no one in the scientific community takes your inane critiques seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What scientific discovery? That messing with regulatory genes causes deformities?

      We already know from the fossil record that there was a fish to land dwelling tetrapod transition around 500 MYA.

      Except the fossil record doesn't say that.

      And not only tat the genetics don't support it.

      Delete
    2. What scientific discovery? That messing with regulatory genes causes deformities?

      That the mouse Hoxd13 control element was capable of driving gene expression in the distal fin rudiment. That is a noteworthy discovery.

      Except the fossil record doesn't say that.

      Yes it does.

      We have a beautiful array of specimens showing fin-to-leg transition, including Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and Hynerpeton.

      And not only tat the genetics don't support it.

      What?

      Delete
    3. That the mouse Hoxd13 control element was capable of driving gene expression in the distal fin rudiment. That is a noteworthy discovery.

      Yes it is, especially for us common design folk.

      Except the fossil record doesn't say that.

      Yes it does.

      No, it doesn't. For one Tiktaalik was found after tetrapods already existed. So the fossil record has fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods.

      And not only that the genetics don't support it.

      What?

      OK, for starter, how many mutations does it take to get a tetrapod leg from a fish fin? How do you quantify the transition?

      Delete
    4. Why don't they just take fish with fins, perform some targeted mutagenesis on the regulatory genes and see what develops? Then do it again and again to see if a fish with fins can evolve into a fish-a-pod.

      Delete
    5. Joe G

      Yes it is, especially for us common design folk.

      How so? What exactly does this mean for common design folk?

      No, it doesn't. For one Tiktaalik was found after tetrapods already existed. So the fossil record has fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods.

      Then you simply do not understand what is being shown here.

      Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and Hynerpeton are not meant to be a single, unbroken chain of species that were the first to walk on land. They are snapshots of a process that took millions of years. The footprints which pre-dated Tiktaalik only demonstrated that Tiktaalik was not the very first species to haul itself out of the water. But so what? That was never the claim made about it. And it does not undermine what Tiktaalik represents.

      OK, for starter, how many mutations does it take to get a tetrapod leg from a fish fin? How do you quantify the transition?

      I have absolutely no idea. You?

      Why don't they just take fish with fins, perform some targeted mutagenesis on the regulatory genes and see what develops? Then do it again and again to see if a fish with fins can evolve into a fish-a-pod.

      Genetics is just a tad more complicated that just having a quick tinker. Again, no-one claimed this experiment was supposed to be a working demonstration of fin-to-leg development. It is just a genetic piece of the puzzle.

      Delete
    6. Common design says that you should be able to take similar parts that do similar things in different organisms and interchange them.

      But anyway- yes I understand what I am being shown wrt the fossil record. Organisms that have lied, died and became fossilized. "Transitional form" is no more than "It looks like a transitional to me and seeing my poistion requires many of them I will call it a transitional form."

      Delete
    7. Common design says that you should be able to take similar parts that do similar things in different organisms and interchange them.

      Does it really? So if we were not able to in swap parts of animals around, that would disprove common design, would it? That would conclusively show that common design was absolutely wrong?

      "Transitional form" is no more than "It looks like a transitional to me and seeing my poistion requires many of them I will call it a transitional form."

      Every species is transitional. It is transitional between its ancestors and it descendants. That's kinda the whole point.

      But in the more classic sense of 'transitional forms' (ie, forms showing the transition between different clades or groups of animals), then yes that is exactly what these animals represent.

      Do you think these creatures are completely unrelated? Do you see absolutely no physical similarities between them whatsoever? Do you think it is a complete coincidence that the fins happen to become more and more leg-like as the fossils get newer?

      Delete
    8. Thorton,

      "Now some IDiot comes along and starts screaming "Earhart could never have flown with just that piece of aluminum! It can't fly by itself, it has no motor or wings! What are those fraudulent scientists trying to pull??!?"

      As usual, you're analogy crashes with a resounding thud! No one is claiming Earhart could have flown with that single piece of aluminum. On the other hand evolutionists are claiming that the Zebra fish could not only survive with a mutated fin, but that the mutated fin is a step towards the more complex feature of a tetrapod leg.

      So, just as a single piece of aluminum from an Electra is not proof of Earhart's plane, neither is a single mutation of a fishes fin proof of progress to a tetrapod leg.

      Delete
    9. Does it really? So if we were not able to in swap parts of animals around, that would disprove common design, would it?

      In the context I said, yes.

      "Transitional form" is no more than "It looks like a transitional to me and seeing my poistion requires many of them I will call it a transitional form."


      Every species is transitional. It is transitional between its ancestors and it descendants. That's kinda the whole point.


      Non-sequitur

      But in the more classic sense of 'transitional forms' (ie, forms showing the transition between different clades or groups of animals), then yes that is exactly what these animals represent.


      Bald assertion

      Do you think these creatures are completely unrelated?

      That is a possibility

      Do you see absolutely no physical similarities between them whatsoever?

      Physical similarities can be accounted for by a common design.

      Do you think it is a complete coincidence that the fins happen to become more and more leg-like as the fossils get newer?

      That only happens in your mind.

      Delete
    10. Nic

      As usual, you're analogy crashes with a resounding thud! No one is claiming Earhart could have flown with that single piece of aluminum. On the other hand evolutionists are claiming that the Zebra fish could not only survive with a mutated fin, but that the mutated fin is a step towards the more complex feature of a tetrapod leg.


      Show me where any scientists claimed that the mutated fin was an actual step in the fish-tetrapod transitional sequence. All the experiment showed was that it was possible to affect the cartilage development with a mutation to the regulatory genes. The test showed a piece of the genetic mechanisms of the change, not the specific phenotype results. That's your own dumb misunderstanding.

      So, just as a single piece of aluminum from an Electra is not proof of Earhart's plane, neither is a single mutation of a fishes fin proof of progress to a tetrapod leg

      I went out of my way to point out that evidence is not proof and you still don't get it.

      That's exactly why you demonstrate you don't understand the science being done here even a little.

      Delete
    11. Joe G

      In the context I said, yes.

      So basically if comparable animal genes were not swappable, that would disprove the idea that they were made by a common designer?

      I do not see the logic here at all. Why should a Designer of life by constrained by the caveat that comparable parts of his designs MUST be interchangable? Why is it impossible for a Designer to create creatures without swappable parts?

      That is a possibility

      Do you think it is also even a possibility that these creatures are, indeed, related? Snapshots of the evolution of a single lineage which involved millions of years and thousands of species?

      Physical similarities can be accounted for by a common design.

      But common design requires a designer. Which is a unevidenced and extraneous extra component. So by the principle of Occam's Razor, common ancestry is to be preferred.

      That only happens in your mind.

      You are being disingenuous.

      This whole post is good (really, you should read it all), but pay particular attention to the picture of the forelimb comparrisson under the section that talks about Tiktaalik. It clearly demonstrates that the very same bones have been found in the very same arrangement within the forelimbs of all these creatures:

      http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11771

      Delete
    12. Ritchie,

      Common ancestry requires magical mystery mutations to account for all the physical DIFFERENCES observed. So no, Occam's razor does not favor it by any means.

      One design would be more favorable to Occam than multiple just-so accidental changes.

      And again forelimb comparisson is evidence for a common design.

      Delete
    13. Common ancestry requires magical mystery mutations to account for all the physical DIFFERENCES observed.

      It does not. At absolutely no point in the theory of ToE, including Common Ancestry, is magic, miracles or the supernatural called as an explanation.

      One design would be more favorable to Occam than multiple just-so accidental changes.

      Flat wrong. You do not understand the principle of Occam's Razor at all.

      Once we have seen a horse, once we know for a fact that a horse exists, it is more likely that a million other horses also exist than it is that a single unicorn exists.

      And again forelimb comparisson is evidence for a common design.

      How? How would it disprove common design if the forelimbs did NOT show the progression they show? Why would it have been impossible for a designer to design the forelimbs of these creatures in any other way?

      Delete
    14. It does not. At absolutely no point in the theory of ToE, including Common Ancestry, is magic, miracles or the supernatural called as an explanation.

      Perhaps not but imagination is used as evidence. And that is just as bad.

      One design would be more favorable to Occam than multiple just-so accidental changes.

      Flat wrong.

      Quite true.

      Once we have seen a horse, once we know for a fact that a horse exists, it is more likely that a million other horses also exist than it is that a single unicorn exists.

      Non-sequitur.

      And again forelimb comparisson is evidence for a common design.

      How?

      No need to reinvent the wheel with every car.

      Delete
    15. Joe G -

      Perhaps not but imagination is used as evidence. And that is just as bad.

      Imagination? I think not. Extrapolation, perhaps. But that is not quite the same thing. Once you understand how a car works and have shown it will run for a mile, it is not illogical to extrapolate that, given enough petrol, it will run for a 1,000 miles, even if you do not witness it doing so yourself.

      Quite true.

      Nope. Let me demonstrate why:

      Consider the face of a cliff with the sea lapping at it's shore. What, we might ask, caused the specific shape of the cliff.

      Hypothesis 1 (H1): It is the result of many years of wind and water erosion from the sea.

      Hypothesis 2 (H2): A magic fairy popped into existence, poofed the cliff into existence exactly as it is with her magic wand, and disappeared again.

      Which is the simpler explanation? 1 or 2?

      Going by the argument you gave above, H2 is simpler. Since the entire explanation rests on the existence of one magic fairy. Which H1 requires hundreds of years of really specific lashings from tide and wind to create the exact shape of the cliff-face.

      But that is wrong. We know the wind exists. We know the sea exists. We know erosion is a real force. So H1 posits no extraneous forces. While H2 revolves around the existence of a being that we do not know exists, and apparently has powers that we do not exist either.

      So it is with UCA and CD. Common ancestry relies on no hypothetical agents or undemonstrated mechanisms. CD, however, necessitates the existence of a 'designer' who exists apart from all life in the universe (something we do not know is possible) and has the power to alter and create life through mechanisms unspecified, though the very lack of naturalistic mechanisms seems to imply some sort of supernatural ability here (something we do not know is possible either).

      So UCA is the simpler explanation.

      Non-sequitur.

      I hope the relevance is a little clearer now

      No need to reinvent the wheel with every car.

      But it is possible to reinvent the wheel with every car. If every car did have a different wheel, that wouldn't be evidence that cars weren't designed, would it?

      Delete
    16. LoL! No it is NOT possible to reinvent something that already exits.

      And no, UCA is untestable nonsense.

      If UCA is true then a dog evolving into a cat HAS to be OK.

      Delete
    17. No it is NOT possible to reinvent something that already exits.

      But it is perfectly possible to redesign something which already exists.

      It may be unnecessary, but it is certainly possible. And would not invalidate the possibility of a designer.

      So no, the forelimb comparrisson of the early tetrapods is not evidence for common design at all. But it is good evidence for common ancestry. Because common ancestry necessitates such a pattern.

      If UCA is true then a dog evolving into a cat HAS to be OK.

      LOL!!!!

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

      I'm sorry, but that it the biggest, most ridiculous pile of horse poo I have ever read.

      UCA absolutely does NOT insist it is viable for a dog to turn into a cat. What hideously tortured train of logic brought you to the conclusion that it did?

      Delete
    18. Thorton,

      "Show me where any scientists claimed that the mutated fin was an actual step in the fish-tetrapod transitional sequence. All the experiment showed was that it was possible to affect the cartilage development with a mutation to the regulatory genes."

      Don't play dumb Thorton, you know perfectly well that is their intended implication. Are you going to say they only carried out their experiments to determine whether or not mutation could cause a change in the limb structure? I hope not.

      "I went out of my way to point out that evidence is not proof and you still don't get it."

      I see your reading comprehension has not improved. What I said was;'So, just as a single piece of aluminum from an Electra is not proof of Earhart's plane, neither is a single mutation of a fishes fin proof of progress to a tetrapod leg.' I affirmed evidence is not proof, that was my point. Really, work on your reading skills.

      "That's exactly why you demonstrate you don't understand the science being done here even a little."

      Oh, but I do. I also understand your semantic games and that's why I don't fall for your bluster.

      By the way. it's nice to butt heads with you again. I hope you're doing well.

      Delete
  8. Chubs, why don't you stick to arguing for Noah's Ark? It's more your speed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thong-boy- why don't you stick to the men's rooms at shopping malls. That is all you know.

      Oops, you also know how to lie, equivocate and run away when your bluffs are called.

      Delete
    2. Joe G,

      "Thong-boy- why don't you stick to the men's rooms at shopping malls. That is all you know."

      Please Joe, there is no need for such comments. Answer Thorton's comments with proper respect. The occasional jab is fine, but attacks on one's moral character are crossing the line.

      Delete
    3. Hi Nic-

      thorton's very existence is a moral attack on all of humanity.

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      Thorton is entitled to his beliefs and opinions. I don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me, and that's fine. It does not mean he is deviant in his moral character. He's called me all kinds of names, but I take it all as harmless banter, as I hope he takes my jabs at him.

      Delete
    5. Nic,

      I agree . It isn't that because thorton is a total ass that he is also deviant in his moral character.

      It is clear that he doesn't have any moral character. Nor does he have any knowledge of science.

      Delete
    6. Joe,

      "It is clear that he doesn't have any moral character."

      What is it exactly that clearly demonstrates Thorton has no moral character? Is it simply because he does not agree with you or me?

      I don't think he is a total ass, I think he just likes getting under peoples skin. You just seem eager to let him do it. Return his jabs in kind, but don't attack his morals as you have no basis for such accusations.

      Delete
    7. Chubby Joe G

      It is clear that he doesn't have any moral character. Nor does he have any knowledge of science.


      LOL! Not moral like Chubs here who recently got banned from another science board for posting links to pornography.

      Not scientifically knowledgeable like Chubs here who believes the Great Pyramid is an antenna that lets us communicate with space aliens, and who believes in reincarnation.

      ALL MORALITY AND SCIENCE SO FAR!

      Delete
    8. Yes, he is a total ass. And I don't care if people disagree with me. That means nothing.

      And yes, I say I have plenty of basis for attacking his moral character. Consider yourslef lucky to ne so naive.

      Delete
    9. Not moral like Chubs here who recently got banned from another science board for posting links to pornography.

      Getting banned from a lowlife forum that hosts liars is an expected consequence for someone seeking open dialog with honest people.

      But no, I did not link to pornography.

      Not scientifically knowledgeable like Chubs here who believes the Great Pyramid is an antenna

      There is more evidence to support that claim than there is for evolutionism

      that lets us communicate with space aliens

      Not my claim

      and who believes in reincarnation.

      And there is more evidence for that than there is for evolutionism.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joe G

      Getting banned from a lowlife forum that hosts liars is an expected consequence for someone seeking open dialog with honest people.


      Funny, there's about 100 people I know of who were banned from UD and think the same thing about them. You were the only person ever banned from The Skeptical Zone.

      But no, I did not link to pornography.

      Then go ahead and post your same 'tunie' link here Chubs. Let people judge for themselves.

      There is more evidence to support that claim than there is for evolutionism

      Chubs just laps up those woo woo claims!

      Not my claim

      That's what the link you gave me as your 'evidence' said Chubs.

      And there is more evidence for that than there is for evolutionism.

      Chubs loves himself that anti-science woo!

      Delete
    11. Funny, there's about 100 people I know of who were banned from UD and think the same thing about them.

      We actually have the evidence to support our claims.

      Then go ahead and post your same 'tunie' link here Chubs. Let people judge for themselves.

      I don't need people to judge. I can read a definition and actually apply it.

      Just because you are too stupid to do such a thing, well that is on you, not me.

      There is more evidence to support that claim than there is for evolutionism

      Chubs just laps up those woo woo claims!

      And thorton laps up all the men in the men's rooms.

      It's become very noticeable that you can't produce any science for your position and all you can do is act like a belligerent punk when people expsoe you for the ass that you are.

      Delete
    12. Joe,

      "And yes, I say I have plenty of basis for attacking his moral character. Consider yourslef lucky to ne so naive."

      It would be interesting to know how you have plenty of basis for your claims. I am not at all naive, I just don't see any need to attack an individuals morals while discussing the origins of life.

      Delete
    13. LoL! thorton doesn't discuss anything...

      Delete
  9. These scientists are not trying to reconstruct the fin-to-leg mutation in a single experiment. To suggest otherwise is to vastly and horrendously overstate the nature of this experiment.

    We know that the fin-to-leg mutation happened. The question is, how.

    "We found that in the zebrafish, the mouse Hoxd13 control element was capable of driving gene expression in the distal fin rudiment. This result indicates that molecular machinery capable of activating this control element was also present in the last common ancestor of finned and legged animals and is proven by its remnants in zebrafish," says Dr. Casares.

    So this experiment has taught us something new: "Changes in HoxD13 production likely contributed to the transition from fin to leg development." It's not the whole story, of course, but it's another piece of the puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ritchie
    "We know that the fin-to-leg mutation happened. The question is, how."

    Wow, what do you mean exactly by know? and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blas,

      "Wow, what do you mean exactly by know? and how do you know?"

      Well that's easy. Fish have fins, tetrapods have legs, tetrapods evolved from fish. Therefore, fins had to mutate into legs. What more evidence do you need?

      Delete
    2. Hi Nic-

      How do you know that tetrapods evolved from fish? How can we test that claim? How many mutations did it take?

      Or are you just being sarcastic?

      Delete
    3. Joe,

      "Or are you just being sarcastic?"

      Come on Joe, everyone knows that tetrapods evolved from fish, they exist don't they? What other explanation is there for their existence? We know evolution is a fact, all we're doing now is figuring out how it all happened.

      Sarcastic? Very much so.

      Delete
    4. So scienifically knowledgeable Chubs, all those tetrapods we know from the fossil record - Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton - were they all separately created kinds? Were they all taken in pairs on Noah's Ark?

      Show us your science here Chubs.

      Delete
    5. Show us YOUR science thong-boy- show us that altering genomes can have the effects your position requires.

      Tell us how many mutations it takes for each transition- you know QUANTIFY something- ie conduct some actual science for once.

      That's the sad part, you can't even tell us how to perform any measurements.

      Delete
    6. Good old fatboy Chubs - in almost 10 years has never answered a single question about his Creationist claims. Always with the cowardly diversion "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!'

      How about it Chubs - what's your explanation for all the tetrapod fossil evidence?

      Delete
    7. thorton- until you provide a testable hypotehsis and positive evidence for oyur position discussiing science with you is useless as you can then just backpeddle and spew your cowardly nonsense.

      BTW, I don't have any Creationists claims. However in more than 10 uears you haven't been able to answer anything wrt your position, not even how to test it.

      Delete
    8. We know Chubs. We've heard your cowardly diversions and excuses for not answering questions so many times we can recite them all by heart.

      Delete
    9. Still waiting for your explanation for the tetrapod fossil evidence.

      Any time this decade Chubs.

      Delete
    10. The same explanation as I have already posted, many times- the tetrapod fossil evidence says that these organisms lived, died and were fossilized.

      Ya see, thong-boy, a BIOLOGICAL theory requires BIOLOGICAL evidence. So until we know whether or not genetic changes can produce the physical changes, the fossil evidence amounts to nothing more than "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."

      Delete
    11. Chubby Joe G

      The same explanation as I have already posted, many times- the tetrapod fossil evidence says that these organisms lived, died and were fossilized.


      Real scientific answer there Chubs. You want to add a few details? Like when did the lineages start? Were they related or all separately created kinds? Why do their morphologies show a distinct transition over time from an aquatic fin through intermediate steps to a terrestrial weight-bearing leg?

      Show us your scientific knowledge Chubs.

      Delete
    12. LoL! thong-boy sees it because he already believes it- ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

      Ya see, thong-boy, a BIOLOGICAL theory requires BIOLOGICAL evidence. So until we know whether or not genetic changes can produce the physical changes, the fossil evidence amounts to nothing more than "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."

      Details- yeah as in how many mutations and to what genes- THOSE ARE DETAILS. And you have nothing like that.

      Also fossils canNOT tell you when a lineage started. Are you really that stupid?

      Delete
    13. LOL! Good old fatboy Joe Gallien. Running from all questions, cowardly and ignorant to the bitter end.

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"

      Also fossils canNOT tell you when a lineage started. Are you really that stupid?

      They can give you an estimated range fatboy. How do we know the time span of when dinosaurs lived?

      What a fat pathetic joke you are. Chubby Joke Gallien.

      Delete
    14. LoL! closet YEC thorton spewing belligerent sewage again.

      They can give you an estimated range

      Nope. They can only tell you that tat particular organism lived, died and became fossilized.

      How do we know the time span of when dinosaurs lived?

      We really don't. We can guess but given evolutionism we wouldn't expect our guesses to be correct.

      Delete
  11. Thorton said: "An analogy would be researchers checking out the hypothesis that Amelia Earhart ditched her plane on Gardner Island. They find an aluminum aircraft aileron identified as coming from a 1930's Lockheed Electra. It's not proof that Earhart crashed there, but it's evidence that supports the hypothesis. "

    I'm checking out the hypothesis that my Windows 7 operating system can evolve to a Mac OS X Lion. So far the random bits i've changed haven't led to any definite positive results, but i think that's only because my faith is too weak. I did spot some Excel code that refers to both windows and macintosh though, so maybe i'm on to something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar

      I'm checking out the hypothesis that my Windows 7 operating system can evolve to a Mac OS X Lion


      That's a pretty stupid analogy since no one I know says Mac OS X Lion evolved from Windows 7.

      It's just as dumb as saying "a dog can't evolve into a cat". No one in science thinks or says a dog should be able to evolve into a cat. Instead, the evidence is that dogs and cats share a common mammalian ancestor.

      You guys don't understand even the basics yet you claim science has it all wrong.

      Delete
    2. Well why can't a dog evolve into a cat?

      Some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organsism gave rise to the diversity of life via accumulations of mutations but all of a sudden there is a boundary between dogs and cats?

      LoL!

      And no, we do NOT claim science has it all wrong as evolutionism is not science.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joe G

      Well why can't a dog evolve into a cat?


      LOL! There's all you need to know about Chubby Joe G's scientific understanding of evolution in one simple sentence.

      Delete
    4. LoL! There's all you need to know about thorton's scientific illiteracy. Can't make a case but sure can spew...

      Delete
    5. Any of you Creationists out there want to take a shot at answering fatboy's stupid question?

      Delete
    6. LoL! So let me get this straight- we have a process that can take a population of prokaryotic-like organism and produce the diversity of life, but it can't take a dog and over eons of time and eons of trial and error, produce a cat.

      Sounds like bullshit to me

      Delete
    7. No Chubs, it's just your woeful ignorance of evolutionary theory.

      Anyone want to explain his stupidity to Chubs? Maybe I'll do it later if I'm bored.

      Delete
    8. LoL! So let me get this straight- we have a process that can take a population of prokaryotic-like organism and produce the diversity of life, but it can't take a dog and over eons of time and eons of trial and error, produce a cat.

      thorton doesn't know what makes a dog a dofgnor a cat a cat. So there is NO POSSIBLE WAY he can say a dog cannot evolve into a cat.

      So stuff it thong-boy, ignorant liar.

      Delete
    9. Well why can't a dog evolve into a cat?

      The question is rather akin to asking whether you can father your own brother.

      Dogs and cats once shared a common ancestor, but their evolutionary paths diverged millions of years ago. Now the dog genome simply does not contain the genetic information needed to make a cat.

      Theoretically it is possible for a dog to evolve into something that looks very much like a cat. After all, look at the great many breeds of dogs we have, and how great the genetic variety between them is, despite the fact that they all descended from a common ancestor a mere 10,000 years ago. But the creature would not be an actual cat. That would require the specific, massively unlikely genetic code that it takes to build a cat.

      Delete
    10. Well why can't a dog evolve into a cat?

      The question is rather akin to asking whether you can father your own brother.

      No, it isn't anything like that.

      Now the dog genome simply does not contain the genetic information needed to make a cat.

      LoL! talk about making stuff up as you go!

      Evolution is about CHANGING the genome that exists to something different.

      But anyway Ritchie- you don't know what makes a cat a cat nor a dog a dog. So you can't say anything about one can't evolve into another. So you have no idea what information is required.

      And, as a matter of fact, on baraminology predicts that it cannot be done.

      Delete
    11. No, it isn't anything like that.

      As a quick, short-hand metaphor, it's pretty accurate. Cats and dogs are cousins. They descended from the same source. And they have diverged from that source. So how could you expect one to give rise to the other?

      LoL! talk about making stuff up as you go!

      What? The dog genome and the cat genome are different! That is as banal and obvious a statement as I can imagine. I am not making anything up.

      Evolution is about CHANGING the genome that exists to something different.

      Right. So?

      The cat genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the dog genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable. Like, try-to-picture-how-tiny-an-atom is small.

      But anyway Ritchie- you don't know what makes a cat a cat nor a dog a dog.

      Yes I do. It's genome. That was easy.

      So you can't say anything about one can't evolve into another.

      Yes I can. They have different genomes. Again, easy.

      And, as a matter of fact, on baraminology predicts that it cannot be done.

      Well so does ToE. And since ToE does not require extraneous and unevidenced agents, under the principle of Occam;s Razor, ToE is to be preferred.

      Delete
    12. Chubby Joe G

      thorton doesn't know what makes a dog a dofgnor a cat a cat. So there is NO POSSIBLE WAY he can say a dog cannot evolve into a cat.


      Heh. Ritchie even tried to help fatboy Joe but Chubs is still too stupid to understand.

      A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.

      A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.

      You could theoretically take a dog breed and through artificial selection evolve in into an animal that looked exactly like a cat, behaved like a cat, purred and mewed and chased string just like a cat. Theoretically you could even alter its physiology so it was an obligate carnivore just like a cat. But it could never be a cat because of its historical lineage. It will never be a member of the family Felidae. It's just a member of the family Canidae that's been modified to looks like a cat.

      It's no different than if you built a kit car "Ferrari". You could spend big bucks making it look like the real thing, sound like the real thing, paint it read and badge it like the real thing, but it will never be a real Ferrari. It's still just a kit car.

      Delete
    13. thong-boy:
      A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.

      LoL! THAT's BARAMINOLOGY!

      A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.

      And more BARAMINOLOGY.

      So to be clear both thorton and Ritchie are arguing against the theory of evolution and for baraminology.

      Delete
    14. And, as a matter of fact, on baraminology predicts that it cannot be done.

      Well so does ToE.

      Prove it- provide ONE valid reference tat supports that claim or admit that you are a liar.

      The cat genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the dog genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable.

      You do realuize tat you are now arguing AGAINST the UCA as ALL genomes are specific and massively improbable codes. And therefor they all have that fantastic improbability.

      Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.

      If not then everything you have said about evolution is total bullshit.

      Delete
    15. Chubby Joke Gallien

      Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.


      That still wouldn't make it a cat you idiot. It still would never be in the family Felidae. It would still be a dog that evolved into an entirely new separate family similar to the Felidae.

      See folks, that's the "understanding" of evolutionary science fatboy here has that makes him a laughingstock everywhere he posts.

      Delete
    16. Joe G -

      Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.

      No it can't. That doesn't happen. Evolution travels in a straight line. It never goes into reverse. That would be ridiculous. That would involve all the beneficial mutatuion which have evolved and spread throughout the dog genome suddenly and inexplicably being systematically selected AGAINST (for some unspecified reason), and then somehow following the exact same evolutionary path as the cats. The idea is a biological absurdity. Evolution simply does not work like that.

      Delete
    17. Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.

      That still wouldn't make it a cat you idiot.

      LoL! make your case asshole. You don't jst get to baldly assert it.

      If the organism has ALL the characteristics of a cat then it is a cat, period, end of story.

      By thorTARD's "logic" all humans are knuckle-walkers who just don't walk on their knuckles. All humans are also fish who just happen to have all the characteristics of humans.

      Delete
    18. Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.

      No it can't.

      Yes, it can.

      Evolution travels in a straight line. It never goes into reverse.

      What an ignorant ass you are. Evolution does NOT have a direction:

      Can evolution make things less complicated?




      Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.



      Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.



      “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

      Delete
    19. Chubby Joke Gallien

      If the organism has ALL the characteristics of a cat then it is a cat, period, end of story.


      And if your kit car has all the characteristics of a Ferrari then it is a Ferrari, right Chubs?

      By thorTARD's "logic" all humans are knuckle-walkers who just don't walk on their knuckles. All humans are also fish who just happen to have all the characteristics of humans.

      "Fish" isn't classification of 'family' in biological taxonomy you ignorant lump.

      Humans are in the family Hominidae. We're also primates, and mammals, and synapsids, and chordates.

      Fat Joke Gallien - the most ignorant Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    20. Thorton,

      "A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae."

      Think that statement through, Thorton. If, as evolution claims, Felines and Canines evolved from a common ancestor, it's a fact that at some point in their past they had ancestors which were neither Feline or Canine. If that's a fact why do you claim..., 'All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae."?

      If Canines can arise from non-Canine ancestors, why can they not eventually leave non-Canine descendants? And no, I do not believe dogs should be able to become cats.

      Delete
    21. Joe G

      Yes, it can.

      No, it really, absolutely cannot.

      Unless, of course, you have any kind of evidence - a case where evolution actaully UNDID itself?

      What an ignorant ass you are. Evolution does NOT have a direction:

      Truly laughable.

      You are literally proposing that species are capable of UNEVOLVING. That they can actually dismantle the progress that they have made. The notion is beyond ridiculous - and you have the nerve to call OTHERS ignorant asses? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

      Can evolution make things less complicated?

      These quotes are simply irrelevant. They are not at all making the point you were making above.

      Of course evolution can make things simpler - if that is what will make a species fitter. 'Fitness' is a relative term. It does not always mean making species bigger, stronger, more intellegent, more complex... It can sometimes mean making them small, weaker, less intelligent, simpler.

      But that is not what you were claiming above. You were claiming that evolution can literally run backwards - and in a specifically linear fashion too. That evolution can simply and literally reverse itself.

      THAT idea is completely wrong and utterly stupid.

      Delete
    22. Nic -

      If, as evolution claims, Felines and Canines evolved from a common ancestor, it's a fact that at some point in their past they had ancestors which were neither Feline or Canine. If that's a fact why do you claim..., 'All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae."?

      There was once a mammalian common ancestor. All its descendants are mammalian.

      Then, at some point, some mammals became monkeys. They didn't stop being mammals. But their desendants will all be monkeys.

      Then, at some point, some monkeys became apes. They didn't stop being mammals or monkeys. But their descendants will all be apes.

      Then, at some point, some apes became humans. They didn't stop being mammals, or, monkeys, or apes. But their descendants will all be human.

      Do you see how that works? That is a nested hierarchy.

      Both the canid and feline lineages are ancient. But they were once joined by a common ancestor. An ancestor whick was neither canid nor feline, but gave eventual rise to them both.

      Delete
    23. Nic

      Think that statement through, Thorton. If, as evolution claims, Felines and Canines evolved from a common ancestor, it's a fact that at some point in their past they had ancestors which were neither Feline or Canine.


      Which is exactly why I included the qualifier "going back tens of millions of years.". Catlike mamammls (feliformia) arose around 60 MYA, while the first true Felidae arose approx. 38-35 MYA.

      If that's a fact why do you claim..., 'All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae."?

      Because that's how cladistics works. If you're in the family Canidae, all your descendants will also be in the family Canidae by definition. You can't change your past history.

      If Canines can arise from non-Canine ancestors, why can they not eventually leave non-Canine descendants?

      Because descent with modification produces branching hierarchies. Once you're on a particular branch, all your descendants will also be on that branch.

      Delete
    24. Ritchie,

      "No it can't. That doesn't happen. Evolution travels in a straight line. It never goes into reverse. That would be ridiculous."

      This is not a scientific argument, and is logical nonsense. If, by random mutation and natural selection, an organism can gain functions, by the same process it can lose functions. It then only becomes a matter of definition as to whether that organism is progressing or regressing. You really must work on your critical thinking, Ritchie.

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. Nic -

      This is not a scientific argument, and is logical nonsense. If, by random mutation and natural selection, an organism can gain functions, by the same process it can lose functions.

      Of course that is so. But only by the process of accumulation. Blind cave fish, for example, have lost the function of their eyes. How did that happen? Have they, in fact, lost the gene for eyes? No, they have accumulated a gene which supresses the genes for developing eyes. The net result for the organism as a whole is a loss of function. But the result to the genome is greater complexity.

      When we divide a gene pool into two and then prevent gene flow between them, eventually they grow genetically apart because in each one random mutations are occurring. Deleterious one are being constantly weeded out before they gain a foothold, of course, but beneficial ones also arise and they quickly propagate and spread throughout their gene pool.

      So we split a gene pool into Pool A and Pool B. Eventually they will grow to be genetically different as beneficial mutations arise naturally in each.

      After many thousands of generations, is it possible for an individual from Pool A to become a member of Pool B? That would specifically entail ALL AND ONLY the specific mutations that arose in pool A since the point of seperation somehow being selected AGAINST. How on Earth would that happen when the whole reason they thrived to become part of pool A is that they were beneficial and thus selected FOR?

      And then, when the creature has got back to the point of seperation, it must somehow acquire the exact same random mutations that Pool B acquired. That would be like one person rolling a dice 1,000 times to get a string of results, and then someone coming along and also rolling a dice 1,000 times and getting the exact same string of results. The odds against it are just phenomenal.

      The whole thing is just a biological absurdity.

      You really must work on your critical thinking, Ritchie.

      No, my position is perfectly logical. You really must learn a little humility before arrogantly sneering at others, Nic.

      Delete
    27. And if your kit car has all the characteristics of a Ferrari then it is a Ferrari,

      Absolutely- and that means that no one can tell one from the other.

      By thorTARD's "logic" all humans are knuckle-walkers who just don't walk on their knuckles. All humans are also fish who just happen to have all the characteristics of humans.

      "Fish" isn't classification of 'family' in biological taxonomy you ignorant lump.

      I never said it was you demented prick.

      Humans are in the family Hominidae. We're also primates, and mammals, and synapsids, and chordates.

      So what? I never said we weren't.

      Delete
    28. Ritchie:
      You were claiming that evolution can literally run backwards - and in a specifically linear fashion too. That evolution can simply and literally reverse itself.


      Yes it can and there isn't anything that prevents it. If taking a step directly back = better fitness then so be it. Whatever can be gained can be lost.

      And guess what, Ritchie? You aren't anyone to say any different. So stuff it.

      Delete
    29. Joe G -

      Humans are in the family Hominidae. We're also primates, and mammals, and synapsids, and chordates.

      So what? I never said we weren't.


      Okay, sorry to butt in, but woah! Are you actually admitting a relationship between humans and other primates, mammals and chordates?

      Delete
    30. clset YEC thorton:
      Because that's how cladistics works. If you're in the family Canidae, all your descendants will also be in the family Canidae by definition. You can't change your past history.

      Cladistics is an after the fact assessment- OUR assessment. WE group things together based on shared characteristics.

      Because descent with modification produces branching hierarchies. Once you're on a particular branch, all your descendants will also be on that branch.

      Unless the branches cross or one travels back down the branch and takes another branch from there.

      Descent with modification can produce and asterik pattern or a back and forth pattern or a spiral pattern...


      Delete
    31. Are you actually admitting a relationship between humans and other primates, mammals and chordates?

      Yes, via a common design- Linnean taxonomy is based on a common design-

      Delete
    32. Joe G

      Unless the branches cross or one travels back down the branch and takes another branch from there.

      Wow. REALLY haven't got the hang of this tree of life thing, have you?

      Species speciate. They split. It is impossible to run 'up and down' branches of the tree of life. You simply cannot run down the branch you're on and jump down another instead. That is an absolute absurdity. I thought we'd been over this...?

      Descent with modification can produce and asterik pattern or a back and forth pattern or a spiral pattern...

      No it can't. It produces a branching pattern and that is the only pattern it can produce.

      Delete
    33. REALLY haven't got the hang of this tree of life thing, have you?


      Yes but I also understand evolution- it doesn't predict a tree.

      It is impossible to run 'up and down' branches of the tree of life.

      Prove it- YOU are not in any position to just baldly assert it.

      Descent with modification can produce and asterik pattern or a back and forth pattern or a spiral pattern...

      No it can't.

      yes it can and I provided a reference that supports my claim and you just hand-wave it away because you are a dishonest coward.

      So stuff it Ritchie. I will side with the evolutionary biologists who actually make a living at this over some anonymous chump.

      Delete
    34. Joe G -

      Yes, via a common design- Linnean taxonomy is based on a common design-

      Again, what do you mean, 'based on a common design'?

      Linnean taxonomy is based on the observed differences and similarities between species. They are grouped accordingly. And the pattern it forms is one of nested hierarchies.

      And nested hierarchies are explained best by common ancestry, since that is the pattern common ancestry necessitates.

      Delete
    35. Chubby Joe G

      Unless the branches cross or one travels back down the branch and takes another branch from there.


      Sorry fatboy, that doesn't even begin to make sense. You can't go backwards in time and undo the ancestors you already have. You can go forward and evolve something similar but that won't change the evolutionary path your lineage already took.

      You get more stupid every day lardass.

      Delete
    36. clset YEC thorton:
      You can't go backwards in time and undo the ancestors you already have.

      I never said nor implied such a thing. But evolution does NOT have a direction. And taht means whatever changed before can be undone- if it survives, then so be it.

      IOW closet YEC thorton, you are ignorant of evolution.

      Delete
    37. Chubby Joke GD

      T: "And if your kit car has all the characteristics of a Ferrari then it is a Ferrari, right Chubs?"

      Absolutely- and that means that no one can tell one from the other.


      Go tell that to companies like Rolex, Apple, and Levi's, which lose millions of dollars to fake knock-offs every day.

      Delete
    38. Yes, via a common design- Linnean taxonomy is based on a common design-

      Again, what do you mean, 'based on a common design'?

      Again, get an education as I have already been over this with you.

      Linnean taxonomy is based on the observed differences and similarities between species. They are grouped accordingly. And the pattern it forms is one of nested hierarchies.


      Linne was a Creationist in search of the Created kind. His taxonomy was based on a common design and it has NOTHING to do with any common ancestors.

      Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy. Transitional forms, by their very definition, would ruin a nested hierarchy and would instead form a Venn diagram.

      Delete
    39. Joe G -

      Yes but I also understand evolution- it doesn't predict a tree.

      What?!

      Yes it does. What relationship pattern do you think it predicts?

      Prove it- YOU are not in any position to just baldly assert it.

      Prove it? Ha ha ha! You have to make sense of it first. The very concept makes no sense. You appear to be saying evolution can literally undo itself. That every gene mutation we have had since we split from our ancestors with chimpanzees can somehow just disappear and be replaced by the exact same genes which occurred in the chimpanzee genome...

      How? How on Earth do you imagine this is even possible? What mechanisms would achieve this?

      So stuff it Ritchie. I will side with the evolutionary biologists who actually make a living at this over some anonymous chump.

      Wow, you really living on another planet aren't you?

      Evolutionary biologists do not side with ID, baraminology, Creationism or common design. These are fringe religious ideas. I mean yes you might be able to find the odd biologist who peddles this utter garbage (a PhD is no guarantee of common sense, after all), but the overwhelming consensus position among evolutionary biologists is common ancestry, as demonstrated by Project Steve. Are you familiar with that?

      The evolutiopnary biologists are the side of common acentry. You are taking the side of the God-bothering loonies who think 'Goddidit' constitutes a scientific theory.

      Delete
    40. Absolutely- and that means that no one can tell one from the other.

      Go tell that to companies like Rolex, Apple, and Levi's, which lose millions of dollars to fake knock-offs every day.

      Umm we can tell those fakes from the real things. IOW that ain't what I was talking about you little dishonest limpdick.

      Delete
    41. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      T: You can't go backwards in time and undo the ancestors you already have.

      I never said nor implied such a thing. But evolution does NOT have a direction. And taht means whatever changed before can be undone- if it survives, then so be it.


      Doesn't matter what a dog evolves into fatboy. If it's in the family Canidae it's still a Canidae. Evolving a different morphology doesn't make it magically switch families.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien - the most ignorant Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    42. Yes but I also understand evolution- it doesn't predict a tree.

      What?!

      Yes it does. What relationship pattern do you think it predicts?


      Look we do NOT see a tree amongst single-celled organisms and organisms that can easily hybridize.

      And no evolutionary biologist agrees with you about what we have been talking about. Not one will say taht evolution cannot go backwards.

      Delete
    43. Joe G -

      Again, get an education as I have already been over this with you.

      How ironic you say this when I do indeed have an education in biology specifically. Two diplomas - in Zoology, and in Evolutionary Biology (aside from an unrelated degree). And absolutely nowhere does anyone talk of common design. Funny that.

      What relevant qualifications do you have in this field, again...?

      Linne was a Creationist in search of the Created kind. His taxonomy was based on a common design and it has NOTHING to do with any common ancestors.

      Again, it doesn't matter what scientists believe. What matters is what they DO. What they discover. These are facts. And the facts might not be quite what the original discoverer had in mind. But too bad. Facts are facts.

      Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.

      No they don't. They form nested hierarchies.

      Transitional forms, by their very definition, would ruin a nested hierarchy and would instead form a Venn diagram.

      Transitional between what and what? For what seems like the umpteenth time, EVERY species is a transitional species. They are transitional between their ancestors and their descendants! That's the whole point.

      Delete
    44. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      FJG: Absolutely- and that means that no one can tell one from the other.

      T: Go tell that to companies like Rolex, Apple, and Levi's, which lose millions of dollars to fake knock-offs every day.

      Umm we can tell those fakes from the real things.


      So if the fakes were good enough you couldn't tell them apart that magically makes them into genuine Rolexes, Apples, and Levi's? Sorry Chubs, but the lawyers from Rolex, Apple, and Levis severely disagree with you.

      You get more stupid every time you post.

      Delete
    45. Doesn't matter what a dog evolves into fatboy. If it's in the family Canidae it's still a Canidae. Evolving a different morphology doesn't make it magically switch families.

      LoL! clset YEC thorton is having a meltdown!

      Fish allegedly gave rise to amphibians- But anyway WE clasify organisms based on characteristics. "family" is a meaningless term wrt evolution and evolutionism.

      Delete
    46. Joe G -

      Look we do NOT see a tree amongst single-celled organisms and organisms that can easily hybridize.

      Ah, yes. Now that is actually true. But that is because single-celled organisms are capable of horizonal gene transfer. Which complicates matters a vast deal.

      But such is not the case with multi-cellular animals.

      Or are you saying you are fine with the concept that all multi-cellular animals originated from a common, multi-cellular ancestor?

      And no evolutionary biologist agrees with you about what we have been talking about. Not one will say taht evolution cannot go backwards.

      http://www.livescience.com/7886-evolution.html

      The very first result when I put the words 'evolution can't go backwards' into google.

      Would you like me to bring up some more?

      Delete
    47. closet YEC thorton:
      So if the fakes were good enough you couldn't tell them apart that magically makes them into genuine Rolexes, Apples, and Levi's?

      I never said that. However if no one could tell them apart, who would know? Why would lawyers even be involved?

      Just keep pulling stuff out of your ass closet YEC thorton

      Delete
    48. Ritchie- that article is about proteins, not organisms.

      Look eyes can be lost, legs can be lost- anything gained can be lost. So obvioulsy evolution can go backwards.

      Delete
    49. Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.

      No they don't.

      You lose assface:

      Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models

      in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:

      This could be interpreted as a linear representation of history (a directed,
      non-reticulate network), or, as Hennig intended, as a non-nested hierarchy with
      ancestor-descendant relationship as the organizational criterion. page 10

      Delete
    50. Joe G -

      Ritchie- that article is about proteins, not organisms.

      Yes. Your point being?

      The only way for dogs to give rise to cats is if they lost every single genetic mutation (which, we must remember, has only been added to the dog genome because they have been selected FOR) since the time of their split, and then, by a coincidence too phenominal to fathom, to develop the exact same RANDOM mutations as the cat lineage has done.

      Look eyes can be lost, legs can be lost- anything gained can be lost. So obvioulsy evolution can go backwards.

      Like blind cave fish, for example? They have lost their eyes. Is that because they have lost the genes for developing eyes? No. They have developed genes which surpress the genes for developing eyes. See how that works? The net result is a loss of function for the organism, but added complexity for the genome.

      Delete
    51. Joe G -

      You lose assface:

      Wrong again you massive prick.

      Do you understand what that absrtact actually says?

      Delete
    52. Ritchie,

      You have no idea what makes a dog a dog nor a cat a cat.

      But thank you for continuing to argue against your position. That is priceless-if random mutations can't make a cat out of a dog then they can't make a human out of a knuckle-walker/ quadraped.

      Delete
    53. Ritchie- read the paper you lazy punk- ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies, period, end of story.

      Delete
    54. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      Look eyes can be lost, legs can be lost- anything gained can be lost. So obvioulsy evolution can go backwards.


      That's not the same as taking the identical genetic path backwards with identical but mirror imaged selection pressures and magically "reversed" one time effects like asteroid strikes or super-volcanoes.

      How does that happen in you fantasy world Chubs? How do you make a volcano unexplode, or an asteroid unhit the Earth?

      Fatboy Joke Gallien - the dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    55. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      Ritchie- read the paper you lazy punk- ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies, period, end of story.


      Right Chubs. That's why we never use DNA tests to establish ancestor-descendent relationships.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien - the dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    56. Joe G -

      You have no idea what makes a dog a dog nor a cat a cat.

      Yes I do. It's geneome. Ta-dah. It really is that simple.

      But thank you for continuing to argue against your position.

      No, you just do not understand my position. You have absolutely no concept of the ToE actually SAYS.

      That is priceless-if random mutations can't make a cat out of a dog then they can't make a human out of a knuckle-walker/ quadraped.

      HA HA HA HA!!!

      Of course it can! Cats and dogs are seperate lineages. The ancestor of cats and dogs was neither a cat nor a dog.

      But go back far enough and the ancestors of humans were quadrapeds.

      You REALLY don't understand this at all, do you?

      Delete
    57. Joe G -

      Ritchie- read the paper you lazy punk- ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies, period, end of story.

      I have read the abstract you jeuvenile dropout, and nowhere does it state that the tree of life is not, in fact, organised into nested hierarchies.

      Have YOU read the abstract? My guess is all those big sciencey words scared you away like a vampire before the dawn.

      Delete
    58. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      You lose assface:

      Wrong again you massive prick


      Uh oh! Fatboy Joke Gallien has started his nightly meltdown already!

      Delete
    59. Ritchie

      You REALLY don't understand this at all, do you?


      No, Chubby Joe really doesn't understand evolutionary theory, even a little bit.

      He's just another garden variety ignorant Creationist who loves to make himself feel better by screaming his same stupid anti-science one liners at scientifically knowledgeable people on the web.

      He's just louder and lots more vulgar than most of the other Godbotherers.

      Delete
    60. Ritchie,

      The paper says that ancestor-decendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies. And yes, the abstract is PART of te paper but it isn't the only part you moron.

      Delete
    61. You have no idea what makes a dog a dog nor a cat a cat.

      Yes I do. It's geneome

      Reference please- YOU don't just get to baldly assert that especially when I have geneticists who say otherwise.

      But thank you for continuing to argue against your position.

      No, you just do not understand my position.

      I understand the theory of evolution much better than you do.

      That is priceless-if random mutations can't make a cat out of a dog then they can't make a human out of a knuckle-walker/ quadraped.

      HA HA HA HA!!!

      Of course it can!


      Not according to YOUR "logic":

      The human genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the knuckle-walker genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable.

      Delete
    62. Ritchie- read the paper you lazy punk- ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies, period, end of story.

      That's why we never use DNA tests to establish ancestor-descendent relationships.

      Nive cowardly non-sequitur from thorton, the closet YEC.

      Just because we can use DNA to establish ancestor- descendent relationships, taht has absolutely NO bearing on nested or non-nested hierarchies.

      Delete
    63. OK so there isn't anything that prevents a dog from evolving into a cat, just not a cat on the current cat branch.

      That just means it would form another cat branch. And there isn't anything preventing that.

      Delete
    64. OK so there isn't anything that prevents a dog from evolving into a cat, just not a cat on the current cat branch.

      This makes little sense. How is it a cat if it isn't on the 'cat branch'?

      That just means it would form another cat branch. And there isn't anything preventing that.

      Another cat branch...?

      No, it would be a new branch of its own. Which stems from the dog branch. If would have nothing to do with cats.

      For something to qualify as a cat, it needs to possess the cat genome. Dogs don't. And the chances of them just happening to evolve an identical genome all by themselves is so phenominally small that we might as well say it's impossible. Dogs do not evolve into cats.

      Delete
    65. Chubby Joke G

      OK so there isn't anything that prevents a dog from evolving into a cat, just not a cat on the current cat branch.


      Can it be? The 5W bulb inside of Fatboy's dusty skull is finally starting to glow?

      That just means it would form another cat branch. And there isn't anything preventing that.

      Nope, false alarm. There can't be another "cat branch" because that nomenclature is already assigned to the Felidae. It can be another cat-like mammal with a new, different classification but it can never be a cat.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    66. Joe G

      The paper says that ancestor-decendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies. And yes, the abstract is PART of te paper but it isn't the only part you moron.

      So cocky and yet so clueless.

      This paper is a comparrisson study of classification models. Have you actually READ it at all, or just quote-mined a single line from it?

      Meanwhile, back in the actual scientific world, here is the tree of life itself. Have a play around with it - it's rather fun. Explore the relationships between species and note the fact that that pattern is nested hierarchies:

      http://tolweb.org/tree/

      Reference please- YOU don't just get to baldly assert that especially when I have geneticists who say otherwise.

      It is not a bald assertion, it is a self-evident fact. That's what a genome is, by definition.

      "In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome

      I understand the theory of evolution much better than you do.

      No, you really don't. You might THINK you do, but you are simply arrogant and wrong. You are coming out with all manner of utter nonesense, mistakes and misrepresentations which clearly demonstrate you have no grasp on ToE at all. You seem to have gotten all your information about ToE from Creationist scources - who spend all their time lying and misrepresenting ToE in order to make it sound foolish and flawed. You will learn nothing accurate from them.

      Not according to YOUR "logic":

      The human genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the knuckle-walker genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable.


      Yet again, wrong.

      A quadruped is not a species, genera or order. It is not the name of a specific clade. It is simply a term for any animal which walks on four legs. s such there is no such thing as a 'quadruped' genome.

      The name for the clade which consists of humans and our quadruped cousins is the apes. An an ape has never given rise to a non-ape. We humans are still apes.

      Delete
    67. closet YEC thorton:
      There can't be another "cat branch" because that nomenclature is already assigned to the Felidae.

      What are you, retarded? Of course there can be another cat branch. There isn't anything to prevent it.


      It can be another cat-like mammal with a new, different classification but it can never be a cat.

      If it looks like a cat, acts like a cat and has the genome of a cat, then it is a cat, dumbass.

      Delete
    68. The paper says that ancestor-decendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies. And yes, the abstract is PART of te paper but it isn't the only part you moron.

      This paper is a comparrisson study of classification models. Have you actually READ it at all, or just quote-mined a single line from it?

      I read the entire papaer and ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies.

      "In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information."

      LoL! As if wikipedia is an authority!

      I understand the theory of evolution much better than you do.

      No, you really don't.

      Yes, I really do and can prove it every day.

      The human genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the knuckle-walker genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable.

      Yet again, wrong.

      Nope

      A quadruped is not a species, genera or order. It is not the name of a specific clade. It is simply a term for any animal which walks on four legs. s such there is no such thing as a 'quadruped' genome.

      Nice cowardly non-sequitur.

      Delete
    69. For something to qualify as a cat, it needs to possess the cat genome.

      And my organism would so you lose, again

      Dogs don't.

      And EVOLUTION CAN CHANGE THAT. THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION DOES, DUH.

      And the chances of them just happening to evolve an identical genome all by themselves is so phenominally small that we might as well say it's impossible.

      All of evolutionism relies on that same type of impossibilty. So you are arguing against your own position.

      Dogs do not evolve into cats.

      So you keep saying yet cannot provide any evidence for.

      Delete
    70. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      What are you, retarded? Of course there can be another cat branch. There isn't anything to prevent it.


      Scientific naming convention precludes have the same name for two different families. As a stupid Creationist you could call your new dog-cat whatever you wanted, but scientifically it's not a cat.

      If it looks like a cat, acts like a cat and has the genome of a cat, then it is a cat, dumbass.

      Wrong again Fatboy. To be a cat it has to have descended from Felidae ancestors by definition. I know a blustering ignoramus like you likes to make up his own definitions, but science is under no obligation to listen to your stupidity.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    71. Joe G

      I read the entire papaer and ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies.

      No, that is a single line you have taken out of context and are parading around without understand.

      Here is another line from the paper that you might be able to understand (not too many science words to confuse you):

      "Life is an open system, and natural selection is aptly characterized as a blind
      mechanism because evolution is not deterministic... Viewed retrospectively, the evolution of life can be considered a closed system. It is not teleological to determine how and why life evolved into its present state, because there is no motivational implication that life was determined to achieve this particular state. Prospective and retrospective frameworks offer complementary views. A sterile organism is a descendant, but it will never be an ancestor. To shift between a prospective and a retrospective framework, one must change the organizational criteria used to model the evolution of life, thereby moving from an open system to a closed system, respectively."

      Do you see? He is discussing models in which to denote living species from a prospective and retrospective point of view. It is a tad more complicated that 'Ooop, we got it all wrong, life doesn't actually fit into a tree at all!'

      LoL! As if wikipedia is an authority!

      I really don't hold with wikipedia snobbery. But have it your way. How's biologyonline?

      Genome

      (1) The complete set of genes in an organism.

      (2) The total genetic content in one set of chromosomes.

      http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genome

      ... or medterms.com?

      Genome: All the genetic information possessed by any organism (for example, the human genome, the elephant genome, the mouse genome, the yeast genome, and the genome of a bacterium).

      http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3580

      Exactly the same bloody definition.

      Can you present a definition of genome from a worth source which says anything relevantly different?

      Yes, I really do and can prove it every day.

      Blind and arrogant chest-thumping.

      Nice cowardly non-sequitur.

      It isn't a non-sequitur you total ignoramus. If you do not see the relevance then that is because you are too stupid to understand it.

      And my organism would so you lose, again

      HOW? How would the dog geneome become a cat genome? How would all the mutations which have been selected FOR and thriven in the dog genome since the time of their LCA simply just disappear to be replaced with the specific mutations which have arisen and thriven in a lineage that has been seperate for millions of years? Chance? Blind luck?

      And EVOLUTION CAN CHANGE THAT. THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION DOES, DUH.

      Evolution changes genomes, yes. But why would it change a genome to specifically be the same as another genome? What selection pressure is there on a dog genome to favour mutations which are found in a totally seperate lineage?

      All of evolutionism relies on that same type of impossibilty. So you are arguing against your own position.

      No I am not. If you roll a dice 1,000 times, you will get a string of 1,000 results. That is common sense. You will end up with a staggeringly unlikely sequence of numbers. But it is inevitable that you will end up with one.

      What IS so massively unlikely as to be cnosidered an impossibility, is for someone else to them sit down, roll a dice 1,000 times and get the exact same sequence of results as you got. THAT doesn't happen. And yet that is exactly what you are saying can happen for a dog to give rise to a cat - the dog not only lose all the adaptations it has made over the last umpteen million years (for reasons you have not explained at all) but then must recreate the exact same massively unlikely sequence of mutations which have occurred in the cat lineage.

      This is simply absurd.

      Delete
    72. Ritchie,

      "There was once a mammalian common ancestor. All its descendants are mammalian."

      That's not what evolution proposes. It proposes that there was a single common ancestor which led to both mammals and reptiles. That demands that at some point there had to be a divergence. At some A was no longer A. This is a simple fact of the evolutionary paradigm which you cannot avoid.

      "Then, at some point, some mammals became monkeys. They didn't stop being mammals. But their desendants will all be monkeys."

      If at some point some of these mammals became monkeys, that demands they were something other than monkeys previously. Do you understand that?

      If that is the case, and they became monkeys, why could not the descendants of monkeys become something else. Why do you claim all the descendants of monkeys must be monkeys when all the ancestors of monkeys were not monkeys and, by extension, not mammals?

      "Do you see how that works? That is a nested hierarchy."

      Seriously? You're going to use the nested hierarchy argument? We evolved from monkeys (your claim, not mine) because we both have a respiratory system, or four limbs, or a heart and lungs. Besides, the nested hierarchy concept is easily incorporated into a design scenario. As such it does nothing to help your case.

      "Both the canid and feline lineages are ancient. But they were once joined by a common ancestor. An ancestor whick was neither canid nor feline, but gave eventual rise to them both."

      This is a claim easily made but impossible to demonstrate. If the ancestor was neither Canine or Feline what was it?

      Delete
    73. Nic -

      That's not what evolution proposes. It proposes that there was a single common ancestor which led to both mammals and reptiles.

      You are confused. The common ancestor for all mammals is not the same creature for all mammals AND reptiles.

      That demands that at some point there had to be a divergence. At some A was no longer A. This is a simple fact of the evolutionary paradigm which you cannot avoid.

      Yes there was a divergence, but A never becomes non-A.

      If at some point some of these mammals became monkeys, that demands they were something other than monkeys previously. Do you understand that?

      True. The ancestors of monkeys were not always monkeys.

      If that is the case, and they became monkeys, why could not the descendants of monkeys become something else.

      Because when the first monkeys emerged, they did not stop being what their ancestors were. They became a new clade WITHIN the old.

      Consider the first poodle. There was a time when there were no poodles. Then there was a time when poodles first appeared. But that did not mean poodles ever stopped being dogs. There was no transition from dog to poodle, so that it stopped being a dog. A new clade (poodle) merely appeared WITHIN the old (dog).

      Seriously? You're going to use the nested hierarchy argument? We evolved from monkeys (your claim, not mine) because we both have a respiratory system, or four limbs, or a heart and lungs.

      Yes. Well, that and we share 95% of our genes with them, of course.

      Besides, the nested hierarchy concept is easily incorporated into a design scenario. As such it does nothing to help your case.

      ANY possible conceivable scenario can be incorporated into a design scenario. There is no pattern of evidence which would disprove a design scenario - and therefore there is no particular pattern of evidence which particularly supports a design scenario either.

      Common ancestry, on the other hand does indeed necessitate the pattern we observe. Which means it is strong evidence for that.

      If the ancestor was neither Canine or Feline what was it?

      A member of Carnivora (I'd call it a 'carnivore', but I'm sure you could easily see the confusion. I mean 'carnivore' in the technical sense of 'one who belongs to the order Carnivora', rather than the casual use of the word which is applied to anything which eats meat).

      Delete
    74. Joe G -

      Good news. I actualy took the trouble to write an email to our good friend Eric Knox himself, asking if he could shed some light on his paper. I'll post my email to him and his reply below:


      Hello Sir,

      I completely understand if you do not consider replying to be worth your time, but I just wanted to ask what I'm sure will appear a rather stupid question.

      In case you are not aware, your paper, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics published in Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) has been doing the rounds on Intelligent Design websites. Specifically the phrase "The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy."

      They have been taking this to mean, quite simply, that the natural world cannot be ordered into nested hierarchies - that is, it shows no pattern of common ancestry. The implication being common ancestry is likely wrong and baraminology (that the different clades of animals have always existed pretty much as they are and share no common ancestor, however distant) is correct.

      I rather think this is a misrepresentation of your paper. But the language in your paper is dense. And I just wanted to clarify whether, in your professional opinion, the natural world can be grouped into nested hierarchies which show their relatedness via common ancestry, or not.

      Thank you for your time.

      Richard

      Delete
    75. Dear Richard,

      Thank you for your email, which reminds me of the old quip that there are no silly questions -- just silly answers.

      The overwhelming evidence from morphology and molecular systematics demonstrates the evolutionary relationships via common ancestry for all life on earth.

      The simple metaphor is the 'tree of life', whereby species that are alive today are like the growing tips of the tree and the relationships are reflected in the accumulated branching pattern.

      The paper to which you refer addressed the issue of how we use hierarchical models to construct formal biological taxonomy to classify species. A simple analogy is an army: If you are a soldier at the lowest level of organization, is the highest level of organization the entire army, or the general who commands that army? The entire army (at least the simplified version) will have a nested structure of groups within groups, whereas the command-and-control structure is a non-nested hierarchy of who can give orders to whom (with obvious exceptions for military police, etc.). Similarly, the common ancestral species that gave rise to, say, the plant family Onagraceae, is not the same thing as all the Onagraceae species that are alive today, or all the Onagraceae species that ever lived, but there are relationships somewhat analogous to an officer and the unit under his or her command.

      The 'tree of life' metaphor is also complicated by the fact that, for real trees (like oaks and maples), while the growing tips elongate and branch, the trunk and pre-existing branches increase in girth. When the ancestral species of the Onagraceae was alive, it was just a species like any other species. Its descendant lineages have subsequently diversified into all the genera and species that are alive today, and as a result we have a funny linguistic problem that a species is a unit within a genus (and a family and an order, and the other standard ranks of biological classification), but an ancestral species also gave rise to each genus (and family and order, etc.). This is not a difficult concept to grasp, but imagine the problem of describing an army if all individuals were called generals (not privates, lieutenants, colonels, etc.) and only groups of individuals (e.g., company, battalion, regiment, etc.) had ranked names.

      The phrase you quoted below is not from my paper (note that descendant is misspelled) -- it is someone's incorrect paraphrase at:

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/01/nested-hierarchies-and-cladistics.html

      Cheers,

      Eric

      Delete
    76. There we go, Joe. Hope that clears that up. Right from the horses mouth. He is not claiming that the natural world fails to fit a nested hierarchy model after all. And he does believe (like practically every other biologist in the world) that the natural world fits the pattern of common ancestry.

      And he's even heard of your blog! What do you make of that?

      Shame about the typo. Bit embarrassing there. Never mind, eh?

      Delete
    77. Nic

      If at some point some of these mammals became monkeys, that demands they were something other than monkeys previously. Do you understand that?


      Before their lineage split off the main mammalian branch and evolved into monkeys monkeys didn't exist. Why can't you understand that?

      If that is the case, and they became monkeys, why could not the descendants of monkeys become something else. Why do you claim all the descendants of monkeys must be monkeys when all the ancestors of monkeys were not monkeys and, by extension, not mammals?

      Nic, do yourself a favor before you make yourself look any more stupid. Get a dictionary. Look up the definitions of ancestor and descendant. HINT: they don't mean the same thing.

      Besides, the nested hierarchy concept is easily incorporated into a design scenario. As such it does nothing to help your case.

      Design doesn't predict or require branching nested hierarchies. However, it is a 100% requirement for evolutionary processes. Finding branching nested hierarchies in life as we do is therefore supporting evidence for evolution but doesn't say a thing about any possible design.

      This is a claim easily made but impossible to demonstrate. If the ancestor was neither Canine or Feline what was it?

      It was from a superfamily of mammals known as the Miacidae that first appeared about about 60 MYA. This superfamily gave rise to various extant mammal families such as dogs, cats, bears, badgers, weasels, civets, and seals.

      Yes, there is both fossil and genetic evidence that supports this.

      Delete
    78. Ritchie

      Joe G -

      Good news. I actualy took the trouble to write an email to our good friend Eric Knox himself, asking if he could shed some light on his paper. I'll post my email to him and his reply below:


      LOL! Thanks Ritchie, that's absolutely classic.

      I can only remember a few times when the author of a technical paper has come by to dope slap the idiot Creationist who was deliberately misrepresenting the work.

      Forgive my schadenfreude but few things in the C/E discussion world are funnier!

      Delete
    79. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    80. LOL! Fat Joke Gallien gets dope slapped by the author of the paper he's misrepresenting!

      Too funny!

      Delete
    81. Ritchie,

      I never said taht teh natural world can't fit into a nested hierarchy- NEVER.

      I said that, according to Knox, ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies.

      So please yake your head out of your ass and ask him that one simple question-

      Do ancestor-descendent relationships form nested or non-nested hierarchies?

      Delete
    82. The phrase you quoted below is not from my paper (note that descendant is misspelled) -- it is someone's incorrect paraphrase at:

      1- I never said it was from his paper

      2- It wasn't a paraphrase of his paper

      3- In that paper he says ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies

      and decsendent and descenant are both accepted by Word and both accepted by dictionaries.

      Delete
    83. From the paper:

      Hierarchy I is simply Figure 3b redrawn as Figure 4, with time as the horizontal axis. As mentioned above, this diagram of species begetting species can be viewed as a linear history or as a set of hierarchical relations. If viewed hierarchically, this model has an organizational criterion of ancestor-descendant relationship, and the entity at the highest level of organization is first life. Hierarchy I is non-nested, all entities are species, and first life equally well represents the progenitor of all life or of some restricted monophyletic group. Pages 11-12

      Delete
  12. It's 'satori', ('wu' in Chinese), Grasshopper, viz enlightenment. He knows it in the same way he knows the sound of one hand clapping.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent research but I'm plagued with a few questions.....

    So they purposefully tinkered...... and cause a deformity. This does not indicate by any way that natural selection was at work but let me get back to the point. So in a controlled environment free from predators our little transitional might have a chance to survive and pass this trait onto its offspring but I'm doubtful that it will last long in an uncontrolled environment where predators lurk all the time looking for a not so free but much easier lunch...

    Now that is an experiment worth doing... Chuck some "intermediates in the pond with they're natural enemies and se what happens... Of course the predator might also be going through some mutation which might even the playing field but I doubt that... To survive you gotta eat at some point right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andre-

      If we could genetically alter a fish with fins so that somewhere along the line a fish-a-pod develops, at least that would demonstrate that the changes are possible.

      Delete
    2. I'm curious, when you talk of fish-a-pod, are you picturing something like the mudskipper?

      http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKurTiX4FDuQ&ei=b5bHUKadEMWOyAG864CwBw&usg=AFQjCNHl6v25XzkJjaSwGZUR20x0jPiShQ


      Just curious.

      Delete
    3. Acanthostega? Was that a fish-a-pod?

      Delete
    4. No idea, never seen one. But more importantly can one evolve from a fish

      Delete
    5. My point is, were is the cutoff point?

      If Acanthostega can evolve from a fish, can a mudskipper? Can a newt? Can a frog? Can a toad? Can a salamander? Can a lizard? Can a bird? Given enough time, can a fish evolve into all of these things? And if not, why not? What are the boundaries stopping it?

      Delete
    6. Hi Joe G

      I'm not disputing that change is possible, what is highly unlikely is that such a intermediate would actually survive long enough in a world where everything eats everything else. Now that would be a scientific experiment worth checking out. The survivability of intermediates!

      Delete
    7. And what exactly is an 'intermediate'?

      Delete
    8. Well lets see..... There is this fish with a mutation that's not a fin and not a leg.... so if its neither its an intermediate.....


      in·ter·me·di·ate

      adjective

      being, situated, or acting between two points, stages, things, persons, etc.:
      the intermediate steps in a procedure.

      Does that help?

      Delete
    9. If Acanthostega can evolve from a fish

      Can it? THAT is the question- good luck finding evidence for that.

      Delete
    10. Andre -

      Does that help?

      I'm afraid not.

      Because you have to explain beforehand what the two points are before you can have an intermediate between those two points, don't you?

      And every single creature and species is an intermediate between its ancestors and its descendants.

      So really every creature alive is an intemediate. Including you.

      Delete
    11. Joe G -

      Can it? THAT is the question

      You already said you do not have a problem with evolution happening. So why you object to the idea that Acanthostega evolved from a fish?

      Please stop being coy and state your position clearly. Do you think Acanthostega evolved from a fish or not? And why?

      Delete
    12. Evidence Ritchie- you need some and you don't have any.

      And evolution just means a change n allele frequency over time within a population.

      Delete
    13. Ritchie

      Think about that blind statement... everything is an intermediate, usual Darwinian drivel that is supposed to awe us in wonder. I'm not a fish, neither a bird. I am perfectly adapted for my environment. But let's step back a bit is the now in 100 million year stasis crocodile an intermediate? The coelacanth? Has the basic body plans really changed from the original Cambrian explosion? No sir you are no intermediate, neither is a fish nor a bird... are there some in betweens? Sure but the minority examples do not account for the majority of evidence. Tell you what...... since humans have been swimming competitively have we seen any major changes like web toes and webbed fingers? They do spend 6 - 8 hours in the water a day....... I've seen nothing only bigger shoulders, better lungs but any changes that can make them fish like and no matter how much time you add that won't change time can not cause anything.

      You are welcome to believe in unproven fairy tales based on your faith, but do me a favor don't parade around telling everyone what you blive to be true is fact... It is in fact not.

      Delete
    14. Joe G -



      On the contrary. The fossil evidence of early tetrapods - Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton - is evidence. And as evidence they support ToE because they demonstrate the pattern Toe necessitates. So they are, in fact, supporting evidence.

      More than that, there is genetics too. The pattern of life as revealed by our own genes is one of the famous tree of life - nested hierarchies. They show us - with at least as much confidence as we can have in the results of a paternity test (for they work on the exact same principle) - that all tetrapods are related, and, more than that, that they are more closely related to each other than they are to any non-tetrapod. That is to say, all living tetrapods descend from a tetrapod ancestor. This is not speculation. This is not guesswork. Genetics tells us this is so. If it is incorrect, then the entire field of genetics is absolutely flawed.

      All in all, that's a lot of evidence.

      And evolution just means a change n allele frequency over time within a population.

      That wasn't what I asked. I asked what you think of the Acanthostega. Do you even allow that it is possible that it evolved from fish?

      You really do have a conspicuous habit of evading awkward questions, don't you?

      Delete
    15. Ritchie,

      "If Acanthostega can evolve from a fish,..."

      This is where the rubber meets the road, Ritchie. You first must be able to demonstrate Acanthostega did indeed evolve from a fish. The simple truth is you cannot, nor can anyone else. As a result your argument is totally moot. Protest all you want, those are the simple facts. Your assertion that Acanthostega evolved from a fish is not evidence of such an event.

      Delete
    16. Andre -

      Think about that blind statement... everything is an intermediate, usual Darwinian drivel that is supposed to awe us in wonder.

      On the contrary, it is as obvious a point as I can imagine. Every species in an intermediate between its ancestors and its descendants. That is a plain and obvious fact.

      I'm not a fish, neither a bird.

      I didn't say you were a fish. Or a bird. I said you were an intermediate between your ancestors and your descendants. Which is obviously true (unless of course you don't ever have any descendants).

      But let's step back a bit is the now in 100 million year stasis crocodile an intermediate?

      I'll guess that was supposed to ask if the crocodile was an intermediate. In which case the answer is yes - it is intermediate between its ancestors and its descendants.

      The coelacanth?

      Yes it is. Same answer.

      Has the basic body plans really changed from the original Cambrian explosion?

      Neither crocodiles nor coelacanths were alive during the time of the Cambrian Explosion.

      No sir you are no intermediate, neither is a fish nor a bird.

      Yes I am and yes they are. Every living creature (who reproduces) is.

      are there some in betweens? Sure...

      'in betweens'? Inbetween what and what? You have to actually stipulate this.

      Tell you what...... since humans have been swimming competitively have we seen any major changes like web toes and webbed fingers? They do spend 6 - 8 hours in the water a day....... I've seen nothing only bigger shoulders, better lungs but any changes that can make them fish like and no matter how much time you add that won't change time can not cause anything.

      A foolish example.

      For one thing, there is no actual selection pressure on competative swimming. Competative swimmers do not have a better chance of reproducing than most people.

      For another, Homo Sapiens have only been alive as an entire species for about 250,000 years, which on an evolutionary scale is a complete eyeblink. How long have we been swimming competatively? Evoltuion is a gradual process. It does not happen overnight.

      You are welcome to believe in unproven fairy tales based on your faith, but do me a favor don't parade around telling everyone what you blive to be true is fact... It is in fact not.

      Absolutely wrong. Evolution is, indeed, scientific fact. No matter what Creationists say. This is not a matter of religious faith (for me. I appreciate it almost certainly is for you. Which makes it all the more ironic that you are casting it as an insult in MY direction. If you projected any harder you'd be a PowerPoint presentation). This is a matter of fact and evidence, which overwhelmingly supports ToE.

      Creationism/ID don't even have any mechanisms we can possibly test. It is all 'Godddidit' and nothing else. THAT is a fairy story. THAT is unscientific.

      Delete
    17. Ritchie,

      "If it is incorrect, then the entire field of genetics is absolutely flawed."

      It is not the entire field of genetics which would be flawed, only your interpretation of the evidence. It's rather arrogant of you to presume that your incorrect interpretation of evidence would result in the absolute failure of the field of genetics.

      As our knowledge of genetics is in its infancy, its not wise to assume too much from such limited knowledge. However, evolutionists are notorious for jumping to conclusions, so we should not be surprised when they do so.

      Delete
    18. Nic -

      This is where the rubber meets the road, Ritchie. You first must be able to demonstrate Acanthostega did indeed evolve from a fish.

      Imagine I didn't believe in the Roman Empire. I thought the whole thing was a hoax - a conspiracy made up by historians (for some ridiculous reason I can't even be bothered to make up right now). Imagine I sat here and demanded to see the evidence for the Roman Empire.

      Now, there is a lot of it about. There are coins, writings, architecture, language, maps - all sorts of things really. They all point to the simple truth that, two thousand years ago, the Roman Empire ruled much of the Mediterranean.

      However, whenever someone brings me an individual piece of evidence, I insist that they PROVE it was from the Roman Empire BEFORE I accept it as evidence.

      Here is where things start getting tricky. You might be able to prove a coin is 2,000 years old. You might be able to prove it was found in France. It might have Roman names, numbers and writing on it, but none of those things conclusively prove it was actually made by the Roman Empire. So I dismiss it. And the next coin. And the next, until I have gone through all the coins.

      Then the architecture. Obviously you can prove where the architecture is. You might be able to date it. It might even have Roman graffitti or writing. But you cannot actually prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that any building was built by the Roman Empire.

      Because no individual piece of evidence is EVER 100% - in any field besides mathematics. So you can always find a reason to dismiss an individual piece of evidence if you are determined to.

      So I do. I dismiss all the buildings, ruins, coins, relics, etc, and sit on a big fat armchair stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the Roman Empire existed.

      What I am missing, of course, is that even though no individual piece of evidence ever proves anything 100%, together they all add up to truly massive cache of evidence. They all point in the same direction - to the existence of the Roman Empire. But you won't see that unless you take a step back and look at the whole picture.

      And you are making exactly the same mistake with ToE. You can dismiss the claim that Acanthostega evolved at all. You can do the same for Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, and all the others, but what you are missing is they pattern they are showing.

      Together they show a clear transition from fish to tetrapod. Whatv are we to make of that? You tell me.

      You simply cannot see the wood for the trees.

      Delete
    19. It is not the entire field of genetics which would be flawed, only your interpretation of the evidence. It's rather arrogant of you to presume that your incorrect interpretation of evidence would result in the absolute failure of the field of genetics.

      No, this is not MY interpretation of the evidence. The entire field of genetics is based upon the principle that genes are passed on exactly as the ToE states it does. In fact, it is not merely an assumption - genetics SHOWS us that this is so.

      If ToE was wrong, if there was no UCA, then yes, genetics would be utterly overturned. Every paternity test, every piece of forensic evidence, absolutely all of it would be wrong.

      It sounds as though you do not understand what genetics is. It is the entire field of study of genes. That very fact that it is a thriving and productive field of study - and that it absolutely supports ToE - is probably ToE's most important piece of supporting evidence. More so even than the fossil record. This simply cannot be overstated.

      Delete
    20. Ritchie,

      "Evolution is, indeed, scientific fact."

      Would you please demonstrate this statement factually. By that I mean I want to see a repeatable and observable demonstration of evolution in action. Not adaptation as in ring species etc. I want to see A become, by the process of evolution, non-A. This is what is absolutely required to support your assertion that evolution is a scientific fact.

      I will await your equivocation and evasions of this request. I will not accept the argument that evolution is too slow to observe as it takes place over millions of years. That is not supportive of your assertion of evolution as a scientific fact.

      Either you demonstrate by observable and repeatable means the process of evolution or you quit making the claim that evolution is a scientific fact. If you cannot demonstrate evolution in this manner and yet continue to claim it is a scientific fact, you will only demonstrate complete intellectual and scientific dishonesty.

      Delete
    21. Nic -

      I want to see A become, by the process of evolution, non-A. This is what is absolutely required to support your assertion that evolution is a scientific fact.

      No, that is your misconception of how evolution works. A never becomes non-A, and ToE never says otherwise.

      Delete
    22. Nic

      Would you please demonstrate this statement factually. By that I mean I want to see a repeatable and observable demonstration of evolution in action. Not adaptation as in ring species etc. I want to see A become, by the process of evolution, non-A. This is what is absolutely required to support your assertion that evolution is a scientific fact.


      Really a meaningles question since you never defined A or not A, but here you go Nic:

      E coli long term evolution experiment

      Documented, empirical, repeatable evidence of evolution in action.

      A (normal E coli that can't touch citrates) was observed to evolve into not A (new species of E coli that can use citrates as nutrients)

      Just what you asked for.

      Of course the Creationists at this point will scream "but it's still a bacteria!! It didn't evolve into an elephant or a pine tree!"

      Tell us Nic, how much does "A" have to evolve to qualify as "not A"? Be specific and justify your answer.

      Delete
    23. Ritchie,

      "Imagine I didn't believe in the Roman Empire. I thought the whole thing was a hoax - a conspiracy made up by historians (for some ridiculous reason I can't even be bothered to make up right now). Imagine I sat here and demanded to see the evidence for the Roman Empire."

      Not even remotely analogous. We have tangible evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire. We can demonstrate its existence through archeology and written history by eyewitnesses. Really, you must learn what constitutes a sound analogous argument. This is palpable nonsense.

      "However, whenever someone brings me an individual piece of evidence, I insist that they PROVE it was from the Roman Empire BEFORE I accept it as evidence."


      The evidence you propose for evolution is no where near the caliber of evidence for the Romans. This type of reasoning is simply childish.

      "And you are making exactly the same mistake with ToE. You can dismiss the claim that Acanthostega evolved at all."

      Dismissing the evolutionary origin of Acanthostega is not dismissing its existence. Do you really not see the difference? No wonder you come up with such nonsensical arguments.

      Delete
    24. Thorton,

      "Really a meaningless question since you never defined A or not A, but here you go Nic:"

      As the proposition is hypothetical definitions are moot. Define A and non-A any way you wish. The only requirement is that they be fundamentally different. But in reference to E coli, Ritchie's statement of evolution being a scientific fact, he would have to demonstrate E coli bacteria evolving into non-bacteria. He cannot, nor can you or anyone else. You admit yourself, despite years of experimentation, E coli is still simply bacteria. That it will evolve to something else in time is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

      "Tell us Nic, how much does "A" have to evolve to qualify as "not A"? Be specific and justify your answer."

      How can you not understand what is required? What is so hard to understand about A becoming non-A? This is the basic requirement of evolutionary thought. If all life extant today has a common ancestor, it follows that at some point that common ancestor, A, had to become non-A, as all life extant today is certainly not A.

      To what extent would A have to evolve to be non-A? How much would a reptile have to evolve to be non-reptile? If, as evolution claims, all life came from a common ancestor, at some point basic fundamental factors had to change significantly to explain the existence of reptiles, mammals, etc., from this common ancestor.

      As evolutionists are the ones claiming this occurred, they should be able to provide demonstrable evidence to that effect. They cannot. They simply assert such events took place.

      Logic and critical thinking skills are a requirement if you're going to try and defend your position, my friend.

      Delete
    25. Ritchie,

      "No, that is your misconception of how evolution works. A never becomes non-A, and ToE never says otherwise."

      You're always accusing those who disagree with you as not understanding evolution. The above statement clearly demonstrates it is you, not them, who does not understand the claims of evolution.

      If, as you say, evolution never claims that A must become non-A, which is palpable nonsense, when that is the entire basis of its claims, please explain for all of us, what exactly does it claim occurs? If A never becomes non-A, how do we have reptiles and mammals from the same common ancestor? Or are you going to argue reptiles and mammals are both A?

      Delete
    26. Nic -

      Not even remotely analogous. We have tangible evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire. We can demonstrate its existence through archeology and written history by eyewitnesses.

      My point - which seems to have eluded you - is that no single piece of evidence is ever 100% proof. Every photo could be doctored, every coin could be faked, every witness could by lying, every building could be mis-dated.

      Highly improbably, of course, when you look at the evidence as a whole. But not so ridiculous if you are only looking at a single piece of evidence at a time.

      Really, you must learn what constitutes a sound analogous argument.

      I was talking about how we treat evidence, which IS analogous to how you are treating the evidence for evolution.

      Perhaps you didn't understand it. Go back and read it again. Slowly.

      The evidence you propose for evolution is no where near the caliber of evidence for the Romans. This type of reasoning is simply childish.

      We have ample evidence for ToE - from many areas of study. Actually it is the very agreement of independently drawn phylogenic trees which is one of the strongest arguments in favour of ToE. The tree drawn up by, say, the genetic record match the one drawn up by, say, the fossil record. It is one thing to say we are interpreting the fossil record incorrectly. It is another to say we are also interpreting the genetic record incorrectly so as to produce exactly the same errors independently:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

      Dismissing the evolutionary origin of Acanthostega is not dismissing its existence.

      What? I never said you were dismissing the existence of Acanthostega. Seriously, are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or do you genuinely need to read my posts more carefully to actually take in what I am saying?

      Delete
    27. Nic -


      "No, that is your misconception of how evolution works. A never becomes non-A, and ToE never says otherwise."

      You're always accusing those who disagree with you as not understanding evolution. The above statement clearly demonstrates it is you, not them, who does not understand the claims of evolution.


      Utter rubbish. Arrogant, ignorant rubbish.

      ToE NEVER states that A turns into not-A. Creationist propaganda might tell you that it does, but that is the problem with getting your science from Creationist crazies - they lie. It's called misrepresentation.

      If A never becomes non-A, how do we have reptiles and mammals from the same common ancestor? Or are you going to argue reptiles and mammals are both A?

      Indeed we are. We are both tetrapods. The common ancestor of both mammals and reptiles was in fact neither, but gave rise to them both.

      Really, this isn't difficult.

      Delete
    28. Nic

      As the proposition is hypothetical definitions are moot. Define A and non-A any way you wish. The only requirement is that they be fundamentally different.


      I did define them as something fundamentally different, and showed you the change.

      T: "A (normal E coli that can't touch citrates) was observed to evolve into not A (new species of E coli that can use citrates as nutrients)"

      Now you're playing silly semantics games with both Ritchie and I. You won't define the terms yourself but no matter what I define them as you turn around and claim the definition is not good enough.

      Sorry Nic, such dumb word games only score points with other ignorant Creationists. They don't impress the scientific community one iota.

      The fact that you even made such an inane demand in the first place shows that 1) you don't understand the way evolution actually works, and 2) you're not interested in learning.

      Delete
    29. You can go by the fossils but a BIOLOGICAL theory requires BIOLOGICAL evidence.

      If we come up with the genetic data that says the transformations are impossible to achieve via genetic changes, what does taht do to your fossil record?

      Delete
    30. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      You can go by the fossils but a BIOLOGICAL theory requires BIOLOGICAL evidence.


      The fossils ARE evidence of biological activity moron, just like footprints and fingerprints are evidence of human activity at a crime scene.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the most ignorant creationist of them all.

      Delete
    31. closet YEC thorton:
      The fossils ARE evidence of biological activity

      I never said they weren't. However fossils are NOT biological and there isn't any biological data that supports the alleged transformations.

      So here we have clset YEC thorton, again spewing stuff from its arse/ mouth.

      Delete
    32. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      However fossils are NOT biological and there isn't any biological data that supports the alleged transformations


      The paper talked about in the OP does you moron. That was the whole point of the experiment.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the most ignorant creationist of them all.

      Delete
    33. closet YEC thorton:
      The paper talked about in the OP does

      No, it doesn't. That you think it does just exposes your desperation.

      Delete
    34. Chubby Joe G

      thorton: "The paper talked about in the OP does"

      No, it doesn't. That you think it does just exposes your desperation.


      Chubs, even the title of the paper says

      Hoxd13 Contribution to the Evolution of Vertebrate Appendages

      How is that not biological data that supports the alleged transformations?

      Your moronic hand-waving denial of any and all scientific evidence you can't explain is the surest bet on the web.

      Delete
    35. Ritchie,

      "No, this is not MY interpretation of the evidence. The entire field of genetics is based upon the principle that genes are passed on exactly as the ToE states it does. In fact, it is not merely an assumption - genetics SHOWS us that this is so.

      That genes are passed on from generation to generation has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory. Genetic traits, tendencies, etc., would continue as they are without ToE's involvement.

      "If ToE was wrong, if there was no UCA, then yes, genetics would be utterly overturned. Every paternity test, every piece of forensic evidence, absolutely all of it would be wrong."

      Absolute rubbish! Are you seriously going to argue that if evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, all our knowledge of genetics would be useless? I certainly hope not. If you are going to take this line, it is a clear indication of why I claim your critical thinking skills are more than pathetic.

      "It sounds as though you do not understand what genetics is. It is the entire field of study of genes. That very fact that it is a thriving and productive field of study - and that it absolutely supports ToE - is probably ToE's most important piece of supporting evidence. More so even than the fossil record. This simply cannot be overstated."

      Genetics does nothing to support evolution or design, genetics are simply are fact of nature, and are open to interpretation. Evolution interprets genetics to fit its theory. And right now genetic research is anything but friendly to evolution.

      Where evolutionists came up with the idea genetics is dependent upon evolution I'll never know. Evolution needs genetics, genetics couldn't care less about evolution.

      Delete
    36. Nic

      That genes are passed on from generation to generation has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory.


      I had to take a break here to clean up the coffee I just sprayed when reading that.

      That's the beautify of these Creationist "science" blogs. Every once in a while you get some brain-dead mook producing such a nugget, saying something so incredibly stupid and over-the-top it stops conversation dead in its tracks.

      Congratulations Nic, you're today's mook.

      Delete
    37. Genes getting passed on is part of baraminology, so Nic is right, moron.

      Delete
    38. Ritchie,

      "My point - which seems to have eluded you - is that no single piece of evidence is ever 100% proof."

      Your point did not elude me at all. It seems to have eluded you. If no single piece of evidence is 100%, and with that I agree, then it follows that cumulative points of evidence cannot reach 100%. Therefore, you have supported my argument that your claim that evolution is a scientific fact is total nonsense. Thank you.

      "Highly improbably, of course, when you look at the evidence as a whole. But not so ridiculous if you are only looking at a single piece of evidence at a time."

      No one is looking at one piece of evidence in the criticism of evolution, so what's your point?

      "I was talking about how we treat evidence, which IS analogous to how you are treating the evidence for evolution."

      As I said, the evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire is not in any way shape or form analogous to the evidence presented for evolution.

      "We have ample evidence for ToE - from many areas of study. Actually it is the very agreement of independently drawn phylogenic trees which is one of the strongest arguments in favour of ToE."

      Phylogenetic trees are not working out so well for evolution these days. Maybe you should take a break from wikipedia, (yes that's wikipedia snobbery), and talkorigins and read some recent material on the subject. I won't hold my breath waiting for that event.

      "What? I never said you were dismissing the existence of Acanthostega. Seriously, are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or do you genuinely need to read my posts more carefully to actually take in what I am saying?"

      This is what I mean about the fact you don't even understand the nature of your own arguments. Your analogy dismissing the existence of the Roman Empire, by dismissing the evidence for it, implies my argument was dismissing the existence Acanthostega. I never denied its existence, or the evidence supporting its existence. I only denied evolutions interpretation of that evidence. Your argument to the Roman Empire was to deny the existence of that empire by refusing to accept the evidence for its existence. Thus my claim it was a poor analogy.

      "And you are making exactly the same mistake with ToE."

      No, I am not. I am not denying the evidence for Acanthostega, only your interpretation of it. Evidence on its own is static, it only takes on life through interpretation. Your basic problem is you believe there is only one possible interpretation and that that interpretation supports evolution.

      "but what you are missing is they pattern they are showing."

      They are showing a pattern which you have applied to them. Similarity does not have to mean one came from the other or that they all came from a common ancestor and leading to a common descendant. That is simply your presumptive application to the evidence.

      "Together they show a clear transition from fish to tetrapod. Whatv are we to make of that? You tell me."

      And why does the evidence not show similar creatures which were unique onto themselves? Again, because they are similar does not prove one came from the other.

      "You simply cannot see the wood for the trees."

      It would appear to me it is you who is demonstrating limited vision by refusing to accept there is more than one way to interpret evidence.

      By the way, that should read, 'cannot see the forest for the trees.'

      Delete
    39. Chubby Joe G

      T: "Congratulations Nic, you're today's mook."

      Genes getting passed on is part of baraminology, so Nic is right, moron.


      Careful Nic, looks like Fatboy Joe is jealous of you trying to take his title of "Web's dumbest Creationist!"

      Delete
    40. thorton's ignorance means we are stupid- how does that work crybaby?

      Delete
    41. Chubby Joke G

      thorton's ignorance means we are stupid- how does that work crybaby?


      No Chubs, having you pitch pyramid-antenna woo, reincarnation woo, and baraminology woo means you are stupid.

      Having you scream at evolutionary theory while not understanding even the simplest technical details of it means you are stupid.

      Posting porn, yelling obscenities, and making physical threats against other posters means you are stupid.

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    42. Ritchie,

      "Utter rubbish. Arrogant, ignorant rubbish."

      In what way is that arrogant rubbish? The very basis of evolutionary theory is A becoming non-A, how can you even imagine arguing that point? If there is one common ancestor A becoming non-A is an absolute necessity. Please, explain to all of us who doubt evolution how one common ancestor can be the source of all life extant today without these type of changes. Please, I really want to know how you explain this fact.

      "ToE NEVER states that A turns into not-A. Creationist propaganda might tell you that it does, but that is the problem with getting your science from Creationist crazies - they lie. It's called misrepresentation."

      ToE states this claim at every turn. Its you who is lying when you deny this fact. Either you're lying or you've completely deluded yourself.

      "Indeed we are. We are both tetrapods."

      The fact we both have four limbs means we are both A? What kind of logic is that? Are crabs and humans both A because we both have eyes? Where do you come up with this stuff? Truly mind boggling logic!

      "The common ancestor of both mammals and reptiles was in fact neither, but gave rise to them both."

      If the common ancestor to both mammals and reptiles, which you claim are both A, was neither mammal or reptile, what was it? Was it A? If so, how and why did it diverge to mammal and reptile? Can you identify this ancestor or are you just doing the usual evolutionary story telling? It must be there, because our paradigm demands it.

      "Really, this isn't difficult."

      No, it's not, but you seem to be having a difficult time dealing with it.

      Delete
    43. Thorton,

      "I had to take a break here to clean up the coffee I just sprayed when reading that."

      Good, I hope you didn't ruin anything with all your spewing. Please Thorton, enlighten us as to how genetics would be affected by the demise of evolution. Would my children no longer carry my genes? Would their children not carry their parent's genes? Just exactly what would happen to genetics if evolution was to be proven nonsense tomorrow? Will life as we know it cease to exist? Will we all drop over dead if evolution fails?

      "Congratulations Nic, you're today's mook."

      Thanks my friend, I will wear the title with pride. Do I get a trophy or something? I can send you a picture to put in your Mooks Hall of Fame. I must qualify by now.

      I'll wait for you to explain to us how the demise of evolution will affect genetics. Please no equivocating, evading, deflecting or name calling, just a simple explanation. Thank you.

      Delete
    44. YEC thorton:
      having you pitch pyramid-antenna woo, reincarnation woo, and baraminology woo means you are stupid.

      LoL! But each of those has more support than your position. IOW you are saying that YOUR ignorance and cowardice means I am stupid.

      Having you scream at evolutionary theory while not understanding even the simplest technical details of it means you are stupid.

      LoL! technical details? You chumps don't have any technical details. You can't say how many muations, you can't say to what genes, you have nothing.

      Posting porn, yelling obscenities, and making physical threats against other posters means you are stupid.

      I never posted any porn. YOU yell obscenities and calling out lying, belligerent cowards does not equal making threats.

      Delete
    45. Nic

      Please Thorton, enlighten us as to how genetics would be affected by the demise of evolution


      Tsk tsk tsk Nic, trying the childish bait and switch tactic.

      You originally claimed that genes have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, remember?

      Nic: "That genes are passed on from generation to generation has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory."

      How genes operate and how they transmit heritable traits is absolutely critical to modern evolutionary theory. If our understanding of genetics and inheritance turned out to be wrong ToE would be pretty much shot.

      Now you've dishonestly changed to "how would ToE being falsified affect the physical functioning of the genes" which is a completely different question.

      Do these schoolboy rhetorical tricks work well with the juvenile crowd you hang with Nic? Maybe you should stick to them because among adults all they do is make you look like an idiot.

      Delete
    46. Nic

      In what way is that arrogant rubbish? The very basis of evolutionary theory is A becoming non-A, how can you even imagine arguing that point?


      I see you're still trying this childish rhetorical trick too, refusing to define your terms "A" and "not A" as they apply to biological entities.

      Not very adult of you, now is it?

      Delete
    47. I missed this trope:

      Hoxd13 Contribution to the Evolution of Vertebrate Appendages

      How is that not biological data that supports the alleged transformations?


      Well, for one, the paper didn't live up to the title.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

    Nevertheless, a precision of just under 1% is still pretty good; it is not enough, at this point, to cause us to cast much doubt upon the validity and usefulness of modern theories of gravity. However, if tests of the theory of common descent performed that poorly, different phylogenetic trees, as shown in Figure 1, would have to differ by 18 of the 30 branches! In their quest for scientific perfection, some biologists are rightly rankled at the obvious discrepancies....

    Lol.

    Okay, so what trajectories of adaptation have they predicted based on their "theory" and then verified by observing groups of organisms? Or how have they made use of their knowledge in genetically engineering trajectories of flight for new species?

    Still waiting on biologists to engineer a species that will fly to the moon and back based on their... uh, almost absolutely certain scientific knowledge of imaginary events in the past.

    Can you believe this B$?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, so what trajectories of adaptation have they predicted based on their "theory"

      Specific trajectories are not predicted. Because the initial component of evolution is random mutation. That means specific trajectories will always be unpredictable.

      Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study is a good example. The twelve colonies all evolved towards increased fitness (what is, in this case, greater efficiency in digesting glucose) - and in this sense evolution is not random; it only increases fitness. But they all increased fitness in different ways. Specific mutations cannot be predicted.

      Still waiting on biologists to engineer a species that will fly to the moon and back based on their... uh, almost absolutely certain scientific knowledge of imaginary events in the past.

      Then you'll be waiting a long time, since I'm pretty sure that's not possible. What's more it is quite clearly an absolutely bonkers request.

      Can you believe this B$?

      No, I really can't.

      Delete
  16. Ritchie,

    "and in this sense evolution is not random; it only increases fitness."

    On what evidence do you base this claim? No doubt more of your wishful thinking technique.

    How do you know that 250 million years ago evolution didn't turn left when it should have turned right? The result being a downward trend in evolution rather than upward. How do you know that evolution by turning right would not now have us much more advanced than we are?

    The one thing genetic research is clearly showing is degradation of the genome. Deleterious mutations are building up. In time the genome will be overwhelmed. How does this fact fit in with your claim that evolution only improves fitness? Please, explain this for all of us. You seem to believe you have all the answers, so please, answer this question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      Ritchie,"and in this sense evolution is not random; it only increases fitness."

      On what evidence do you base this claim? No doubt more of your wishful thinking technique


      No Nic, Ritchie is 100% correct. Evolution acts as a feedback system that tends to drive populations to a local fitness maximum in their given environment. It's been demonstrated in the lab, observed in the field, and verified with mathematical models. It's the basis for the whole field of problem solving with genetic algorithms.

      You could have verified that yourself in any basic biology book, but apparently your desire to remain butt ignorant is quite strong.

      How do you know that 250 million years ago evolution didn't turn left when it should have turned right? The result being a downward trend in evolution rather than upward. How do you know that evolution by turning right would not now have us much more advanced than we are?

      Evolution doesn't have to make species perfect Nic. It only has to make them good enough to produce one more generation. Everything above that is a bonus.

      The one thing genetic research is clearly showing is degradation of the genome.

      Only in the sense that humans have become extremely good at mitigating selection pressures which would have killed us 10,000 years ago. As a result, more people are living longer and accumulating more deleterious genes which would kill us again without our technology. The process of evolution per se doesn't degrade genes at all. Can you name other species whose genome is "degrading"?

      Delete