Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    Please demonstrate how this sort of "improvement" can turn a simple single-celled animal into a man (and every other type of animal too). Thanks.
    What step between those two do you think is impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection?

    Eukaryotic cells are clearly the result of endosymiosis. We actually have a recently-observed example.

    Multicellarity is a pretty easy change. We have evidence for it actually occurring.

    Differentiation of cells in a multi-cellular organism is directly observed in some phyla, so that's clearly possible.

    Formation of tissues is clearly possible, with transitional forms still living.

    Evolution of nervous systems is clearly possible, with transitionals still living.

    Bilaterial symmetry is certainly possible to evolve: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3289

    Duplication of HOX genes shows the evolution of chordates from simpler organisms.

    The evolution of tetrapods is well-demonstrated in fossil record, embryology, and genetics.

    The evolution of amniotes is due to the simple infolding of tissue to make an additional membrane; the amnion.

    The evolution of mammals is documented by many, many fossil transitionals.

    The evolution of primates is again, well-documented. Like the others, there's no barrier to evolution of eutherian mammals from reptiles.

    And of course,we have lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates.

    None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.

    Good luck.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      What step between those two do you think is impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection?

      Eukaryotic cells are clearly the result of endosymiosis. We actually have a recently-observed example.

      Multicellarity is a pretty easy change. We have evidence for it actually occurring.

      Differentiation of cells in a multi-cellular organism is directly observed in some phyla, so that's clearly possible.

      Formation of tissues is clearly possible, with transitional forms still living.

      Evolution of nervous systems is clearly possible, with transitionals still living.

      Bilaterial symmetry is certainly possible to evolve: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3289

      Duplication of HOX genes shows the evolution of chordates from simpler organisms.

      The evolution of tetrapods is well-demonstrated in fossil record, embryology, and genetics.

      The evolution of amniotes is due to the simple infolding of tissue to make an additional membrane; the amnion.

      The evolution of mammals is documented by many, many fossil transitionals.

      The evolution of primates is again, well-documented. Like the others, there's no barrier to evolution of eutherian mammals from reptiles.

      And of course,we have lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates.

      None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.

      Good luck.
      Truly hilarious..... you are ALL OVER THE MAP there.

      You are a classic "true believer" in this myth of yours. You cannot extrapolate your "micro" evolutions into goo to you "evolution", no matter how loud you scream.

      P.S. No, we don't have "lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates". You might be a monkey's relative, but I am not.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • #93
        Also, perhaps you're the genius that can explain the origin of sexual reproduction based on your "micro evolution extrapolation".

        Have fun!
        All of my ancestors are human.
        Originally posted by Squeaky
        That explains why your an idiot.
        Originally posted by God's Truth
        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

        Comment


        • #94
          (Barbarian lists key events in the evolution of life on Earth)
          None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.

          Good luck.

          Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          Truly hilarious..... you are ALL OVER THE MAP there.
          If you didn't want to see the evidence for common descent, you probably shouldn't have brought it up, huh?

          You are a classic "true believer" in this myth of yours.
          No one else can find anything that makes common descent impossible, either. I don't blame you for dodging; it's brought down smarter guys than you.

          You cannot extrapolate your "micro" evolutions into goo to you "evolution"
          Feel free to show how any of those changes are impossible. Not going to happen, is it?

          You've got nothing whatever, and it's very obvious, no matter how loud you scream.

          P.S. No, we don't have "lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates".[/quote]

          That's a testable belief:
          Too many to bother counting here, but these are most of the important ones..
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lution_fossils

          You might be a monkey's relative,
          As you are beginning to realize, all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            (Barbarian lists key events in the evolution of life on Earth)
            Barbarian lists evolutionist propaganda and is so proud of himself.

            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection.
            That's a hugely funny way to put that.

            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            If you didn't want to see the evidence for common descent, you probably shouldn't have brought it up, huh?
            Creationists believe in common decent, just not from a SINGLE assumed and unfalsifiable source. We believe God when He says that He created kinds of plants and animals.

            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            No one else can find anything that makes common descent impossible, either. I don't blame you for dodging; it's brought down smarter guys than you.


            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            Feel free to show how any of those changes are impossible. Not going to happen, is it?
            Once again, you made the argument and therefore must PROVE IT.

            I don't have to prove it impossible, you must not only prove it possible but also that it's true.

            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            As you are beginning to realize, all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
            Nope.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
              CO2 is plant food and plants like it along with warmer climates. So why all the fuss? You don't like plants?
              "The rising CO2 levels have also had a negative impact on the nutritional value of certain crops such as rice, and the climate crisis has reduced crop yield." -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/us/cl...ics/index.html

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                Barbarian lists evolutionist propaganda and is so proud of himself.
                And Right Divider drops any pretense at making an argument. Out of excuses, it seems.

                Creationists believe in common decent, just not from a SINGLE assumed and unfalsifiable source.
                There are many findings that would falsify common descent of all living things. Genetic data that didn't indicate descent, for example. And we know that works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.

                We believe God when He says that He created kinds of plants and animals.
                So do people who take Genesis as it is. The difference is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

                (RD denies that evolution could produce humans)

                Barbarian observes:
                Once again, you made the argument and therefore must prove it.

                As you have seen, there are no steps in the process that could not have occurred by mutation and natural selection.

                I'll ask again: where in this process, was any step that could not have evolved? Show your evidence.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  And Right Divider drops any pretense at making an argument. Out of excuses, it seems.
                  Barbarian cannot see his hand in front of his face.

                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  There are many findings that would falsify common descent of all living things. Genetic data that didn't indicate descent, for example. And we know that works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
                  The old bluff of genetic support for a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of all living things. Worn out and tired.

                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  So do people who take Genesis as it is. The difference is, you don't approve of the way He did it.
                  No, actually the problem for YOU is that I DO believe the way that He SAID that He did it.

                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  (RD denies that evolution could produce humans)
                  Indeed I do, because God said that He created them male and female at the beginning of creation and not some extremely long time thereafter.

                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Barbarian observes:
                  Once again, you made the argument and therefore must prove it.

                  As you have seen, there are no steps in the process that could not have occurred by mutation and natural selection.

                  I'll ask again: where in this process, was any step that could not have evolved? Show your evidence.
                  Once again TB show that he does not know how science works. Conjecture is not proof that it happened.

                  Please start the thread were you will demonstrate how sexual reproduction "evolved". I really want to know about that.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                    Once again TB show that he does not know how science works. Conjecture is not proof that it happened.
                    But evidence shows how it happened. And since you are unable to give any evidence at all for your conjecture that evolution could not produce humans... well, you know.

                    Please start the thread were you will demonstrate how sexual reproduction "evolved". I really want to know about that.
                    Sure. The earliest sexual species did not use sex for reproduction, but rather for moving genes around. In bacteria, it's called "conjugation", and occurs when two bacteria touch and connect via pilli, after which a plasmid (circular piece of bacterial DNA) from the donor is copied by the recipient bacterium. The plasmid often contains useful genes for the recipient. The nylonase gene is known to have been spread by this mechanism.



                    The process is not required for bacteria; it's an optional mechanism. And so that's the beginning, in prokaryotes.

                    So what about eukaryotes?

                    Turns out, diatoms (single celled algae)can reproduce asexually by dividing, or sexually:

                    It Turns Out That Single-Celled Organisms Are Having Sex Too
                    http://mentalfloss.com/article/50262...having-sex-too

                    Still optional, though. Might be, some diatoms don't have a sexual option. But it's useful for the same reason it's useful in animals; faster distribution of genes, some of which will be useful.

                    So on to multicellular...

                    Sponges are poised between single-celled organisms and metazoans. They lack tissues, which all other animals have.
                    Turns out, they also have the option of sexual or asexual reproduction. They can simply bud off a new sponge, or they can release sperm into the water, where it may be taken up by another sponge to fertilize an egg. The new sponge looks pretty much like a single celled protist called a choanoflagellate.



                    Or a collar cell of a sponge:


                    After a few days, it settles somewhere and divides to make more cells, forming a sponge.

                    Next up: Metazoa. next post
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      But evidence shows how it happened. And since you are unable to give any evidence at all for your conjecture that evolution could not produce humans... well, you know.
                      You are incredible... you just keep on keeping on regardless of how much conjecture you must pass off as fact.

                      The evidence for the gradual accumulation of lots of small mistakes has been rejected even by many high profile evolutionists. That is why Steven J. Gould resurrected the "hopeful monsters" theory. Unlike you, he was able to see that there is not a pretty chain of changes in the fossil record (and other places as well).

                      You use a lot of confirmation bias to dupe yourself into believing your lie.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                        You are incredible... you just keep on keeping on regardless of how much conjecture you must pass off as fact.
                        I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.

                        The evidence for the gradual accumulation of lots of small mistakes has been rejected even by many high profile evolutionists. That is why Steven J. Gould resurrected the "hopeful monsters" theory.
                        Someone, possibly because they knew no more of science than you do, misled you about that. Gould specifically showed why Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster hypothesis was disproved by modern genetics. However...

                        Gould argued that the recent discovery of regulatory genes offered new evidence which supported some of Goldschmidt's postulates and that small changes in the embryological "contraint systems" can produce large morphological transformation in the adult, and possibly macro-evolutionary pathways.[13] Gould's re-definition of the hopeful monster is different to that of Goldschmidt and they should not be confused with each other.
                        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster

                        Gould was pointing out that the science of evolutionary development showed how a change in homeobox genes could produce marked changes in the adult, even though the changes were small in embryos. Several of these mutations are noted in developmental genes

                        Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes
                        James M. McClintock, Robin Carlson, Devon M. Mann, Victoria E. Prince
                        Development 2001 128: 2471-2484;


                        Unlike you, he was able to see that there is not a pretty chain of changes in the fossil record (and other places as well).
                        If you think so, you've never read much Gould. He mentions horses and forams (among others) as examples of slow and gradual change. Gould's beef with Marsh was that he objected to phylogeny as a ladder, going in one direction. He pointed out that even horse evolution was a bush, with many branches, not a ladder as earlier paleontologists suggested.

                        You use a lot of confirmation bias to dupe yourself into believing your lie.
                        I can see that this evidence disturbs you; many creationists, when they see things like this, are triggered, and simply shut down, accusing scientists of lying. It's very obvious, and it really does your argument great damage.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.
                          Your definition of "facts" is wrong.

                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Someone, possibly because they knew no more of science than you do, misled you about that. Gould specifically showed why Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster hypothesis was disproved by modern genetics. However...

                          Gould argued that the recent discovery of regulatory genes offered new evidence which supported some of Goldschmidt's postulates and that small changes in the embryological "contraint systems" can produce large morphological transformation in the adult, and possibly macro-evolutionary pathways.[13] Gould's re-definition of the hopeful monster is different to that of Goldschmidt and they should not be confused with each other.
                          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster

                          Gould was pointing out that the science of evolutionary development showed how a change in homeobox genes could produce marked changes in the adult, even though the changes were small in embryos. Several of these mutations are noted in developmental genes

                          Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes
                          James M. McClintock, Robin Carlson, Devon M. Mann, Victoria E. Prince
                          Development 2001 128: 2471-2484;


                          If you think so, you've never read much Gould. He mentions horses and forams (among others) as examples of slow and gradual change. Gould's beef with Marsh was that he objected to phylogeny as a ladder, going in one direction. He pointed out that even horse evolution was a bush, with many branches, not a ladder as earlier paleontologists suggested.
                          https://answersingenesis.org/fossils...-of-evolution/
                          (Yes, I know that you hate AiG, I don't care)
                          Many of the arguments that Eldredge and Gould have used to refute the beliefs of classical Darwinists sound like they are actually trying to support special creation, but this is hardly their intent. For example, in his regular column in Natural History magazine (May 1977, pp. 12–16), Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links. He countered that even if we were to grant this “traditional escape,” it still would not answer the biggest question—the viability of the transitional forms themselves. Gould pointed out that it is difficult to even imagine how transitional animals passing through the intermediate stages of evolution would be benefited or even survive. He asked:
                          Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?
                          Still valid points today. Gradualist evolution of all features of all creatures is a silly fantasy.
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • Barbarian observes:
                            I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.

                            Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                            Your definition of "facts" is wrong.
                            At this point, denial isn't going to help you. Let's see what other foolishness you've committed to:

                            (Yes, I know that you hate AiG, I don't care)

                            Just yesterday, I commended them for accepting common descent, even if just in a limited range. I have had some concerns about their ethics in the past, but clearly, they've made an important, if partial,accommodation to reality therein. So once again, the facts blindside you, because you type before you know what you're talking about.

                            AIG quote-mines Gould:
                            Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links.
                            Well, let's take a look at what he says about transitional forms...

                            Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
                            Stephen GouldHen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260.

                            You've been had, once again. When are you going to start checking this stuff before you parrot it?

                            He countered that even if we were to grant this “traditional escape,” it still would not answer the biggest question—the viability of the transitional forms themselves.
                            Well, let's take a look at that...

                            Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. (edit: structural analysis now shows that the winged upper limbs of running dinosaurs provided balance and control in running; the same motions that aid those funtions are still the motions of flying birds)
                            I regard preadaptation as important, even an indispensible concept.

                            Stephen Gould The Panda's Thumb

                            I put in red the part your guys deleted to make it appear that Gould believed things that he did not. Again, whenever someone tells you something you really, really want to be true, that's the time you need to check it very carefully. It would save you a lot of embarrassment here.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • "preadaptation"
                              All of my ancestors are human.
                              Originally posted by Squeaky
                              That explains why your an idiot.
                              Originally posted by God's Truth
                              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                              Comment


                              • I think you've hijacked this thread long enough. You should probably take it over to the "does anyone still believe in creationism anymore?" thread.

                                If you do, I'll finish up the evidence for the evolution of sex from metazoans on. But you've got enough data now, to understand the way sex began in living things. I'd be pleased to finish up if you'd like.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X