Originally Posted by Barbarian
"equivocation" means... "the use of ambiguous langage to hide something."
That's a pretty good definition.
Yep, and next you did it:
You understand..... Oops spoke too soon, because next up.....
Barbarian observes:
If you mean change in allele frequency, then say what you mean.
That's what evolution is. I thought you knew; you talked as though you were familiar with the theory.
Nope. You were the one that tried to muddle it with changes in music and so on. That's what equivocation is. I'm merely telling you what it means in biology.
If you don't like the definition, that's O.K., but pretending that it's something else is not O.K.
Biblical creationists and the Creationist model accept there is a change in allele frequency.
In fact, many creationists have since retreated to the admission that new species are produced by the process. But they don't want to call that "evolution."
It's like saying that airplanes are impossible, but piper cubs are perfectly possible.
However we do not accept the 'goo to you' belief.
That's good. Neither does evolutionary theory. It's about the way living populations change over time. The "goo to you" is a creationist idea.
Change in allele frequency is observable science.
Of course, it's what accounts for speciation, and ultimately, common descent.
Of course, it's your equivocation, using the word ' evolution' describing both science and creationist fantasy.
Barbarian observes:
That could be easily falsified. For example, if flies and dogs were genetically more alike than dogs and horses, it would falsify the notion of a common ancestor.
Using your logic... creationism is also falsifiable.
Barbarian suggests:
Could be, if they made testable predictions before the fact was known. I don't know of any examples right off, but maybe some exist. Tell us about them.
Fallacy of moving the goalposts...
Nope. Just asking if you know of any such predictions. Apparently not. Neither does anyone else. But there might be some. Maybe someone can help you out, there.
..common designer beliefs would be falsified if flies and dogs were genetically more alike than dogs and horses.
Nope. We know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. But there is no case of design working that way. Indeed, engineers are borrowing from evolution to solve problems that are not possible with design. Genetic algorithms are the demonstration that God knows better than the creationists.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. For example, the advocates of "common design" claim that platypuses are like ducks because they have a superficially similarly-shape set of mouthparts. They seem completely unconcerned that the platypus is genetically much more closely related to other mammals than to any bird.
Makes no sense at all from a "common designer" standpoint. But the fact that it's transitional between therapsid reptiles and modern mammals is a prediction of evolutionary theory.
The platypus is a very unique and highly complex creature that God created.
True. You just don't approve of the way He did it.
Barbarian continues...
Moreover, when a bit of heme (fraction of a hemoglobin molecule) was found in dinosaur bone (some organic molecules can survive for millions of years in anoxic conditions) the heme was most like that of a bird, and unlike that of modern reptiles.
Which makes no sense at all to creationism, but was a prediction of science.
That soft tissue is being regularly found in dinosaur bones
...is a creationist fantasy. Heme is just a piece of a larger molecule. The hemoglobin in the blood didn't survive, and tissue certainly didn't. (tissues are assemblages of cells that perform a certain function). But the fact that the heme of theropod dinosaurs is very like the heme of birds is a prediction of evolutionary theory. The prediction of kinship of bird and dinosaurs goes back to the 1800s.
Some organic molecules have decay rates of millions of years in anoxic environments. Hemoglobin obviously does, but some of the heme survived.
Half life*DNA studies suggest evolutionary beliefs are hopelessly flawed.
Show us.
(Just like their faulty conclusions about coelacanths**going extinct 65 million years ago.)
You've been misled about that, too. Every now and then a cryptic species is found. But it just means that the line survived longer than we thought. The genus of surviving coelacanths is unknown in the fossil record, BTW. They have evolved considerably since the last known fossil.
Yes, evolutionists are scrambling TRYING to make evidence fit their beliefs...Maybe iron preserved the soft tissue? .
See above. You've been misled.
Creationist prediction... Carbon dating will find radiocarbon in the soft tissue.
Should be. Wherever there is nitrogen and any background radiation, there will be a slow production of C-14 from nitrogen, which would be present in heme. However, I'd expect it to be very close to the 50,000 year mark, which is the current limit of resolution for the technique.
(Barbarian checks)
Yep. It's been done. Traces of C-14 consistent with the slow production from nitrogen. Ionizing radiation produces C-14 from nitrogen, but so little that it only produces results close to the limit of the test.
We see it in diamonds, too, because most of them contain nitrogen in the crystal lattice, and like many fossil deposits, there are small amounts of uranium and thorium.
Re your comment "heme was most like that of a bird, and unlike that of modern reptiles". Again I suspect you are trying to sell your beliefs.
It's just a fact. And another prediction of evolutionary theory confirmed. You forgot to tell us about any of those predictions of creationism, that weren't already known when the "prediction" was made. Haven't found any yet?
Blood vessels, connective tissue and cells*found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation...
Except, none of the debris so far, has actually shown any such things. There are some microscopic round things in the heme, but no one can show that they are cells. It's like those little microscopic round things found in some Martian rocks; they might be cells, but no one can show that they are.
Similarities*in blood vessels, cells and connective tissue*describe what would be expected in most amphibians, reptiles, birds and even mammals.
But as you learned, no feathers in amphibians, non-archosaur reptiles, or mammals. So we find those genes only in birds, and feathers only in birds and dinosaurs. Which is another confirmation of Huxley's prediction, based on skeletal anatomy in the 1800s.
Moreover, we find in some therapods, a bird respiratory system, just as predicted, and of course all those transitionals that are impossible to confidently classify as birds or dinosaurs.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, Mendel cleared up a serious problem for Darwin's theory. You see, Darwin was unable to explain how, if heredity was like mixing paint, how a new change could spread in a population. It would be like mixing a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. But Mendel showed that heredity was like sorting beads, and it became immediately clear how Darwin's theory was correct.
I think you had too many fruit loops for breakfast this morning
Pretty stunning, um? There's a lot of things involved, that creationists don't want you to know. Genetics, and specifically Mendel's discoveries are why modern evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's theory.
Mendel of course knew about Darwins beliefs, but he certainly did not accept Darwins*beliefs of*descent with modification.
You're wrong about that. He greatly admired Darwin, and even sent his paper on factors to him. It's in Darwin's papers, but unfortunately, it appears that Darwin (who received many, many papers from others) never actually read it. Too bad, it would have saved him a lot of concern about a very real objection to his theory at the time.
Modern geneticists such as John Sanford and James S. Allan were atheists... claimed to live and breath evolutionism, are now convinced that genetics proves evolutionism is impossible.
Sanford now worships the ID designer, who some of them say could be a "space alien." But it's instructive that he abandoned science when he accepted that new religion.
Last time I checked, using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and the list from Project Steve, about 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt evolutionary theory. The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationists to use.
While Linnaeus used observable science, Darwin...not knowing genetics, extrapolated that maybe one kind can evolve into another kind.
Barbarian observes:
And a great number of predictions, based on that theory, such as fish with functional legs, whales with functional legs, transitionals between humans and apes, feathered dinosaurs, and so on, have been confirmed to be true. This is why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.
Pfttttt. Now I know you were into those fruit loops. You believe in science fiction.
These are all facts. Pick one and I'll show you.
Whales don't have functional legs.
But early ones did. And that's all that counts.
Just like evolutionists believed coelacanths had legs
You've been misled about that. They have the same bones that tetrapods have, but they are not evolved to become legs. That was in a different line. No biologist ever thought coelacanths had legs. But there were fish, confined to water, who did. Would you like to learn about that?
There are no transitional fossils between humans and apes.
Well, let's take a look...
Surprised? A lot of people are. It's a remarkable fact that we are very, very close to Australopithecines below the neck. Almost all human evolution from the early hominens has been in the skull, teeth, and jaws.
Feathered dinosaurs?? Possibly but certainly no compelling evidence.
You've been misled about that, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
(Feathers are great evidence of our designer)
Nope. Just evidence of common descent. Why would a designer put pinnate feathers on things that didn't fly?
Barbarian observes:
Creationism is a belief in the sense that people believe in leprechauns.
Actually it is the belief that God's Word is absolute truth
No. The YE creationism belief of life ex nihilo, for example is in contradiction his word. Creationism is a peculiar reinterpretation of God's word.
.
