Rapid speciation / rapid change is part of the Biblical creationist model.
Nope. For a very long time, creationists denied the fact of speciation. As you may have noticed, some still do. However, the hyperspeciation that would be required to repopulate the Earth with species from a bottleneck a few thousand years ago, is far faster than any evidence says it would be.
There is a good reason not to refer to it as "evolution". ...
It's a change in allele frequency over time in populations, so by definition, evolution.
Nope. Very specific and definite. A change in allele frequency in a population is evolution.
Barbarian observes:
The "goo to you" is a creationist idea
The Biblical Creationist 'idea' is "
God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Creationists will go that far; they just won't accept the way He did it. Of course, the "image" is in our souls and minds; God is a spirit, as Jesus says, and He also says that spirits don't have a body.
Barbarian observes:
Change in allele frequency is observable science.
Of course, it's what accounts for speciation, and ultimately, common descent.
Nope. Very specific.
Common descent is an unobservable belief.
Nope. Inference from evidence. Like the rest of science. If you're trying to claim that we can't know anything we didn't personally observe, you're completely wrong. Forensics, fire investigation, geology, astronomy, etc. depend on evidence to learn what happened before. And as you have seen, the many confirmed predictions of common descent are compelling evidence.
I guess we both believe our god / God is capable of creating unique creatures and features.
I assume the "god" is the "space alien of the "intelligent design" people. My God is no mere designer. He's the Creator.
The platypus is a very unique and highly complex creature that God created.
Barbarian observes:
True. You just don't approve of the way He did it.
Its not a matter of approving anything. Its a matter of believing what He says..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened.
I know, you're willing to accept that God used nature to make organisms, but you aren't willing to accept the way He did it.
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.
Actually, that's not what it says. Another creationist addition to scripture.
Half life DNA studies suggest evolutionary beliefs are hopelessly flawed.
Barbarian suggests:
Show us.!
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555
That source claims that the oldest sample of DNA is about half a million years old. About a thousand times longer than creationists think you have. And these guys are making a theoretical projection as far as how long DNA should last, if it's exposed to water. Did you miss something? Obviously, if it's not so exposed, things go differently. Not surprisingly, the cases of very ancient DNA are in dry deposits.
Evolutionists now are devising rescue devices to explain how blood cells and DNA fragments can survive and salvage their beliefs.
See above. Surprised? Often, creationists make up stories about what scientists have concluded. This is another of those cases.
(Just like their faulty conclusions about coelacanths going extinct 65 million years ago.)
From time to time, we find that a relict population of something remains long after it went extinct everywhere else. Coelacanths are like that. Darwin discussed some cases himself. The point, of course, is that modern coelacanths have evolved to become very different fish in that time.
It shows how evolutionism cant be falsified.
You already learned many ways evolution could be falsified. Feathered mammals, an insect genetically more closely related to a mammal than the mammal is to other mammals, and so on.
Creationist prediction... Carbon dating will find radiocarbon in the soft tissue.
Barbarian observes:
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 nitrogen inclusions are in diamonds.
Yep....and also consistent with the Biblical creationist model.
Nope. The dates are pretty close to 50,000 years, which is the limit of the method currently. So even if it was from living material (how did it get into diamonds?) it would be far too old for creationists.
Not knowing ratios of C13 and C14 when God created....
That's been extremely well calibrated, using lake varves. Would you like to learn how?
not knowing how the global flood changed the ratios,
A flood would not change nuclear behavior. Any change in that would require a change in the speed of light. And a significant speeding up would cause so much background radiation that it would fry all living things on Earth.
Do you have a link for C14 testing soft tissue?
I did. Let me look...
Um, nothing in the literature, but there are some things in websites:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-from-stone/
BTW, someone figured out why tissue only survived in particular circumstances:
Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
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.
Ok...so,Blood vessels, connective tissue and DNA material found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation.
See above. Turns out, it's a lot older than creationists hoped.
Even your creationist link says that it's far older than creationism would permit. On the other hand, Argon/argon and other testing shows those bones to be much, much older.
Sue, the famous T-rex in Washington, was dated by Argon methods, which gave an of 67,000,000 years.
And we know it works, because (for example) it accurately dated the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii. The problem of groundwater infiltration, carrying residual CO2 and other molecules, makes Carbon dating much less accurate, which is one reason scientists don't use it when they have better methods at hand. Here's a way you can learn about those, and why they correlate so well:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Read it carefully, and learn why it's so accurate. Joe is a well-respected expert in the field, but even better, he's very good at explaining technical issues for laymen.
Barbarian observes:
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.
What it does is show why evolutionists have seen feathers where none exist. What it does is show the psuedoscience of evolutionists who have jumped to conclusions and dŕawn elaborately feathered dinos in magazine articles.
You've been misled by that. The first unequivocal case was archaeopteryx, originally thought to be a pterosaur or a small dinosaur, until fossils with clear impressions of feathers were found.
It's more of a dinosaur than a bird, but there it is. There have been many, many others. Want to learn about them?
Barbarian observes:
Moreover, we find in some therapods, a bird respiratory system.
Sure... like they found lungs in coelacanths
Actually, lungs were a very early adaptation in fish. Would you like to learn about that?
its a good thing science comes along to show evolutionism is built on beliefs... not science.
You're seeing a lot of things for the first time, here. Many fish have outpouchings of the upper digestive tract that absorbs oxygen. That's why goldfish gulp air. Some, like lungfish, have greatly evolved examples. Lungfish are pretty close to the line that led to tetrapods. Genetically, the are closer to us than they are to (for example) a trout. Another verified prediction of the theory.
Barbarian observes:
and of course all those transitionals that are impossible to confidently classify as birds or dinosaurs.
Such as archaeoptrryx with its perfect feathers
Pretty good feathers, but not as good as on true birds. It had a dinosaur skeleton, lacked the fused vertebrae and the "keel" sternum of true birds, but it could fly. (assymetrical feathers). More primitive dinos has symmetrical feathers that are not as efficient for flying.
.evidence of our Creator...evidence against feather evolution.
Actually, it turns out that scutes (scales found on birds and dinosaurs) can be induced to form feathers. Genetically, they are very much alike.
Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot (see figure at right). There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes. The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand.
In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to various degrees.
http://www.skeptive.com/sources/66982/source_urls/235148
Barbarian observes:
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.
Genetics is helping us understand how wrong evolutionists have been.
As you learned, it was Mendel's discovery of genetics that saved Darwin's theory.
We are beginning to understand that evolutionary assumptions about "junk" DNA and psuedogenes were psuedoscience.
You were misled about that, too. When I was an undergrad in the 60s, there were articles in journals about the functions of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists call it). The point is that Mendel's discovery made Darwin's theory feasible.
Yes... you are correct but you forgot to mention that although Mendel admired Darwin, he didn't agree with Darwins common ancestry beliefs...
Show us that, from Mendel's writing. He was interested in various theories of evolution at the time, but I don't think he had decided whether Lamarck or Darwin was correct.
Its too bad Darwin hadn't read what Mendel sent him. Instead people fell for Darwins false idead which likely hindered genetic research and medical progress by 40 years.
The irony is that during the Stalin year, Darwin was banned and geneticists imprisoned and killed. Soviet biology has yet to catch up with us.
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.
Yep. When you tout an "expert", you put his credibility up for discussion.
I suppose Sanford is abandoning science in the same sense Galileo did.
Nope. As you might know, Galileo wrote that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Barbarian observes:
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. The bandwagon argument is a very bad choice for creastionists.
You will find that many Biblical creationist scientists have not bothered with that list because they don't support the Discovery Inst and the ID movement.
Sounds like an excuse.
Others haven't bothered for a variety of reasons. In any case.....Last I looked at that list 700+ scientists all with a PhD have signed on.
The vast majority of them aren't biologists, and many don't even have a doctorate. Project Steve requires a doctorate in biology or a related field, and be named "Steve" or some variant. If you cull out the Discovery Institute list with the same requirements, you get very few names. As you might know, 700 scientists are a tiny, tiny fraction of all scientists, or even a tiny fraction of all biologists.
its a good thing science comes along to show evolutionism is built on beliefs... not science.
