Rapid Adaptation

[Alate_One]

Nope.

You inserted evolutionary propaganda without a reference, pretending it was part of OP.

The OP links a news story which summarizes a paper as evidence. The original paper reference is as follows (copy paste from the bottom of the news story):

Ivan Gomez-Mestre, Robert Alexander Pyron, John J. Wiens. Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes in frogs. Evolution, 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01715.x

I provided a quotation of the ORIGINAL PAPER listed above. Which is the "evolutionary propaganda" cited in the OP.

Helps if you actually read and can understand what you consider "evidence".

 

[Alate_One]

Moving the goal posts now.

Creationism and evolutionism both use the same evidence.*

No, creationists ignore and lie about evidence they don't like.

Feathered Dinosaurs

Is that your admission that you were wrong... You had said "Creationists don't use the scientific method. That was false.

Nope. not false. You're playing semantic games. I was using the term creationists as someone in the practice of supporting creationism. You cannot support creationism using the scientific method. You could use the scientific method doing other things in your life, but that has nothing to do with supporting creationism.

Creationists use the scientific method performing science....genetics, biology, geology etc

Creationism is not based on science and doesn't utilize the scientific method, as the AiG statement of faith proves which you conveniently fail to address every time it is brought up. See what I mean about ignoring evidence?

 

[Stripe]

I provided a quotation of the ORIGINAL PAPER listed above. Which is the "evolutionary propaganda" cited in the OP.Helps if you actually read and can understand what you consider "evidence".

And meanwhile, the challenge goes unacknowledged.

 

[Jose Fly]

After answering at least three? I think you'll be wanting to revisit this accusation.

Ok then...

Genetically, what specifically do you look at to tell if two populations share a common ancestry?

By what mechanisms do populations adapt?

Sure. There are the lizards evolutionists claim as an example of their idea.

Can you be more specific?

Except that in this very thread we have competing assertions and a creationist who has defined his terms and is willing to examine the evidence to determine which, if any, idea is defensible.

Who?

 

[Stripe]

You cannot support creationism using the scientific method. You could use the scientific method doing other things in your life, but that has nothing to do with supporting creationism.Creationism is not based on science and doesn't utilize the scientific method, as the AiG statement of faith proves which you conveniently fail to address every time it is brought up. See what I mean about ignoring evidence?

Except that in this very thread we have two opposing ideas and a definition, provided by a creationist, that can be used to help in a discussion over which, if any, of the camps is defensible, but it is only one side that is ignoring the challenge; desperate to talk about something — anything — but the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Ok then...

Is that a prelude to an apology?

Genetically, what specifically do you look at to tell if two populations share a common ancestry?By what mechanisms do populations adapt?

Are you expecting a different answer every time you ask these questions?

Can you be more specific?

Sure. Some lizards released onto an island near Italy developed an organ to help them with their change in diet. No evolution involved.

Who?

Try reading. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Is that a prelude to an apology?

Nope.

Are you expecting a different answer every time you ask these questions?

Something other than an Idunno smiley would be helpful. But then as we're seeing, you hate answering questions.

Sure. Some lizards released onto an island near Italy developed an organ to help them with their change in diet. No evolution involved.

You mean this?

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

"Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment."​

Try reading. :up:

Stripe sure does hate answering questions.

 

[Stripe]

Nope.

Is this how you generally operate; make an unfounded accusation and ignore your blunder when called on it?

Something other than an Idunno smiley would be helpful.

You want me to make something up?

But then as we're seeing, you hate answering questions.

After having responded appropriately and concisely to numerous questions from you in this thread, I think you'll be wanting to revisit this now ingrained lie.

You mean this?

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
​

That is the story. However, we know the evolutionary gloss your link puts on it is inaccurate.​

 

[Jose Fly]

Is this how you generally operate; make an unfounded accusation and ignore your blunder when called on it?

It's been made extremely apparent that you don't like answering questions.

You want me to make something up?

So you have no idea how to tell, genetically, if two populations share a common ancestry?

And you have no idea how populations adapt?

That is the story. However, we know the evolutionary gloss your link puts on it is inaccurate.

How do we know that? How did this new trait appear, if not by evolution?

 

[George Affleck]

Yes, I did actually. If you'd have read through the thread you would have seen it.

No, what you presented was what I predicted - that which only fits into evolutionary timelines. You guys (intentional non-accuracy) are not capable of accepting other possibilities. Long ages existed - find an explanation that fits only with long ages - if you do, then it must be true - therefore long ages existed. Tautology.

And it's not the solidifcation step, it's the erosion, the two different deposition environments, the folding etc. All of which can now be studied with far more accuracy.

Here's another option:
1. Sediments deposited by Noah's flood.
2. Folding and rapid uplifting occurs while still soft and plastic.
3. Erosion occurs from waters disturbed by uplifting.
4. Kms. more sediment deposited from the breaking up of large areas of earth's crust, rising floodwaters and global tectonic activity.
5. Layers compacted and cemented under water.
6. Ocean basins open up with more tectonic activity, collapsing land domes and further erosion occurs with waters rushing off continents into ocean basins.

All possible within a few years depending on an individual's ability to tolerate global catastrophism.

Uhh no. And guess what group of people figured out the Missoula floods? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't creationists.

Figure out?
What's to figure out?
It happened in 6 days in 1926.
It was in all the papers.
Burlingame Canyon.

You seem to have some kind of strawman version of evolution. Evolution says nothing about rocks turning into people.

Oh, my apologies! What is the latest guess about the origin of organic life?

 

[Alate_One]

No, what you presented was what I predicted - that which only fits into evolutionary timelines. You guys (intentional non-accuracy) are not capable of accepting other possibilities. Long ages existed - find an explanation that fits only with long ages - if you do, then it must be true - therefore long ages existed. Tautology.

No. The "other explanations" don't match the data and don't make sense given the known laws of physics.

Here's another option:
1. Sediments deposited by Noah's flood.

Single floods don't form successive layers. You need time to form separate ones.

2. Folding and rapid uplifting occurs while still soft and plastic.

The layers wouldn't stay distinct and together in that case.

3. Erosion occurs from waters disturbed by uplifting.

Same problem as earlier. If they weren't rock, they wouldn't stay distinct layers.

4. Kms. more sediment deposited from the breaking up of large areas of earth's crust, rising floodwaters and global tectonic activity.

Again, a single flood doesn't form successive layers, only one graded bed. This is sandstone with ripplemarks.

5. Layers compacted and cemented under water.
6. Ocean basins open up with more tectonic activity, collapsing land domes and further erosion occurs with waters rushing off continents into ocean basins.

The layers on top wouldn't stay together and would merge into layers below.

All possible within a few years depending on an individual's ability to tolerate global catastrophism.

More like an individual's ability to tolerate magical thinking. You can make up stories all you like, but they don't actually make sense under scientific scrutiny. Again, that's why the original flood geologists of the 17 and 1800s gave up on flood geology. It only persists in certain Christian circles for the sole purpose of supporting the belief system of people like you.

The author of this video has an unfortunate attitude but he's pretty well correct on the science.

Global flood debunked

Figure out?
What's to figure out?
It happened in 6 days in 1926.
It was in all the papers.
Burlingame Canyon.

The canyon did but the layers it cut through were successive flood deposits. Yeesh you think all the layers it cut through formed in 6 days too? :chuckle:

Oh, my apologies! What is the latest guess about the origin of organic life?

The origin of life isn't covered by the Theory of Evolution. Try again.

 

[Jose Fly]

This whole "we just have an alternative interpretation for the same data" creationist mantra is ridiculous. At its heart it assumes that all interpretations for a data set are equally valid.

We have a series of satellite photographs of the earth, showing it rotating. The NASA interpretation is "the earth rotates". The geocentrist interpretation is "It's fake as part of a anti-Biblical conspiracy".

By the same reasoning the creationists are offering here, we just have to throw up our arms and see both interpretations as equally valid.

 

[6days]

This whole "we just have an alternative interpretation for the same data" creationist mantra is ridiculous. At its heart it assumes that all interpretations for a data set are equally valid.

They aren't equally valid.
That's why some evolutionists are looking for new explanations... a new theory of evolutionism. Their old tired Darwinism does not have the explanatory power of Biblical Creation.

Philip Ball wrote an article in Nature titled 'Celebrate the Unknowns' . He discusses how some of the old evolutionary ideas about DNA are simplistic to the point of being misleading. He also discusses how most evolutionists are unwilling to face up to the reality of what science is discovering.
I think he essentially admits that evolutionists are afraid to back down from their belief system, even though science proves them wrong, because creationists will pounce on this as a victory.
("There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it")
He is correct, although there is no illusion that evolutionists will follow the evidence where it truly leads.

 

[6days]

No, creationists ignore and lie about evidence they don't like.

Oh..... I see. :juggle:

I think what you really mean is that it upsets you when Biblical creationists reject interpretations that contradict God's Word.

But tell you what... If you want to give an example of a creationist ignoring evidence, I will give an example of an evolutionist fabricating evidence.

Nope. not false. You're playing semantic games. I was using the term creationists as someone in the practice of supporting creationism.

I think you are ignoring the evidence of what you really said "Creationists don't use the scientific method".

Would you like to correct that now? Creationist scientists perform science using the scientic method... correct?

Creationism is not based on science

Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. They are not science.


But both evolutionists and creationists use the scientific method doing research in genetics, biology, chemistry etc.

 

[Stripe]

It's been made extremely apparent that you don't like answering questions.

:blabla:

So you have no idea how to tell, genetically, if two populations share a common ancestry?

Not really.

And you have no idea how populations adapt?

Genetics are complicated.

How do we know that? How did this new trait appear, if not by evolution?

Time.

Evolution requires a lot of time. The lizards probably developed their changes in one generation.

 

[everready]

Evidence For A Global Flood

Evidence For A Global Flood

Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


How many countries in the world see the rainbow? What does the rainbow represent?


Genesis 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

i believe every place on the earth has a rainbow not just certain continents this promise is to all flesh that is upon the earth.


everready

 

[6days]

The OP links a news story which summarizes a paper as evidence. The original paper reference is as follows (copy paste from the bottom of the news story):

Ivan Gomez-Mestre, Robert Alexander Pyron, John J. Wiens. Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes in frogs. Evolution, 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01715.x

I provided a quotation of the ORIGINAL PAPER listed above. Which is the "evolutionary propaganda" cited in the OP.

Helps if you actually read and can understand what you consider "evidence".

I agree... It helps if you actually read and can understand.....

The OP said .....
Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm

The actual title of their article is "Surprises in evolution of frog life cycles"

So... the OP correctly characterized the ScienceDaily article.

 

[6days]

Evolution requires a lot of time. The lizards probably developed their changes in one generation.

Evolutionism is like a fog that covers any and all landscapes.
They claim evolution requires a lot of time... but now they will say that rapid change shows the power of natural selection.

They claim sloppy design is evidence of their model.... they claim optimal design... or the appearance of good design is evidence of their model.

BTW... You may be correct about the lizards changing in one generation. The DNA to code for the cecal valve likely was already in their genome since other lizards also have this.

 

[Stripe]

The DNA to code for the cecal valve likely was already in their genome since other lizards also have this.

Yip.

Changes to organisms can almost always be linked to a response to the environment. There is no space for random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

They aren't equally valid.

And how do we tell the difference between a valid and an invalid interpretation of the same data?

That's why some evolutionists are looking for new explanations... a new theory of evolutionism. Their old tired Darwinism does not have the explanatory power of Biblical Creation.

Yet you can't name a single thing creationism has contributed to science in the last half century. Funny how reality doesn't match your rhetoric.

Philip Ball wrote an article in Nature titled 'Celebrate the Unknowns' . He discusses how some of the old evolutionary ideas about DNA are simplistic to the point of being misleading. He also discusses how most evolutionists are unwilling to face up to the reality of what science is discovering.
I think he essentially admits that evolutionists are afraid to back down from their belief system, even though science proves them wrong, because creationists will pounce on this as a victory.
("There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it")
He is correct, although there is no illusion that evolutionists will follow the evidence where it truly leads.

I'm reading it right now, and I see things like...

Although it remains beyond serious doubt that Darwinian natural selection drives much, perhaps most, evolutionary change, it is often unclear at which phenotypic level selection operates, and particularly how it plays out at the molecular level.

But then, your history of misrepresenting the work of scientists is well known here.