Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah look at all the scientific evidence and peer review on the Piltdown man and .................... Opps false.
Oh, and the Coelacanth being millions of years old and extinct.
You must be getting desperate to dig up Piltdown man. That was back in the early days when various nations were anxious to produce their own fossil ancestor. Yes, that was faked - and some time later, science found that it was faked. And the idea that everything that is millions of years old has to be extinct is false. In fact, if conditions are suitable, a species can just stay 'micro' evolving indefinitely. Crocodiles, sharks, King crabs and Coelacanth. It takes some severe changes to make a species go extinct. Living fossils is no good argument against evolution. Nothing really is. The fossil and morphological evidence alone, given the evidence of stratified fossils and reliable dating of rocks (RATE did their best to debunk it but ended up by confirming it, rather) evolution being fact should be undeniable.
DNA is also supposed to be confirmation by itself, but the points you raised about chimp and human DNA would take a Matadora to deal with. I don't have the expertise. Neither, I suspect, do you, so you don't know whether they are misrepresenting those figures - it wouldn't be the first time.
P.s this might explain some of the problem.
" Luskin Wrote:
.. entitled “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” which reported that “human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%.” The statistic of an alleged 1% difference between human and chimp DNA is thus quickly becoming a thing of the past. A recent post at Scientific American’s blog states, “humans may have as little as 99% of their genes in common with one another, and, by the same analysis, as little as 95% of their genes in common with chimpanzees.” Thus, according to the article, “Humans turn out to be as genetically different from one another as it was previously thought they were different from chimps.” (emphasis added).
So why the range of similarities from 95-99%? The answer is simple, because they measure different differences and similarities."
It appears that you have just skipped right over answering any of my questions. Let's try this again before proceeding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Not confused at all, it just poses a problem for Darwinian Evolution because it is observable, reproducible and the Darwinian Evolution theory is not observable or reproducible.
What exactly poses a problem for Darwin Evolution? What is this "it" that you are claiming here to be observable and reproducible?
Please share the evidence with us? I can’t wait to see it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Can't handle reality and must accept blindly that Evolution leading to new Kinds occurred even though no proof exists. None.
I agree there is no evidence in any scientific literature or text book that claims Evolution leads to new "Kinds".
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
False argument when speaking to me or anyone using the Bible as the word "Kind" is as a group that reproduces within itself.
This is a False Claim. If not a False Claim, then it should be very simple for you to provide evidence for the claim that “"Kind" is as a group that reproduces within itself”.
A credible link for this claim would certainly help your credibility in stating such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Biology uses the terms it likes and mainly to promote the theory of Evolution with no real basis in observable or reproducible evidence.
What terms are you talking about…this makes no sense unless you provide examples of what you mean.
List one word that Biology like and mainly uses to promote the Theory of Evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
They have only shown buy observation and have only reproduced changes within a Kind as I have shown repeatedly. Never any evidence of crossing that barrier.
What evidence have you shown repeatedly?
There’s been NONE that I or anyone else has seen. Please show us your evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Not to mention even a single cell is incredibly complex, way beyond what early scientists knew, so they started making the single cell claim and now are faced with real problems.
Here is your problem. The term "species" does not equate to the word Kind. Within a Kind there will be many species AND even science disagrees on species. From your links "A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community ."
LOL! Here you see it folks. This is a tactic used by creationists called Quote Mining – It’s this abhorrent practice of searching through large volumes of literature or spoken word to mine out any quotes from opponents that may seemingly support their position.
What he failed to do is actually read the link that he Quote Mined from as well as failed to post the link.
The quote is from a site that promotes itself as such:
Quote:
The Skeptic Tank is a BBS which maintains extensive archives on destructive groups, individuals, and ideologies with special focus on religion's impact upon history as well as religion's impact upon rights, liberties, health, and safety of the world's populace in contemporary times. Newspaper articles and information about various groups and individuals and their destructive ideology-drive activities are provided upon request free of charge to serve the community.
In other words it's a site that views creationists as destructive groups.
What is most laughable about him Quote Mining from this link is that he did not even read the page, thus he fails to realize that the page goes on to list all of the Observed Instances of Speciation! Skip down to Section 5.0.
Nice work ExpatCA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Debate as even the definition of the term is disputed.. A new species of mosquito, "Culex molestus", has evolved Still a mosquito not a fly.
Your claims are nonsense and your example is also nonsensical.
Perhaps you should try again with a better example of whatever it is you are trying to prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Every observation and test is within a "Kind" there is no new kind produced nor can be as there is a limit that cannot be crossed.
I suggest you check out section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation in that link you quote mined from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
The speciation argument used in those links and others still deal with something within a Biblical Kind.
Not even close. You have no clue what Speciation means or the types of Speciation that are described in science. There are several types of Speciation. Modes of Speciation | Teaching Biology Clearly you have a lot to learn. It’s no wonder you are so lost and confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
No fish became a mammal, that is speculation on the part of those who believe in Evolution.
Creationists have so much trouble with the concept of Evolution. Fish evolved into Amphibians.
Here you go...do you see a fish directly evolving into a mammal? Nope you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Birds changing, etc a bit is something they have the potential to do based on DNA. They stay birds.
This makes zero sense. Birds like everything else living on this planet are still evolving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
The use of species is a cover for a belief that a Kind can change to another kind over time. But only species within a Kind are ever produced. Species change within their Kind, so changes within a species are absolutely no proof of Darwinian Evolution.
Again I suggest you check out section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation in that link you quote mined from.
While you're at it you might just check out Section 4.1 Cases Where the Biological Species Concept Applies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Please show us you know what you are talking about and provide scientific tests and proof that the reproducible Kind barrier can be and has been breached, not just the theory it has based on change within a Kind.
I just did.
You are misusing the word test. Scientists run experiments…Doctors order tests and Clinical Laboratory Scientists run the tests.
You are also committing a CD no no by using the color Red when it clearly states at the bottom of every mod's handle:
Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here? I simply posted a link about the Human Chromosome 2 fusion event and pointed out that at the Dover trial when this evidence was presented the creation team just sat there with nothing to say in rebuttal.
I don't even think you understand the link that you posted at all. You only Quote Mined a portion of it. When you add in the rest of the sentence it makes total sense.
Quote:
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
What is so mind blowing about the above quote? It makes perfect sense to me and I am sure it does with anyone else who understand genetics.
It's certainly not coming from a position that supports anything that you have been saying. Not sure what your point was in posting this link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
In addition to improving scientific understanding of the uniqueness of humans.
What exactly are you trying to prove here? I think you must be confused about something that I said so you come back and post links that have nothing to do with disproving Evolution or disproving that the chimpanzee DNA is similar to human DNA.
From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere
The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Oh, and the Coelacanth being millions of years old and extinct.
I see you also don't understand the scientific process. As new discoveries are made, science updates itself. That's the beauty of science and why it works so well vs. religion trying to fill in the gaps that science has made.
This is what is problematic with theologians trying to fill in the gaps that science has made…the effort to find a rational excuse for something can work… but this does not make it right.
Molecular studies by Goodman and others (1985) show that whales are more closely related to the ungulates than they are to all other mammals - a result consistent with evolutionary expectations. These studies examined myoglobin, lens alpha-crystallin A, and cytochrome c in a study of 46 different species of mammals. Miyamoto and Goodman (1986) later expanded the number of protein sequences by including alpha- and beta- hemoglobins and ribonuclease; they also increased the number of mammals included in the study to 72. The results were the same: the whales clearly are included among the ungulates. Other molecular studies on a variety of genes, proteins, and enzymes by Irwin and others (1991), Irwin and Arnason (1994), Milinkovitch (1992), Graur and Higgins (1994), Gatesy and others (1996), and Shimamura and others (1997) also identified the whales as closely related to the artiodactyls, although there are differences in the details among the studies.
LOL! Here you see it folks. This is a tactic used by creationists called Quote Mining – It’s this abhorrent practice of searching through large volumes of literature or spoken word to mine out any quotes from opponents that may seemingly support their position.
What he failed to do is actually read the link that he Quote Mined from as well as failed to post the link.
The quote is from a site that promotes itself as such:
In other words it's a site that views creationists as destructive groups.
What is most laughable about him Quote Mining from this link is that he did not even read the page, thus he fails to realize that the page goes on to list all of the Observed Instances of Speciation! Skip down to Section 5.0.
Nice work ExpatCA.
Your claims are nonsense and your example is also nonsensical.
Perhaps you should try again with a better example of whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I suggest you check out section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation in that link you quote mined from.
Not even close. You have no clue what Speciation means or the types of Speciation that are described in science. There are several types of Speciation. Modes of Speciation | Teaching Biology Clearly you have a lot to learn. It’s no wonder you are so lost and confused.
Yes, quotemining is an habitual vice of Creationist apologists.
Quote:
Creationists have so much trouble with the concept of Evolution. Fish evolved into Amphibians.
Here you go...do you see a fish directly evolving into a mammal? Nope you don't.
I gather that this is showing genetic mechanisms or residual genetic mechanisms that show that reptilian hand bones evolved from fin bones?
I can predict that the arguments would be along the lines of 'I can't understand that, so I don't accept it'.
We are in the old situation of not finding evidence for creationism or serious objections to evolution, but pushing away the evidence for evolution and demanding proof of often isn't anything evolution does anyway - like dogs from cats.
Quote:
This makes zero sense. Birds like everything else living on this planet are still evolving.
Again I suggest you check out section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation in that link you quote mined from.
While you're at it you might just check out Section 4.1 Cases Where the Biological Species Concept Applies.
I just did.
You are misusing the word test. Scientists run experiments…Doctors order tests and Clinical Laboratory Scientists run the tests.
I know what Expat is after - before yore werry eyes evidence of a "Macro" change. It is asking for the impossible. Such changes from Eohippus to horse takes hundreds of thousands of years. And that's still 'Micro' as they call it. Of course producing dogs from cats in the laboratory or turning a fruit -fly into a beetle would not prove anything because it was done artificially. I know this is so because one Creationist got the idea that Life had been created in the laboratory. He immediately argued that proved nothing as it didn't mean it happened like that in the past.
It would be handy if a 'macro' change happened. Like seals being able to give birth at sea and transitioning into a non -land creature. That would only be a present day example of what the Cetan sequence of fossils shows anyway.
Quote:
You are also committing a CD no no by using the color Red when it clearly states at the bottom of every mod's handle:
Remarkable how often creationists overlook that when they feel the need to scream denial in crimson capitals.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-23-2015 at 04:16 AM..
Thank you. (Cor ..that quoted bit of ignorant flatulence from Mr Gish hakes one's knuckles whiten) iAs a laybod, the best I can do is point to the clear evidence of a land based origin of present -day whales and point to the skeletal features that identify Ambulocetus and Pakicetus as the land-based ancestors. DNA evidence to back up the 'land -based' claim is what we needed. Glad to have you here.!
The Bible says:
Genesis 1:21 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
lGenesis 1:25 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.es, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
These are a few and show that the word here "kind" described each catagory of animal (and even grass etc in previous VS's)
Remember the Bible does not give a definition like a dictionary, it is written so we will understand the basics. It is a book on our relationship with God, not a science text book, etc.
Now, all tests and observations support that everything reproduces after their kind and are limited to within that kind.
Nowhere in your post does it say that a "Kind" refers to organisms that can reproduce with each other (like all your other posts state).
So, the Bible doesn't give a definition, so your definition is your opinion, not a scientific word usage.
I agree that the Bible is not a science text book. It would be helpful if more people understood that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was back in the early days when various nations were anxious to produce their own fossil ancestor. Yes, that was faked - and some time later, science found that it was faked. And the idea that everything that is millions of years old has to be extinct is false. In fact, if conditions are suitable, a species can just stay 'micro' evolving indefinitely. Crocodiles, sharks, King crabs and Coelacanth. It takes some severe changes to make a species go extinct. Living fossils is no good argument against evolution. Nothing really is. The fossil and morphological evidence alone, given the evidence of stratified fossils and reliable dating of rocks (RATE did their best to debunk it but ended up by confirming it, rather) evolution being fact should be undeniable. 
Remarkable how often creationists overlook that when they feel the need to scream denial in crimson capitals.
