Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[rossum]

Cite my post that supports your straw man,

No straw man. You said: “exists in the parent populations”. If it exists in the parent populations then it cannot be new, because it already exists before the offspring are born/hatched/whatever.

 

[o_mlly]

No straw man. You said: “exists in the parent populations”. If it exists in the parent populations then it cannot be new, because it already exists before the offspring are born/hatched/whatever.

Yes, straw man. You’re still just blowing smoke. We see through it though.

The straw man you put up, "o_mlly does argue … claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears.", does not relate at all to my, "traits that are heritable, i.e., exists in the parent populations”. Traits that are heritable are definitionally not “new”.

You’ve straw manned me many times in these forums. Recant.

 

[buffalo]

More complexity and new studies on remote control abilities of the cell. Yep, natural selection and random mutations and time didit.

 

[rossum]

The straw man you put up, "o_mlly does argue … claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears. ", does not relate at all to my, "traits that are heritable, i.e., exists in the parent populations”.

How do “forebears” differ from “parent populations”? Are you not descended from your parents? Are you parents not members of the human population?

Traits that are heritable are definitionally not “new”.

You are looking at the wrong definitions. A new mutation in germ line cells, testes or ovaries, can be inherited. Somatic mutations cannot be inherited, but germ line mutations can be.

I am not in need of recanting, you erroneous sources are.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You’ve straw manned me many times in these forums. Recant.

Calling you out on your own ridiculous statements is not a strawman. If you seriously cannot see this, or you’re just being annoying because you have no other arguments, let me know so I can finish this conversation. It will go nowhere if this keeps up.

So show me evidence to support your claim that something never existed.

High altitude adaptations among Himalayan Tibetans exist nowhere else in the world, not even among their closely-related Han Chinese relatives. This is a trait that had never existed before the settlement of the Himalayas, unless you’re claiming that they’re a new species that always had this mutation (for some reason.)

You might want to rephrase. I have being but I cannot create nor can you.

I did not say all, I said one must be in order to create. That’s what the catechism says, that’s what I agree with.

 

[o_mlly]

How do “forebears” differ from “parent populations”

How does “exists” differ from “new”?

Do you realize how an extreme case of bias confirmation impedes one’s ability to be objective and recant?

 

[rossum]

Do you realize how an extreme case of bias confirmation impedes one’s ability to be objective and recant?

I certainly do. I have an excellent example in front of me.

 

[o_mlly]

Calling you out on your own ridiculous statements is not a strawman.

Congratulations on achieving a new low in strawmanning: strawman a strawman.

o_mlly:

So show me evidence to support your claim that something never existed.

High altitude adaptations among Himalayan Tibetans exist nowhere else in the world, not even among their closely-related Han Chinese relatives.

? How is that a response to my post? Your claim, “exist nowhere else in the world” is as unsupportable as Rossum’s claim that “lactase production is new, and was not present in ancestors”.

High altitude adaptations among Himalayan Tibetans exist … unless you’re claiming that they’re a new species …

Not at all. You’ve used the correct categorization for the Tibetans: adaptation. “Adaptation” normally refers to the well accepted microevolution event as a modification to the environment. One cannot modify what is not already present in some form.

 

[o_mlly]

I certainly do. I have an excellent example in front of me.

Put the mirror down.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Congratulations on achieving a new low in strawmanning: strawman a strawman.

Welcome to the ignore bucket!

 

[o_mlly]

Welcome to the ignore bucket! Population: 2

Ah, at last. Thank you. It’s always a relief to reduce the number of nonsense response posts I get on CAF.

 

[Buzzard3]

The Bechley article The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis you linked to was not from a peer-reviewed paper, it was a news article. Hence is does not require a scientific refutation because it was not science to start with. Science is found in peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals or on some websites. A second-hand report on a news website is not science. Science is done in the original papers, not in news reports.

In that case, none of your arguments offered on this forum are “science” because they are not presented in the form of “peer-reviewed” paper.

Maybe Bechly has presented his findings in a peer-reviewed paper - after all, he is a world-renowned paleontologist who has discovered 170 new species, has 11 biological groups named in his honour and has published more than 160 scientific papers.

Regardless, it is his professional opinion that NONE of the 40+ BST fossil deposits that have been discovered reveal the evolutionary links between Edicaran and Cambrian biota that neo-Darwinism predicts. He states that it is “absurd” for Darwinists to claim this lack of evidence does not present a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Buzzard3]

You say “prove”. Science does not do that.

That’s the point - science cannot prove what process was responsible the alleged evolution of a bird from a reptile - all science can do is speculate.
A bird evolving from a reptile can’t even be observed … science can’t even prove that a bird did in fact evolve from a reptile, so the whole exercise is pie-the-sky.

To disprove a natural process, you will need to show evidence of some non-natural process existing.

I’m not trying to disprove a natural process. I’m saying no one can possibly know what process was responsible - how can anyone demonstrate the process responsible for an event when no one can prove that event even happened?

As for “evidence of some non-natural process”, that is not a scientific endeavour - although the conspicuos gaps in the fossil record provides evidence that “some non-natural natural process” was at work.

Science has a lot of evidence of natural processes operating. It does not currently have evidence of any non-natural processes operating, and hence no evidence that non-natural processes can affect DNA.

How could it? A “non-natural process” is not part of science.

 

[Buzzard3]

There would appear to be two options as to abiogenesis when it comes to God. Either He set up the initial system so that life would emerge as part of that process - in which case it’s entirely reasonable to search for the mechanisms of that process.

… in which case, it would be a pointless waste of time and effort (and someone else’s money) - just as pointless as scientists trying to figure out how man allegedly evolved from a prokaryote. All you end up with is a bunch of useless theories and hot-air that do nothing to advance science.

I suspect your average abiogenesis space-cadet scientist is an atheist who is psychologically desperate for “science” to provide some kind of support for his belief that life arose naturally from inanimate matter … a bit like the SETI program, really. Drowning men clutching at straws …

Or it was not a natural process but a supernatural one.

That’s a bit like coming across the faces on Mt. Rushmore and asking “Is nature responsible for those faces, or is man?”

It can’t be that rare, to go from one single first cell organism to the millions and millions of the different plants and animals we have today.How many transitional steps you think that took?

According to the rate of mutations observed in extant organisms, much longer than the age of the earth. But all Darwinists have to do to get around this problem is do what they do well - invent another untestable “theory” that explains it away.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There would appear to be two options as to abiogenesis when it comes to God. Either He set up the initial system so that life would emerge as part of that process - in which case it’s entirely reasonable to search for the mechanisms of that process.

… in which case, it would be a pointless waste of time and effort (and someone else’s money) - just as pointless as scientists trying to figure out how man allegedly evolved from a prokaryote. All you end up with is a bunch of useless theories and hot-air that do nothing to advance science.

I suspect your average abiogenesis space-cadet scientist is an atheist who is psychologically desperate for “science” to provide some kind of support for his belief that life arose naturally from inanimate matter … a bit like the SETI program, really. Drowning men clutching at straws …

Or it was not a natural process but a supernatural one.

That’s a bit like coming across the faces on Mt. Rushmore and asking “Is nature responsible for those faces, or is man?”

It would then appear that you consider a search for how God has formed the universe to be a waste of time.

Star formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Galaxies forming? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Planetary formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Mountains and seas? Continents…?

Well, we get the idea. Or maybe you could fine tune it. Maybe we can stop looking for how things came to be only if they look designed to you.

Even the Design Institute, the hub of the ID movement, accepts that life has evolved. And they spend an awful lot of time and effort in trying to delineate that which is natural from that which isn’t.

Maybe you could tell us how you do it. Apart from ‘Gee, it looks designed to me!’

 

[rossum]

That’s the point - science cannot prove what process was responsible the alleged evolution of a bird from a reptile - all science can do is speculate.

That’s the point - Christians cannot prove that Paul wrote the Epistles allegedly written by him - all Christians can do is speculate.

If you want absolute knowledge, then stick to Mathematics; elsewhere we have to work with imperfect knowledge. Science works from the available evidence. If you want to change science then you need to produce new evidence. What new evidence do you have to show us?

 

[rossum]

According to the rate of mutations observed in extant organisms, much longer than the age of the earth.

A reference to your calculations please. I have done a similar calculation myself, see The Evolution of Boojumase. Where are your equivalent calculations? I am inclined to suspect that your calculations omitted the effects of natural selection, as is common with creationist calculations.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Star formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Galaxies forming? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Planetary formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Mountains and seas? Continents…?

Exactly. Thank you. Subjective doubt of science makes no sense. Either you agree with all evidence-based speculation or none.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Star formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Galaxies forming? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Planetary formation? Obviously God, so no need go find out how.
Mountains and seas? Continents…?

Exactly. Thank you. Subjective doubt of science makes no sense. Either you agree with all evidence-based speculation or none.

I might qualify that. Either you agree with all evidence-based speculation or you rejct that which contradicts biblical stories.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

or you rejct that which contradicts biblical stories.

I’m saying that this position makes the hypocrisy. You cannot dismiss some evidence-based speculation but accept other speculation, because doing so shows a bias to confirm previously held ideas, which is the opposite of what good science does.