This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2014, 06:52 PM
This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.




The argument at hand:

Me towards creationist 1:
Oh gee Ad Hominem is so hard to determine isn't it? What a dunce you are. It means attack the man. Not deal with the issue raised which is quite a common tactic your ilk uses when your fairy tale is threatened with facts. We done with that red herring now genius?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

"Every fossil is a transitional fossil. What patent nonsense and a complete evasion of the issue! Your fairy tale claims that species arose through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

Credit You are the first creationist every to define evolution in a slightly correct way. I unlike Andrew do not say every fossil is transitional unless it shows a connection between two groups of animals (i.e aegyptopithecus connects OWM and Apes).

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that created the bat with its echolocation mechanisms?"

Didn't I already answer this? If not here is the paper again

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6241.short

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that demonstrate the dinosaurs evolved, or giraffes, or hippos, or bears, or dogs. Yes, there are modifications within the general class but they are still bats, dogs, sharks, lions and tigers and bears oh my! Modifications within a general class means the originally loaded information was shifted around to adapt to environmental or sometimes even man-made breeding. But they are still of the same class of species. No evolution to a new class. Just a shift in existing information. Acceptable and understandable."

Dinosaur transitional fossils include proterosuchus, marasuchus, and Asilisaurus.

The rest of these animals are not different classes. Dogs, bats, lions, tigers, bears, hippos, and giraffes are all mammals. So if animals can only evolve at a class level than we can say that bears and dogs share a common ancestor(both are part of the mammal kind aren't they).

Also what is to determine this boundary of how far a species can evolve? Have a paper published in peer-review demonstrating this? If not then your claim is null and void.

"The question is: where did the information for the species arise from in the first place. Where did the Cambrian species derive their information for the creation of complex eyes, limbs, digestive systems, etc.?"

Where DNA arise (information is used to make sure non-scientist can keep up with them) I don't know, I am not going to make up claims.

Also you don't know about the Cambrian explosion do you? Many animals like snails and starfish were already alive. Also the Cambrian explosion was long taking about 80 million years for animals that already have digestive systems and eyes, and limbs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full

Here is a paper for your troubles so you can understand what the Cambrian explosion really is.


"As for your understanding of the Cambrian explosion as it is referred to by scientists, you obviously have none. Do your home work on the issue. It is a scientifically accepted fact that all of the major phyla existing today arose during the Cambrian period in a brief period of evolutionary time even if you accept your ilks dating methods. That is why it is called the Cambrian explosion. Darwin even referred to this issue in his Origins book as a problem for his theory."

For the Cambrian explosion, refer to the paragraph above. Fuck Darwin, he is about as important as newton in modern scientific understanding, in other words very little.

"You apparently are the one who is deficient in scientific knowledge. Do some homework and get up to speed. A good book on the Cambrian issue is Darwins Doubt by Steven C. Meyer which you can find here:
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/"


Do you have a scientific paper proving your point? If not than it is not peer reviewed, and their fore unreliable.

"At any rate, your current understanding is quite lame and needs addressed. Not an attack. Just an observation."

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Based on this definition it is, as you are calling Andrew dumb, even though he addressed your points.

"Oh and what is goat hell? The meanderings of a feeble mind perhaps? What a dunce. Evolutionists ya gotta love em. Amusingly entertaining but dumb as the rocks they think were the Daddy."

Now that is a ad hominem and a straw man. Nobody ever said that humans or any organisms evolved from rocks. Plus calling him a dunce and dumb as rocks is an attack on Andrews intelligence.

Wild second creationist appears to me again

And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius

You article was not an article it was an abstract which summarized itself as follows:

Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats.

The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".

Suggests means we think it could in this context. Opinion NOT proof! Right away that suggests their studies actually proved nothing. Doi!!!

And goes on to say:

"but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)

And concludes:

"the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

The actual reality?

There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!

These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings.

And this is your proof? Oh please. This is a reach. Fact is, ya still got nothing but the opinions of evolutionists who can only suggest. Big whoop!

Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time.

Start with the bat.

Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to.

Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses.

Gee, evolution sure explains a lot doesn't it.

You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)

Now, all mammals descended from each other cause well....their mammals.

Dolphin- mammal. Dog- mammal - cousins!

Seal- mammal Human- mammal - brother in laws I guess!

OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel.

Got any real proof? Not theories or reaches or suggestions but real proof?

Pony it up Mr. Brilliance.

As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time.

And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:

http://creation.com/ediacaran-explosion

Here are some references from that article to chew on:

Marshall, C.R., Explaining the Cambrian ‘explosion’ of animals, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34:355–384, 2006.

Shen, B., Dong, L., Xiao, S. and Kowalewski, M., The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacara morphospace, Science 319:81–84, 2008.

Waggoner, B., The Ediacaran biotas in space and time, Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43:104–113, 2003.

Shen et al., ref. 2, p. 81. ‘Morphospace’ is a spatial representation of the morphological range in a given classification of organisms.

Berardelli, P., Another big bang for biology, ScienceNOW Daily News, 3 January 2008

Gee, now another unexplained sudden development of complex animal life to explain.

And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes.

Try again I guess.

Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say.

Me:

"And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius"

Yeah and it was. The insults thrown calling Andrew dumb was against him. That was against him, against a man.


"Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats"


"The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".


The oldest fossil bats are from early Eocene deposits in Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. Of the eight currently recognized genera from the early Eocene, four (Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, Palaeochiropteryx) are known from relatively complete skeletons (6). Simmons and Geisler (6) expanded the data set of Simmons (10) to include 208 characters (195 morphological); they also added Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to this matrix. Based on an extensive set of phylogenetic analyses, they concluded that the Eocene taxa constitute a consecutive series of sister-taxa to a monophyletic crown-group Microchiroptera. Furthermore, the Eocene fossils exhibit anatomical features that suggest the occurrence of laryngeal echolocation in these taxa. Simmons and Geisler (6) thus concluded that laryngeal echolocation evolved only once in the evolutionary history of Chiroptera.

It actually does read more than the abstract please.

"In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)"

Read more than the abstract

"The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

This is common in all science. It is to explain the evolution of echolocation in bats based on evidence. It is not saying bats evolved echolocation because we want them too.

"There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!"

I am starting to think you only read the parts that sound good to you than throw it at me instead of reading the whole paper.


"These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings."

This is projection. Just because creationist do that doesn't mean we do. We don't care if evolution is disproven, but you guys don't publish it in papers. They use data that they can recover in order to do do research. So if nothing could demonstrate even a probably explanation, it would not pass peer review.

"Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html

There you go.


"Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to."

Sad part is I already showed you this paper but here you go.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33452/


"Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses."

Yes. All mammals have similar traits. All have mammary glands, hair or fur, and are warm-blooded. All mammals have these in common, and two are exclusive to only mammals. So all mammals are indeed related.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mammal.html

DNA is shared with all organisms, the more they share they more they have in common.
Read up on phylogeny.

http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/wh...ogeny.html



"You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)"

We do, it is just you move the goal post when we find them. Not really with no human ape to human fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The creationist hear come up with different opinions on each of those fossils, disagreeing on weather it is a human or ape, but to them all that matters is that it does not case both.

Cats and Dogs are part of the order carnivoria.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ac...Carnivora/

Most members of the order Carnivora can be recognized by their enlarged fourth upper premolar and first lower molar, which together form an efficient shear for cutting meat and tendon. These teeth are referred to as the carnassial pair. The exceptions are a few forms, such as bears, raccoons, and seals, in which these teeth are secondarily modified. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)

"Besides usually having carnassials, almost all Carnivora retain the primitive number of incisors (3/3); an exception is the sea otter, which has 2/3. The outer (3rd) incisor is often relatively large and canine-like. The canines are large and conical. The number of teeth behind the carnassials varies considerably, from 1/1 in some cats to 2/2 in bears. All teeth are rooted and diphyodont. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)"

This is what happens when you attack me before you speak.


"OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel."

Again phylogeny, read about it, it explains how to classify animals, and genetics can even tell when animals split down evolutionary paths and how long ago.

http://www.genetics.org/content/105/2/437.full.pdf


"As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time."

So what he has a PhD? It is not through peer review. He should get it published in peer review, than we can talk about what he said.
Again, if it is not through peer review, it is not an argument. Also I don't care about darwin, I really, really don't. This is another point of projection. Just because you have a person who can leave a flood and kill every animal but two and leave no genetic bottlenecks in animals, doesn't mean I have one.

"And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:"


Oh great creation.com, let's see how they trick people today.

"Most extant basic animal bodyplans simply appear in the fossil record in the Lower Cambrian rocks with next to no antecedent evidence of their existence in the rocks"

http://www.unm.edu/~pibbs/CourseMaterial...ll2006.pdf

First problem is the the source they used for there first claim goes against them.

In fact the paper mentions fossils, and ones that do leave evidence.

"However, paleontologists have recently identified another ‘explosion’ in the fossil record in the Ediacaran ‘period’, which they dubbed the ‘Avalon Explosion’"

Yeah they did, but so what? You guys act like it was over night when if was millions of years.

"They are typically divided up into three major fossil assemblages: the Avalon (575–565 Ma), White Sea (560–550 Ma) and Nama (550–542 Ma) assemblages.3 All these assemblages display an incredibly wide array of morphology, and there is no trace of them in the fossil record above the Ediacaran period"

So the objection is that because they don't exist above the Ediacaran period they did not evolve? Well yeah of course not, because none of these paper says that cambrian animals evovled form them. In fact many animals already existed at the time like cnidaria, and around the same time too. And bilatera also date way over these animals.

"‘A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace.’"


http://users.unimi.it/paleomag/geo2/Xiao...me2008.pdf

They got the goddamn name source wrong. That's why this website is not reliable even by creationist standards. Hell even the quote was from the wrong source, it was from the first one.

And number 5 isn't the name of the article is it? I searched it, its not. They tricked us. They made me believe it was the actually name of the source. This is the second time they did that too me.

Yeah in short your source was crap and it didn't really read the papers.

"And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes."

Archaeopteryx does, I mean it has more theropod traits than avian traits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

"Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say."

No theories? In science theory is the highest point you can reach. Also the bible is false. Again no flood could kill every tree and than trees return, nor can it leave no trace of a genetic bottle neck, nor could it leave no squirrels with trilobites, nor could it leave salt water fish to live. Instead use a real scientifically accurate book. You might as well quote the quran to me, makes no difference. Besides come back to me with the bible when you have only one denomination of Christianity. 

Sorry it is so long but Gish gallopers must have there legs cut off so they can not gallop anymore.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
29-05-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 06:52 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  



The argument at hand:

Me towards creationist 1:
Oh gee Ad Hominem is so hard to determine isn't it? What a dunce you are. It means attack the man. Not deal with the issue raised which is quite a common tactic your ilk uses when your fairy tale is threatened with facts. We done with that red herring now genius?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

"Every fossil is a transitional fossil. What patent nonsense and a complete evasion of the issue! Your fairy tale claims that species arose through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

Credit You are the first creationist every to define evolution in a slightly correct way. I unlike Andrew do not say every fossil is transitional unless it shows a connection between two groups of animals (i.e aegyptopithecus connects OWM and Apes).

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that created the bat with its echolocation mechanisms?"

Didn't I already answer this? If not here is the paper again

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6241.short

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that demonstrate the dinosaurs evolved, or giraffes, or hippos, or bears, or dogs. Yes, there are modifications within the general class but they are still bats, dogs, sharks, lions and tigers and bears oh my! Modifications within a general class means the originally loaded information was shifted around to adapt to environmental or sometimes even man-made breeding. But they are still of the same class of species. No evolution to a new class. Just a shift in existing information. Acceptable and understandable."

Dinosaur transitional fossils include proterosuchus, marasuchus, and Asilisaurus.

The rest of these animals are not different classes. Dogs, bats, lions, tigers, bears, hippos, and giraffes are all mammals. So if animals can only evolve at a class level than we can say that bears and dogs share a common ancestor(both are part of the mammal kind aren't they).

Also what is to determine this boundary of how far a species can evolve? Have a paper published in peer-review demonstrating this? If not then your claim is null and void.

"The question is: where did the information for the species arise from in the first place. Where did the Cambrian species derive their information for the creation of complex eyes, limbs, digestive systems, etc.?"

Where DNA arise (information is used to make sure non-scientist can keep up with them) I don't know, I am not going to make up claims.

Also you don't know about the Cambrian explosion do you? Many animals like snails and starfish were already alive. Also the Cambrian explosion was long taking about 80 million years for animals that already have digestive systems and eyes, and limbs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full

Here is a paper for your troubles so you can understand what the Cambrian explosion really is.


"As for your understanding of the Cambrian explosion as it is referred to by scientists, you obviously have none. Do your home work on the issue. It is a scientifically accepted fact that all of the major phyla existing today arose during the Cambrian period in a brief period of evolutionary time even if you accept your ilks dating methods. That is why it is called the Cambrian explosion. Darwin even referred to this issue in his Origins book as a problem for his theory."

For the Cambrian explosion, refer to the paragraph above. Fuck Darwin, he is about as important as newton in modern scientific understanding, in other words very little.

"You apparently are the one who is deficient in scientific knowledge. Do some homework and get up to speed. A good book on the Cambrian issue is Darwins Doubt by Steven C. Meyer which you can find here:
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/"


Do you have a scientific paper proving your point? If not than it is not peer reviewed, and their fore unreliable.

"At any rate, your current understanding is quite lame and needs addressed. Not an attack. Just an observation."

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Based on this definition it is, as you are calling Andrew dumb, even though he addressed your points.

"Oh and what is goat hell? The meanderings of a feeble mind perhaps? What a dunce. Evolutionists ya gotta love em. Amusingly entertaining but dumb as the rocks they think were the Daddy."

Now that is a ad hominem and a straw man. Nobody ever said that humans or any organisms evolved from rocks. Plus calling him a dunce and dumb as rocks is an attack on Andrews intelligence.

Wild second creationist appears to me again

And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius

You article was not an article it was an abstract which summarized itself as follows:

Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats.

The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".

Suggests means we think it could in this context. Opinion NOT proof! Right away that suggests their studies actually proved nothing. Doi!!!

And goes on to say:

"but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)

And concludes:

"the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

The actual reality?

There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!

These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings.

And this is your proof? Oh please. This is a reach. Fact is, ya still got nothing but the opinions of evolutionists who can only suggest. Big whoop!

Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time.

Start with the bat.

Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to.

Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses.

Gee, evolution sure explains a lot doesn't it.

You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)

Now, all mammals descended from each other cause well....their mammals.

Dolphin- mammal. Dog- mammal - cousins!

Seal- mammal Human- mammal - brother in laws I guess!

OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel.

Got any real proof? Not theories or reaches or suggestions but real proof?

Pony it up Mr. Brilliance.

As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time.

And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:

http://creation.com/ediacaran-explosion

Here are some references from that article to chew on:

Marshall, C.R., Explaining the Cambrian ‘explosion’ of animals, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34:355–384, 2006.

Shen, B., Dong, L., Xiao, S. and Kowalewski, M., The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacara morphospace, Science 319:81–84, 2008.

Waggoner, B., The Ediacaran biotas in space and time, Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43:104–113, 2003.

Shen et al., ref. 2, p. 81. ‘Morphospace’ is a spatial representation of the morphological range in a given classification of organisms.

Berardelli, P., Another big bang for biology, ScienceNOW Daily News, 3 January 2008

Gee, now another unexplained sudden development of complex animal life to explain.

And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes.

Try again I guess.

Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say.

Me:

"And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius"

Yeah and it was. The insults thrown calling Andrew dumb was against him. That was against him, against a man.


"Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats"


"The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".


The oldest fossil bats are from early Eocene deposits in Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. Of the eight currently recognized genera from the early Eocene, four (Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, Palaeochiropteryx) are known from relatively complete skeletons (6). Simmons and Geisler (6) expanded the data set of Simmons (10) to include 208 characters (195 morphological); they also added Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to this matrix. Based on an extensive set of phylogenetic analyses, they concluded that the Eocene taxa constitute a consecutive series of sister-taxa to a monophyletic crown-group Microchiroptera. Furthermore, the Eocene fossils exhibit anatomical features that suggest the occurrence of laryngeal echolocation in these taxa. Simmons and Geisler (6) thus concluded that laryngeal echolocation evolved only once in the evolutionary history of Chiroptera.

It actually does read more than the abstract please.

"In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)"

Read more than the abstract

"The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

This is common in all science. It is to explain the evolution of echolocation in bats based on evidence. It is not saying bats evolved echolocation because we want them too.

"There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!"

I am starting to think you only read the parts that sound good to you than throw it at me instead of reading the whole paper.


"These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings."

This is projection. Just because creationist do that doesn't mean we do. We don't care if evolution is disproven, but you guys don't publish it in papers. They use data that they can recover in order to do do research. So if nothing could demonstrate even a probably explanation, it would not pass peer review.

"Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html

There you go.


"Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to."

Sad part is I already showed you this paper but here you go.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33452/


"Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses."

Yes. All mammals have similar traits. All have mammary glands, hair or fur, and are warm-blooded. All mammals have these in common, and two are exclusive to only mammals. So all mammals are indeed related.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mammal.html

DNA is shared with all organisms, the more they share they more they have in common.
Read up on phylogeny.

http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/wh...ogeny.html



"You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)"

We do, it is just you move the goal post when we find them. Not really with no human ape to human fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The creationist hear come up with different opinions on each of those fossils, disagreeing on weather it is a human or ape, but to them all that matters is that it does not case both.

Cats and Dogs are part of the order carnivoria.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ac...Carnivora/

Most members of the order Carnivora can be recognized by their enlarged fourth upper premolar and first lower molar, which together form an efficient shear for cutting meat and tendon. These teeth are referred to as the carnassial pair. The exceptions are a few forms, such as bears, raccoons, and seals, in which these teeth are secondarily modified. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)

"Besides usually having carnassials, almost all Carnivora retain the primitive number of incisors (3/3); an exception is the sea otter, which has 2/3. The outer (3rd) incisor is often relatively large and canine-like. The canines are large and conical. The number of teeth behind the carnassials varies considerably, from 1/1 in some cats to 2/2 in bears. All teeth are rooted and diphyodont. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)"

This is what happens when you attack me before you speak.


"OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel."

Again phylogeny, read about it, it explains how to classify animals, and genetics can even tell when animals split down evolutionary paths and how long ago.

http://www.genetics.org/content/105/2/437.full.pdf


"As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time."

So what he has a PhD? It is not through peer review. He should get it published in peer review, than we can talk about what he said.
Again, if it is not through peer review, it is not an argument. Also I don't care about darwin, I really, really don't. This is another point of projection. Just because you have a person who can leave a flood and kill every animal but two and leave no genetic bottlenecks in animals, doesn't mean I have one.

"And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:"


Oh great creation.com, let's see how they trick people today.

"Most extant basic animal bodyplans simply appear in the fossil record in the Lower Cambrian rocks with next to no antecedent evidence of their existence in the rocks"

http://www.unm.edu/~pibbs/CourseMaterial...ll2006.pdf

First problem is the the source they used for there first claim goes against them.

In fact the paper mentions fossils, and ones that do leave evidence.

"However, paleontologists have recently identified another ‘explosion’ in the fossil record in the Ediacaran ‘period’, which they dubbed the ‘Avalon Explosion’"

Yeah they did, but so what? You guys act like it was over night when if was millions of years.

"They are typically divided up into three major fossil assemblages: the Avalon (575–565 Ma), White Sea (560–550 Ma) and Nama (550–542 Ma) assemblages.3 All these assemblages display an incredibly wide array of morphology, and there is no trace of them in the fossil record above the Ediacaran period"

So the objection is that because they don't exist above the Ediacaran period they did not evolve? Well yeah of course not, because none of these paper says that cambrian animals evovled form them. In fact many animals already existed at the time like cnidaria, and around the same time too. And bilatera also date way over these animals.

"‘A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace.’"


http://users.unimi.it/paleomag/geo2/Xiao...me2008.pdf

They got the goddamn name source wrong. That's why this website is not reliable even by creationist standards. Hell even the quote was from the wrong source, it was from the first one.

And number 5 isn't the name of the article is it? I searched it, its not. They tricked us. They made me believe it was the actually name of the source. This is the second time they did that too me.

Yeah in short your source was crap and it didn't really read the papers.

"And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes."

Archaeopteryx does, I mean it has more theropod traits than avian traits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

"Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say."

No theories? In science theory is the highest point you can reach. Also the bible is false. Again no flood could kill every tree and than trees return, nor can it leave no trace of a genetic bottle neck, nor could it leave no squirrels with trilobites, nor could it leave salt water fish to live. Instead use a real scientifically accurate book. You might as well quote the quran to me, makes no difference. Besides come back to me with the bible when you have only one denomination of Christianity. 

Sorry it is so long but Gish gallopers must have there legs cut off so they can not gallop anymore.

I didn't see any creationists in the video.

Religions are fairytales.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 07:09 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 06:52 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  



The argument at hand:

Me towards creationist 1:
Oh gee Ad Hominem is so hard to determine isn't it? What a dunce you are. It means attack the man. Not deal with the issue raised which is quite a common tactic your ilk uses when your fairy tale is threatened with facts. We done with that red herring now genius?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

"Every fossil is a transitional fossil. What patent nonsense and a complete evasion of the issue! Your fairy tale claims that species arose through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

Credit You are the first creationist every to define evolution in a slightly correct way. I unlike Andrew do not say every fossil is transitional unless it shows a connection between two groups of animals (i.e aegyptopithecus connects OWM and Apes).

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that created the bat with its echolocation mechanisms?"

Didn't I already answer this? If not here is the paper again

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6241.short

"Where are the slight successive modification fossils that demonstrate the dinosaurs evolved, or giraffes, or hippos, or bears, or dogs. Yes, there are modifications within the general class but they are still bats, dogs, sharks, lions and tigers and bears oh my! Modifications within a general class means the originally loaded information was shifted around to adapt to environmental or sometimes even man-made breeding. But they are still of the same class of species. No evolution to a new class. Just a shift in existing information. Acceptable and understandable."

Dinosaur transitional fossils include proterosuchus, marasuchus, and Asilisaurus.

The rest of these animals are not different classes. Dogs, bats, lions, tigers, bears, hippos, and giraffes are all mammals. So if animals can only evolve at a class level than we can say that bears and dogs share a common ancestor(both are part of the mammal kind aren't they).

Also what is to determine this boundary of how far a species can evolve? Have a paper published in peer-review demonstrating this? If not then your claim is null and void.

"The question is: where did the information for the species arise from in the first place. Where did the Cambrian species derive their information for the creation of complex eyes, limbs, digestive systems, etc.?"

Where DNA arise (information is used to make sure non-scientist can keep up with them) I don't know, I am not going to make up claims.

Also you don't know about the Cambrian explosion do you? Many animals like snails and starfish were already alive. Also the Cambrian explosion was long taking about 80 million years for animals that already have digestive systems and eyes, and limbs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full

Here is a paper for your troubles so you can understand what the Cambrian explosion really is.


"As for your understanding of the Cambrian explosion as it is referred to by scientists, you obviously have none. Do your home work on the issue. It is a scientifically accepted fact that all of the major phyla existing today arose during the Cambrian period in a brief period of evolutionary time even if you accept your ilks dating methods. That is why it is called the Cambrian explosion. Darwin even referred to this issue in his Origins book as a problem for his theory."

For the Cambrian explosion, refer to the paragraph above. Fuck Darwin, he is about as important as newton in modern scientific understanding, in other words very little.

"You apparently are the one who is deficient in scientific knowledge. Do some homework and get up to speed. A good book on the Cambrian issue is Darwins Doubt by Steven C. Meyer which you can find here:
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/"


Do you have a scientific paper proving your point? If not than it is not peer reviewed, and their fore unreliable.

"At any rate, your current understanding is quite lame and needs addressed. Not an attack. Just an observation."

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Based on this definition it is, as you are calling Andrew dumb, even though he addressed your points.

"Oh and what is goat hell? The meanderings of a feeble mind perhaps? What a dunce. Evolutionists ya gotta love em. Amusingly entertaining but dumb as the rocks they think were the Daddy."

Now that is a ad hominem and a straw man. Nobody ever said that humans or any organisms evolved from rocks. Plus calling him a dunce and dumb as rocks is an attack on Andrews intelligence.

Wild second creationist appears to me again

And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius

You article was not an article it was an abstract which summarized itself as follows:

Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats.

The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".

Suggests means we think it could in this context. Opinion NOT proof! Right away that suggests their studies actually proved nothing. Doi!!!

And goes on to say:

"but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)

And concludes:

"the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats."

The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

The actual reality?

There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!

These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings.

And this is your proof? Oh please. This is a reach. Fact is, ya still got nothing but the opinions of evolutionists who can only suggest. Big whoop!

Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time.

Start with the bat.

Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to.

Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses.

Gee, evolution sure explains a lot doesn't it.

You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)

Now, all mammals descended from each other cause well....their mammals.

Dolphin- mammal. Dog- mammal - cousins!

Seal- mammal Human- mammal - brother in laws I guess!

OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel.

Got any real proof? Not theories or reaches or suggestions but real proof?

Pony it up Mr. Brilliance.

As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time.

And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:

http://creation.com/ediacaran-explosion

Here are some references from that article to chew on:

Marshall, C.R., Explaining the Cambrian ‘explosion’ of animals, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34:355–384, 2006.

Shen, B., Dong, L., Xiao, S. and Kowalewski, M., The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacara morphospace, Science 319:81–84, 2008.

Waggoner, B., The Ediacaran biotas in space and time, Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43:104–113, 2003.

Shen et al., ref. 2, p. 81. ‘Morphospace’ is a spatial representation of the morphological range in a given classification of organisms.

Berardelli, P., Another big bang for biology, ScienceNOW Daily News, 3 January 2008

Gee, now another unexplained sudden development of complex animal life to explain.

And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes.

Try again I guess.

Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say.

Me:

"And the point of your link to the definition of Ad Hominem was exactly what? Ad means against. Hominem means man. And your link re-confirmed what I previously stated attack the man which is to say not address the issue presented. Duh! Real big difference on Webster's huh? See definition 2 of your link for further details genius"

Yeah and it was. The insults thrown calling Andrew dumb was against him. That was against him, against a man.


"Molecular data alone, including an expanded data set that includes new sequences for the A2AB gene, suggest that microbats are paraphyletic but do not resolve whether laryngeal echolocation evolved independently in different microbat lineages or evolved in the common ancestor of bats and was subsequently lost in megabats. When scaffolds from molecular phylogenies are incorporated into parsimony analyses of morphological characters, including morphological characters for the Eocene taxa Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, the resulting trees suggest that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of fossil and extant bats and was subsequently lost in megabats"


"The data, which references NO fossils BTW meaning it is interpretive rather than empirical data which is a big difference since the interpreter gets to exclude results and draw conclusions to fit the intended conclusion "suggests".


The oldest fossil bats are from early Eocene deposits in Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. Of the eight currently recognized genera from the early Eocene, four (Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, Palaeochiropteryx) are known from relatively complete skeletons (6). Simmons and Geisler (6) expanded the data set of Simmons (10) to include 208 characters (195 morphological); they also added Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to this matrix. Based on an extensive set of phylogenetic analyses, they concluded that the Eocene taxa constitute a consecutive series of sister-taxa to a monophyletic crown-group Microchiroptera. Furthermore, the Eocene fossils exhibit anatomical features that suggest the occurrence of laryngeal echolocation in these taxa. Simmons and Geisler (6) thus concluded that laryngeal echolocation evolved only once in the evolutionary history of Chiroptera.

It actually does read more than the abstract please.

"In other words, they don't friggin know. You do understand the words "do not resolve" don't you? If not, go back to Webster and look them up one at a time if necessary. You'll get it eventually. I have faith in you. (I think anyway. I mean you do believe in fairy tales and call it science after all.)"

Read more than the abstract

"The conclusion is a suggestion. Once again nothing affirmative or definitive and based on opinion which is obviously biased since they, without actual proof, conclude that "echolocation evolved".

This is common in all science. It is to explain the evolution of echolocation in bats based on evidence. It is not saying bats evolved echolocation because we want them too.

"There is no fossil evidence to confirm their suggestions! None!"

I am starting to think you only read the parts that sound good to you than throw it at me instead of reading the whole paper.


"These are speculations based upon biased researchers who cannot even present firm evidence of their findings."

This is projection. Just because creationist do that doesn't mean we do. We don't care if evolution is disproven, but you guys don't publish it in papers. They use data that they can recover in order to do do research. So if nothing could demonstrate even a probably explanation, it would not pass peer review.

"Once again- produce the fossils that prove that species evolved from common ancestors through the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation through slight successive modifications over time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html

There you go.


"Oh BTW, do I need to read the whole article to discover the conclusion of your abstract. Purchase it and forward a link and I'll be happy to."

Sad part is I already showed you this paper but here you go.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33452/


"Oh so if an animal is in the same class it evolved from a common ancestor. That means we are related to cats who are related to dogs who are related to dolphins and seals who are related to bears who are related to horses."

Yes. All mammals have similar traits. All have mammary glands, hair or fur, and are warm-blooded. All mammals have these in common, and two are exclusive to only mammals. So all mammals are indeed related.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mammal.html

DNA is shared with all organisms, the more they share they more they have in common.
Read up on phylogeny.

http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/wh...ogeny.html



"You people need to perform all kinds of reaches with your explanations because in reality, you have NO LINKS! The theory states that animals descended from a common ancestor through slight successive modifications over time. Where are the slight successive modifications because anatomically speaking for example even the best so-called fossil of the imaginary family of man is hugely different in its morphological structure than a human being not to mention the huge differences between cats and dogs (One goes meow and the other barks in case you missed the distinction for starters. I hope you know which one does what but I'm having my doubts now.)"

We do, it is just you move the goal post when we find them. Not really with no human ape to human fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The creationist hear come up with different opinions on each of those fossils, disagreeing on weather it is a human or ape, but to them all that matters is that it does not case both.

Cats and Dogs are part of the order carnivoria.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ac...Carnivora/

Most members of the order Carnivora can be recognized by their enlarged fourth upper premolar and first lower molar, which together form an efficient shear for cutting meat and tendon. These teeth are referred to as the carnassial pair. The exceptions are a few forms, such as bears, raccoons, and seals, in which these teeth are secondarily modified. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)

"Besides usually having carnassials, almost all Carnivora retain the primitive number of incisors (3/3); an exception is the sea otter, which has 2/3. The outer (3rd) incisor is often relatively large and canine-like. The canines are large and conical. The number of teeth behind the carnassials varies considerably, from 1/1 in some cats to 2/2 in bears. All teeth are rooted and diphyodont. (Stains, 1984; Vaughan, et al., 2000)"

This is what happens when you attack me before you speak.


"OK, enough with the delusional fantasies and fairy tales for adults. Where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the delusion? Claims. Stories. Tales of wonder even but that ain't science genius. That's just comic book stuff. May as well be published by Marvel."

Again phylogeny, read about it, it explains how to classify animals, and genetics can even tell when animals split down evolutionary paths and how long ago.

http://www.genetics.org/content/105/2/437.full.pdf


"As for the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there are plenty of peer reviewed sources for it. You want me to do your homework for you too. I gave you a link to a book written by a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge University who references nothing but scientific data. Heck even Darwin, your demi-God referenced the issue in Origins and you want confirmation that it is an issue? Oh please, don't waste my time."

So what he has a PhD? It is not through peer review. He should get it published in peer review, than we can talk about what he said.
Again, if it is not through peer review, it is not an argument. Also I don't care about darwin, I really, really don't. This is another point of projection. Just because you have a person who can leave a flood and kill every animal but two and leave no genetic bottlenecks in animals, doesn't mean I have one.

"And while we're on the topic here is another little dilemma that you can ponder as well- the Ediacaren Explosion:"


Oh great creation.com, let's see how they trick people today.

"Most extant basic animal bodyplans simply appear in the fossil record in the Lower Cambrian rocks with next to no antecedent evidence of their existence in the rocks"

http://www.unm.edu/~pibbs/CourseMaterial...ll2006.pdf

First problem is the the source they used for there first claim goes against them.

In fact the paper mentions fossils, and ones that do leave evidence.

"However, paleontologists have recently identified another ‘explosion’ in the fossil record in the Ediacaran ‘period’, which they dubbed the ‘Avalon Explosion’"

Yeah they did, but so what? You guys act like it was over night when if was millions of years.

"They are typically divided up into three major fossil assemblages: the Avalon (575–565 Ma), White Sea (560–550 Ma) and Nama (550–542 Ma) assemblages.3 All these assemblages display an incredibly wide array of morphology, and there is no trace of them in the fossil record above the Ediacaran period"

So the objection is that because they don't exist above the Ediacaran period they did not evolve? Well yeah of course not, because none of these paper says that cambrian animals evovled form them. In fact many animals already existed at the time like cnidaria, and around the same time too. And bilatera also date way over these animals.

"‘A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace.’"


http://users.unimi.it/paleomag/geo2/Xiao...me2008.pdf

They got the goddamn name source wrong. That's why this website is not reliable even by creationist standards. Hell even the quote was from the wrong source, it was from the first one.

And number 5 isn't the name of the article is it? I searched it, its not. They tricked us. They made me believe it was the actually name of the source. This is the second time they did that too me.

Yeah in short your source was crap and it didn't really read the papers.

"And here I thought fossil discoveries were supposed to help you dudes."

Archaeopteryx does, I mean it has more theropod traits than avian traits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

"Proof please. No theories. No fairy tales. No comic book plots. Just real empirical proof. Where is it? "And professing to be wise, they became as fools." Paul in Romans 1- You know that goat herders manual. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it as they say."

No theories? In science theory is the highest point you can reach. Also the bible is false. Again no flood could kill every tree and than trees return, nor can it leave no trace of a genetic bottle neck, nor could it leave no squirrels with trilobites, nor could it leave salt water fish to live. Instead use a real scientifically accurate book. You might as well quote the quran to me, makes no difference. Besides come back to me with the bible when you have only one denomination of Christianity. 

Sorry it is so long but Gish gallopers must have there legs cut off so they can not gallop anymore.

I didn't see any creationists in the video.

Look in the youtube comments.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
Ah, ok I can't bump the video out when it's embedded in a thread, to see the actual YouTube comments.


[Image: mrhanky.jpg]

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 07:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ah, ok I can't bump the video out when it's embedded in a thread, to see the actual YouTube comments.

Did you click on the youtube symbol?

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 07:37 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 07:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ah, ok I can't bump the video out when it's embedded in a thread, to see the actual YouTube comments.

Did you click on the youtube symbol?

Yes, didn't work.


[Image: mrhanky.jpg]

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 09:07 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 08:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 07:37 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Did you click on the youtube symbol?

Yes, didn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C96W4jX3iQ0

Better?

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 09:07 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 08:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes, didn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C96W4jX3iQ0

Better?

Thanks Heart

It could be my old ass iPad just hates me. Weeping


[Image: mrhanky.jpg]

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 09:25 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 09:20 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 09:07 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C96W4jX3iQ0

Better?

Thanks Heart

It could be my old ass iPad just hates me. Weeping

I understand sista, my kindle hates me too.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: This youtube creationist has to be the most intresting of them all.
(29-05-2014 09:20 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  It could be my old ass iPad just hates me. Weeping

Don't you hate it when that happens? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: