Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

You've been misled about these, too. For example, as an undergraduate, about half a century ago, I was reading journal articles about the functions of non-coding DNA.

The reason. you have so many problems with these topics is...

1) You try explain away what God's Word plainly says.

2) You rely on evolutionary beliefs from 50 years ago.

And you seem to have been convinced that "vestigial" means "useless."

Oh my.... Are you frustrated that your old arguments have been proven false by science? Is that why you create a straw man?

Evolutionists called the appendix "useless". Science has moved on from that old belief.

And the loss of acuity in the vertebrate eye having a backwards facing retina is a fact.

The correct terminology is that vertebrates have an "inverted retina". The inverted retina has been shown to have a design that is superior to the simpler verted retina design. Science has moved on from the old evolutionary "backward" arguments.

As usual, those who think they hate science don't even know what it says.

There You go!! See... we can agree on something. You just need to realize that some of the things you learned 50 years ago was not science.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There are several internet forums that at least in part address the evolution vs. creationism issue, and in all of them creationists exhibit this specific behavior.

Creationist: Oh yeah? Where's the evidence? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!

Science advocate: Here's a description of some of the evidence.

Creationist: My eyes glazed over. I stopped reading after the first sentence. None of it matters anyways. Evidence doesn't matter. All that matters is God's Word.​

I mean, the mere fact that they pose science-oriented questions in religious forums provides a pretty good indication that their questions don't stem from a good-faith interest in the actual science.

It's nothing more than an attempt to "stump the evolutionist". Thus, when an answer is posted, they just ignore it and move on to the next "Oh yeah, what about this" thing.

Get your facts straight. You know nothing.

Those ARE the facts.

Typical creationist responses are:

My eyes glazed over.
I stopped reading after the first sentence.
None of it matters anyways.
Evidence doesn't matter.
All that matters is God's Word.
Oh, yeah, what about X?
That couldn't happen because I don't believe it can happen.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding 6days' belated discovery that non-coding DNA can be functional:
A half-century ago, I was reading journal articles about the functions of noncoding DNA.

The reason. you have so many problems with these topics is you don't understand what you're trying to tell us about.

You try explain away what God's Word plainly says.

Most of the world's Christians don't accept your modern revision of scripture. Sorry about that.

You rely on evolutionary beliefs from 50 years ago.

I'd be willing to see your evidence that what you call "junk DNA" can't be functional. What have you got?

Barbarian chuckles:
And you seem to have been convinced that "vestigial" means "useless."

Oh my.... Are you frustrated that your old arguments have been proven false by science?

No biologist ever thought that "vestigial" meant "useless." Someone who didn't know any better than you, told you that. But Darwin himself pointed out that vestigial organs could have other functions.

Evolutionists called the appendix "useless".

You were suckered on that one, too. When I was an undergrad (yes, about a half-century ago) my histology professor (an "evolutionist") pointed out that the appendix did indeed have functions, just not the one it has in more primitive mammals.

The correct terminogy is that vertebrates have an "inverted retina". The inverted retina has been shown to have a design that is superior to the simpler verted retina design.

Nope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so. Even those scientists who argue that there is a benefit to very small vertebrates (space saving by "folding" the light path) admit that visual acuity in humans suffers with no benefit.

Vertebrate eyes are of the simple or camera type with a single optical system that creates an image on the retina in the back of the eye. There, the visual information is encoded as nervous signals by photoreceptors, processed by retinal neurons, and then sent to the brain via the optic nerve. Surprisingly at first sight, the retinal neurons are located between the lens and the light-sensitive parts of the photoreceptors. The tissue scatters some light, which leads to loss of light and image blur...In many species, the eyes become functional early in life and are at that stage huge compared to body size. To make the eyes as large as possible in small animals, evolutionary optimisation had to meet stringent space-saving demands.
Space-Saving Advantages of a Vertebrate Retina
Vision Research
Volume 49, Issue 18, 9 September 2009, Pages 2318-2321

Being a relatively large species, the inverted retina does humans no good, and degrades the image we can form. But it's locked in and there is apparently no way to evolve a better system. This is a consequence of two facts:
1. the retina is actually brain tissue and is therefore behind supporting tissue.
2. the first chordates were very small and for them this was a relatively small drawback compared to the space-saving caused by the inefficient light path.

As you now realize, you've been told more creationist fairy tales. Start thinking for yourself, and you won't be so easy to fool.

And do show us your evidence that non-coding DNA can't have other functions. That should be interesting.

 

[musterion]

Those ARE the facts.

You have no facts because your very first principle is imbecilic and anti-science. It's the mysticism of retards.

So first things first, son.

FIRST prove to us that all life arose, directionless and completely by itself, from inert matter and energy, resulting in advanced apes with consciences and thumbs.

THEN try to teach us the mechanics of how it all happened, and how that proves there is no God looking at you this very second.

Or do like Jose, get to stepping with your shine box.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Those ARE the facts.

You have no facts because your very first principle is imbecilic and anti-science. It's the mysticism of retards.

As usual for you and something I expected, since you have no defense for, "Goddidit!!!" (or any other Christian/creationist assertion), you resort to name calling. At least you're predictable and consistent.

Typical creationist responses are:

My eyes glazed over.
I stopped reading after the first sentence.
None of it matters anyways.
Evidence doesn't matter.
All that matters is God's Word.
Oh, yeah, what about X?
That couldn't happen because I don't believe it can happen.​

So first things first, son.

Sure... junior.

FIRST prove to us that all life arose, directionless and completely by itself, from inert matter and energy, resulting in advanced apes with consciences and thumbs.

I have never claimed to know how life happened.

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible. Good luck.

THEN try to teach us the mechanics of how it all happened, and how that proves there is no God looking at you this very second.

So, your choices from the above list are:

Oh, yeah, what about X?

and...

That couldn't happen because I don't believe it can happen.​

Never mind that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Yet, creationists like to use every available unknown to insert their preferred deity. It's called "the god of the gaps" for a reason. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Or do like Jose, get to stepping with your shine box.

Simply because your questions cannot be answered, because we presently don't know the origin of life, doesn't mean goddidit by default.

 

[SUTG]

I had written "I suspect the fossil record is nearly complete, and that the ghost lineages are there due to God creating new species through geological time."

Correct. Maybe I should have said unusual position, as I haven't heard this from many others. I usually come across believers who accept evolution wholesale and think that God either created life or directs it somehow, or I come across those who think the creation account in Genesis is more or less literally true.

SUTG, it is assumed that, in time, all missing links (ghost lineages) will be found. This is almost like the evolutionist argument that "given enough time, anything can evolve, anywhere in the universe".

Assumed by who? And argued by who?

And I understand why you think we will just keep on finding more and more fossils.

I never said this, and didn't mean to imply it. Of course, we'll find individual fossils - they'e all over the place. But fossils of new speicies are another story.

But in some branches of palaeontology, fewer and fewer NEW and DIFFERENT fossils are found. This indicates, and can be statistically "proven" (can stats "prove" anything?) that we are reaching a limit to the hunt in this area. Will there never come a time folks admit defeat and just say "We cannot find ancestors to this fossil, it just seems to pop into existence in the geologic column?".

Well, this is said often by many who support evolution. Looking at the fossil record, certain species at certain times do just seem to have sprung into existence, in a way of speaking.

If the answer is "No" then hope and faith spring eternal in the evolutionists breast.

Not at all. Since there are many other lines of evidence supporting evolution aside from the fossil record. Of course, we hope more interesting fossils will be found. Archaeologists especially hope to be the ones to find those very fossils.

Then we resort to blaming bad preservation of fossils, or not looking enough in the right places.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying we "resort to blaming" bad preservation of fossils. Are you referring to the fact that fossilization is so uncommon? Do you dispute this?

As others have mentioned (IIRC), your position as I undersand it sounds like a classic God of the gaps argument, as if a Young Earth Creationist retreated a bit in light of the evidence in the fossil record. Almost literally a God of the gaps, with the gaps being those in the fossil record.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all. Since there are many other lines of evidence supporting evolution aside from the fossil record. Of course, we hope more interesting fossils will be found. Archaeologists especially hope to be the ones to find those very fossils.

Since there are many other lines of equivocal interpretation of evidence supporting evolution aside from the fossil record.

 

[iouae]

Correct. Maybe I should have said unusual position, as I haven't heard this from many others. I usually come across believers who accept evolution wholesale and think that God either created life or directs it somehow, or I come across those who think the creation account in Genesis is more or less literally true.

SUTG, every year 20 000 new species are discovered, described and classified. See link below...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4523532/Scientists-reveal-10-new-species-2017.html

When one looks at the fossil record, species come and species go all the time like a 4.6 billion year long soap opera. Sometimes the cast disappears completely (dinosaurs), and the curtain rises on a completely new cast (mammals). Even then, the mammals did not all come onto the stage at once.

So my belief as to how God creates is whatever the fossil record says. What I do note is that every animal has a beginning when it pops into existence, fully functional, and evolutionists then look for something that looked like it in the earlier strata, to name this as its ancestor.

God just creates in an ongoing way, sometimes in bursts, sometimes just, maybe one new species at a time. If that's what the fossil record says, I will believe that till more and different evidence comes along.

There have been many mass extinctions. I believe there was one before Genesis 1, which left earth without form and void, covered with darkness and water. And in 6 days God created a new biome.

I personally see a big change in the fossil record after the Younger Dryas 11 000 years ago, and I currently believe this glaciation period preceeded Genesis 1. Modern humans and domesticated plants and animals appear around 11 000 years ago according to science, 6000 years ago according to the Bible.

Assumed by who? And argued by who?

Logic. One learns less and less (on average) with each fossil found. In time, everything that has been fossilised will be found. That would be most of whatever lived. When a biome is covered by a mudslide or ash, everything is fossilised.

Well, this is said often by many who support evolution. Looking at the fossil record, certain species at certain times do just seem to have sprung into existence, in a way of speaking.

The 20 000 new fossils found every year could have been on earth for a long time, or they could have been created last year. There is no way of telling.

Since there are many other lines of evidence supporting evolution aside from the fossil record.

Like what? The age of the cosmos is no proof. The fact that ET has not contacted us tells me that this is a HUGE proof against evolution. If there was life out there broadcasting, we have instruments to hear them. And ET life is believed by evolutionists who believe life could evolve on any planetary system like ours.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying we "resort to blaming" bad preservation of fossils. Are you referring to the fact that fossilization is so uncommon? Do you dispute this?

I don't believe fossilisation is so uncommon. From the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic when landmasses were connected, there was more evenly spread fossilisation. Mammal fossils are more local, so it depends on how thoroughly fossil hunters have looked in that locale.

As others have mentioned (IIRC), your position as I undersand it sounds like a classic God of the gaps argument, as if a Young Earth Creationist retreated a bit in light of the evidence in the fossil record. Almost literally a God of the gaps, with the gaps being those in the fossil record.[/QUOTE]

 

[Right Divider]

I don't believe fossilization is so uncommon.

Perhaps you should do more study then. It is very uncommon.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe so. But I'm thinking to one who is committed to a very different paradigm, it's exceedingly hard.

Well yeah, especially when that paradigm is "evolution can't be true, lest my entire religious foundation be destroyed".

I think something folks tend to overlook when interacting with creationists is the difference between "evolution isn't true" and "evolution can't be true". As is obvious, the majority of creationists here are operating from the latter mindset. That's why attempts to persuade via appeals to the data almost never work.

We see many threads of evidence, all pointing in the same direction. I think he sees a bewildering mass of facts that don't make any sense to him.

I have to disagree. IMO, it's extremely obvious that when you post scientific data to him, Morton's Demon takes over and shuts down his thinking process. Then it just becomes reflexive denialism.

At least I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. He kept trying and until he got frustrated with that flood of material, he was willing to do the same thing I tried to do.

If we all did more of that, it would be a better TOL. I wish him well, and commend him for his efforts.

I do appreciate your magnanimity. You do a wonderful job of presenting data and explaining it on a layperson-friendly level. I just see it as the equivalent of showing beer brewing recipes to a Muslim.

 

[musterion]

As usual for you and something I expected, since you have no defense for, "Goddidit!!!" (or any other Christian/creationist assertion), you resort to name calling. At least you're predictable and consistent.

I am predictable and consistent because I'm correct and you're not.

Prove God wasn't needed to create life, the universe and everything. Prove it all could have happened automatically, just from dirt and light.

I have never claimed to know how life happened.

I do. God did it.

But you do claim to know how it happened when you deny God did it. The only alternative, which is utterly retarded, is that it happened all by itself. You know...like magic.

 

[6days]

Barbarian:regarding 6days' belated discovery that non-coding DNA can be functional
Reply Did you want t to keep creating straw man arguments, ...or address what was really said?

Barbarian:
Most of the world's Christians don't accept your modern revision of scripture.
Reply You KNOW that is dishonest.

Barbarian:
I'd be willing to see your evidence that what you call "junk DNA" can't be functional. What have you got?
Reply Did you want to keep creating straw man arguments, ...or address what was really said?

Barbarian: Barbarian chuckles:
And you seem to have been convinced that "vestigial" means "useless."
Reply 6days groans. Why not be honest and quote what was said, instead of just creating straw man arguments.


Barbarian:No biologist ever thought that "vestigial" meant "useless."
Reply Oh my.... Are you frustrated that your old arguments have been proven false by science? The word vestigial was not used. in my comment. Why not be honest and quote what was said, instead of just creating straw man arguments?

Barbarian:
But Darwin himself pointed out that vestigial organs could have other functions.
Reply Darwin did say that. But the argument wasn't about Darwin, or vestigial organs. Did you want to address what was really said... or just keep creating straw man arguments. (It's easier to argue with a straw man?)

6daysEvolutionists called the appendix "useless".
Barbarian: You were suckered on that one, too. When I was an undergrad (yes, about a half-century ago) my histology professor (an "evolutionist") pointed out that the appendix did indeed have functions, just not the one it has in more primitive mammals.
Reply Wow... you almost addressed what was really said. However, evolutionists DID, (and do)call the appendix "useless".
Ex. "a small appendage near the juncture of the small intestine and the large intestine (ileocecal valve). An apparently useless structure https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/appendix Are you embarrassed to admit that science proved that belief is false?

6daysThe correct terminogy is that vertebrates have an "inverted retina". The inverted retina has been shown to have a design that is superior to the simpler verted retina design.
Barbarian:
Nope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.

Reply You are stuck with your evolutionary beliefs. and false argu that are about 50 years out of date. You were previously shown how modern science / research has revealed the inverted retina design is superior.

Barbarian:
The tissue scatters some light, which leads to loss of light and image blur...In many species...
Reply
Wow, you can't even quote honestly from evolutionary sources.

*After The word 'blur' in your quote comes this sentence. ..."The inverted retina has, therefore, long been regarded as inferior. Here, we provide evidence that the inverted retina actually is a superior space-saving solution, especially in small eyes."

* The article (from an evolutionist) concludes with a FEW of the other reasons the inverted design is superior.


Your rejection of God's Word causes you distort and misrepresent even the words of evolutionists when it conflicts with your belief system. God's Word tells us "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both"

 

[iouae]

Perhaps you should do more study then. It is very uncommon.

Coal is a fossil. That's common. You should do more study and tell me how long a piece of string is.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just see it as the equivalent of showing beer brewing recipes to a Muslim.

My Muslim former assistant coach has come to appreciate a pint of Guinness, under my direction, so maybe there's hope.

 

[Right Divider]

Coal is a fossil. That's common. You should do more study and tell me how long a piece of string is.

Coal is not an animal and animal bones do not fossilize under normal circumstances. They normally disintegrate into dust.

 

[Caino]

Between the 2 hardened camps, YEC and Old Earth evolution, there is a third consideration revealed in the Urantia revelation. Primitive life forms created and planted long ago with the inherent pattern potentials which was then fostered throughout the ages, limited by certain perimeters. The ability by vastly higher minds to manipulate the millions of chemical reactions taking place at any given moment within living organisms would be impossible to identify within the fossil record.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most of the world's Christians don't accept your modern revision of scripture.

You KNOW that is dishonest.

No, and you already know it's the truth. Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and they accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation. So do the quarter-billion or so Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the roughly 90 million Anglicans, as well as large segments of the roughly 450 millon Protestants. C'mon. Face reality.

Barbarian chuckles:
And you seem to have been convinced that "vestigial" means "useless."

6days groans.

Bad idea, trying to sell that "evolutionists thought the appendix was useless" story. Half-century ago, my histology professor taught that it had other functions.

No biologist ever thought that "vestigial" meant "useless."

Are you frustrated that your old arguments have been proven false by science?

As you learned, they aren't the arguments of evolutionary theory, and never have been. Even Darwin pointed out that vestigial features often evolved new uses.

Darwin did say that. But the argument wasn't about Darwin, or vestigial organs.

That's what the appendix is. Thought you knew.

Evolutionists called the appendix "useless".

Barbarian observes:
You were suckered on that one, too. When I was an undergrad (yes, about a half-century ago) my histology professor (an "evolutionist") pointed out that the appendix did indeed have functions, just not the one it has in more primitive mammals.

However, evolutionists DID, (and do)call the appendix "useless".
Ex. "a small appendage near the juncture of the small intestine and the large intestine (ileocecal valve). An apparently useless structure https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...y.com/appendix

So instead of going with what scientists say, you pull up a dictionary? You'd be a lot more effective against science if you actually knew what it is.

And you're attacking from a very exposed postion. I just showed you that Darwin and evolutionary scientists knew organs like the appendix were not useless, but the leader of your movement has declared that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991)

So, by your standards, creationists are racists who think black people are inferior. You sure you want to argue that?

Are you embarrassed to admit that science proved that belief is false?

I just showed you that your belief is false. You should be embarrassed.

The correct terminogy is that vertebrates have an "inverted retina". The inverted retina has been shown to have a design that is superior to the simpler verted retina design.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.

You are stuck with your evolutionary beliefs. and false argu that are about 50 years out of date. You were previously shown how modern science / research has revealed the inverted retina design is superior.

Nope. It's a hold over from when chordates first evolved. The retina is backwards for two reasons. First, it's part of the brain, so it had to be behind the rest of the structure. Second, it offers, in very small organisms, a more compact arrangement such that the blurring and loss of acuity due to the tissue covering the retina is offset by that advantage. In large organisms like human, the loss of acuity and blurring remains, but there is no advantage, because our eyes are so large that a few micrometers of tissue make no difference to the overall size.

Vertebrate eyes are of the simple or camera type with a single optical system that creates an image on the retina in the back of the eye. There, the visual information is encoded as nervous signals by photoreceptors, processed by retinal neurons, and then sent to the brain via the optic nerve. Surprisingly at first sight, the retinal neurons are located between the lens and the light-sensitive parts of the photoreceptors. The tissue scatters some light, which leads to loss of light and image blur...In many species, the eyes become functional early in life and are at that stage huge compared to body size. To make the eyes as large as possible in small animals, evolutionary optimisation had to meet stringent space-saving demands.
Space-Saving Advantages of a Vertebrate Retina
Vision Research
Volume 49, Issue 18, 9 September 2009, Pages 2318-2321

The expected advantages for very small organisms leaves us with an inferior eye, in which blurring and loss of acuity remains, even though there is no longer any advantage in size.

Your revision of God's Word causes you distort and misrepresent anything conflicts with your belief system.

God's Word tells us "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both"

You're O.K. with that, but only if He does it the way your new doctrine demands. Let Him be God and accept it His way.

 

[Jose Fly]

My Muslim former assistant coach has come to appreciate a pint of Guinness, under my direction, so maybe there's hope.

Ah, so you're holding out for the equivalent of a non-observant Muslim. :think:

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, so you're holding out for the equivalent of a non-observant Muslim. :think:

Observant Muslims are not forbidden to drink alcohol, although they are cautioned not to drink to excess.
https://lordsofthedrinks.com/2013/08/06/muslims-can-drink-just-like-mohamed/

 

[Jose Fly]

Observant Muslims are not forbidden to drink alcohol, although they are cautioned not to drink to excess.
https://lordsofthedrinks.com/2013/08/06/muslims-can-drink-just-like-mohamed/

Ok, I think we've completely lost the point. I'm going to assume you knew what I meant.