UPROOTED: The Tale of Evolution Keep Changing

[Nemiroff]

Please explain about that.







The car you drive has been designed and created by its manufacturer.

Sure - your car can evolve into a new model.







Sure, there is a big difference between macro and micro.
There might be some similarities - but your car will not turn into a space ship....................even if you wait for a billion years.

Just a follow up on electronegativity. The concept, so you dont think its magic, is based on how big the nucleus is, and how far away the outermost electrons are from the nucleus of the atom.

Smaller atoms at the top of the table dont hold on to their electrons as strongly as big atoms at the bottom. And the ones at the right of the table have all of their orbitals full, which are filled from the inside out. The outer shells are obviously less tightly held than the inner ones since they are farther away from the source of internal electromagnetic attraction.

Less electromagnetic attraction,
The higher the electronegativity,
The more interactive the element with other elements.

Also carbon being an electron whore helps alot. Cars are not based on carbon.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Do you not make a conscious choice not to serve God, as I make one to serve Him? That is called free will...

If people have free will to choose or reject God, shouldn't that be ADULT, INFORMED free will?

But where does the Bible mention protecting children from religion? No, the Bible is totally OK with some people according to their birth, having a head start on "salvation" because this is a characteristic of all religion: breeding up more believers is irresistible to those who manipulate the message.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Lol - you don't know what "spamming" is?
Of course, you'll be dinged with spamming if you'll keep giving the same example over and over again................even after it's been refuted or debunked the first time around!








Those are not examples.
For one thing, how do you know the feathers did not come from another prehistoric bird?



They maintain the feathers didn’t come from a modern bird, only because evolutionary theory states such birds didn’t evolve for another 30 million years.
In other words, it’s because the theory of dinosaur/bird evolution says so. A theory dictating to researchers how to interpret physical evidence is not how science is done.

Physical Evidence Trumps Evolution Theory

One of the hallmarks of good science is to formulate a cogent theory based on the physical evidence. For example, if the physical evidence (e.g. a fossilized human footprint trail or a fossil human footbone) does not agree with the time of the appearance of humans according to accepted theory...

www.icr.org

Hahahaha
ICR is bang-on!



Modern birds originated a hundred million years ago—long before the demise of dinosaurs, according to new research.
In searching for the first ancestors of modern birds, studies have shown discrepancies between results from fossils and genetic analyses.
Fossil records suggest that modern birds originated 60 million years ago, after the end of the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago when dinosaurs died off.

But molecular studies suggest that the genetic divergences between many lineages of birds occurred during the Cretaceous period.

Modern Birds Existed Before Dinosaur Die-Off

Modern birds originated a hundred million years ago—long before the demise of dinosaurs, according to new research.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Furthermore......

They just discovered a duck-like dinosaur that lived around the same time.

Duck-Like Dinosaur Is Among Oddest Fossils Yet Found

The exquisite fossil, which was rescued from poachers, is one of the few known dinosaurs that lived on the water.

www.nationalgeographic.com

There could be other unknown birds that had lived.

ICR believes in the Flood. The gap between that anti-science, and modifications of the dinosaur time line, is absolutely huge.

Humans existing 1.5 million years ago would be a challenge to evolutionary theory yes. But not so great a challenge as to require "humans date to 6000 years ago".

Scientists reckon this kind of disparity in "orders of magnitude". 1.5 million years is ONE order of magnitude. 6,000 years is THREE orders of magnitude.

And why are you quoting National Geographic? It's not a Creationist source!

 

[Ug make hammer]

Refer to posts #433, 434, 435 and 436.



WHAT?
No comment?

But, business as usual?
Like as if, nothing was given at all?


Evolutionists here just keep ignoring the obvious rebuttals that's sinking this mythological common ancestry theory!

Demonstrating SMALL changes in the scientific model of evolution does not make the HUGELY WRONG Creation theory any more probable.

You probably don't care, having reefed your arguments of Creationist websites without even reading them.

 

[Ug make hammer]

So, tell me...how does evolution explain the entire human family descended from Adam and Eve? Or the account of how different animals were created? Or the need for Jesus Christ's sacrificial death? It can't

1. Genetics strongly suggests "Adam and Eve" did not happen, at least not at the same time. "Genetic Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" are hypotheses which might interest you: the Bible story might be a simplification of a real thing (either told by God as a children's story, or somehow guessed by human authors.)

2. Actually the Bible struggles much worse than Evolution to explain "different animals." If you believe in Noah's Ark, you have to explain how evolution has proceeded so fast since then, before somehow slowing to a snail's pace once Darwin started paying attention.

3. Jesus was killed, therefore God created the Universe and Man. This makes zero sense.

 

[tosca1]

ICR believes in the Flood. The gap between that anti-science, and modifications of the dinosaur time line, is absolutely huge.

Humans existing 1.5 million years ago would be a challenge to evolutionary theory yes. But not so great a challenge as to require "humans date to 6000 years ago".

Scientists reckon this kind of disparity in "orders of magnitude". 1.5 million years is ONE order of magnitude. 6,000 years is THREE orders of magnitude.

If you've got any problems with what I've quoted from them - why don't you refute them?
Give something to refute what they claim!

You're beginning to sound like Gordy.
If you're not going to give any actual refutations....................we're done.

And why are you quoting National Geographic? It's not a Creationist source!

Why?
What did I quote from National Geographic?


Shouldn't a creationist quote from any source that supports his claim?
Is a creationist limited to only quoting from......................the Bible or creationist sites........................


..................so you atheists can all yell and say......................


........"CIRCULAR LOGIC!"





No - you can't do that when I'm quoting from secular sources!

 

[Daisy]

If people have free will to choose or reject God, shouldn't that be ADULT, INFORMED free will?

But where does the Bible mention protecting children from religion? No, the Bible is totally OK with some people according to their birth, having a head start on "salvation" because this is a characteristic of all religion: breeding up more believers is irresistible to those who manipulate the message.

lol...you said it yourself...children grow up to make their own choices in life...

ADULT, INFORMED free will

 

[Neomalthusian]

If you've got any problems with what I've quoted from them - why don't you refute them?
Give something to refute what they claim!

You're beginning to sound like Gordy.
If you're not going to give any actual refutations....................we're done.

Why?
What did I quote from National Geographic?

Shouldn't a creationist quote from any source that supports his claim?
Is a creationist limited to only quoting from......................the Bible or creationist sites........................

..................so you atheists can all yell and say......................

........"CIRCULAR LOGIC!"

No - you can't do that when I'm quoting from secular sources!

It's partly commendable that you cite sources that acknowledge scientific findings and discussions. The problem is the conclusions you form from scientific sources almost never follow (non sequitur) from those sources.

 

[Questerr]

ICR believes in the Flood. The gap between that anti-science, and modifications of the dinosaur time line, is absolutely huge.

Humans existing 1.5 million years ago would be a challenge to evolutionary theory yes. But not so great a challenge as to require "humans date to 6000 years ago".

Scientists reckon this kind of disparity in "orders of magnitude". 1.5 million years is ONE order of magnitude. 6,000 years is THREE orders of magnitude.

And why are you quoting National Geographic? It's not a Creationist source!

ICR also requires its “researchers” to sign an oath that they will never publish any information that contradicts their Young Earth Creationist interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Galactic Spin]

If you've got any problems with what I've quoted from them - why don't you refute them?
Give something to refute what they claim!

You're beginning to sound like Gordy.
If you're not going to give any actual refutations....................we're done.












Why?
What did I quote from National Geographic?


Shouldn't a creationist quote from any source that supports his claim?
Is a creationist limited to only quoting from......................the Bible or creationist sites........................


..................so you atheists can all yell and say......................


........"CIRCULAR LOGIC!"





No - you can't do that when I'm quoting from secular sources!

Such a childish post that is dumb and wrong on multiple levels. Your grasp of logic is nonexistent.

 

[watsup]

If you're not going to give any actual refutations....................we're done.

Interesting way to debate. You do this every day. If you think that someone is not replying in accordance with your parameters, you say “bye”. Given that you do this so often to other chatters, do you think that at least part of the problem might be on your end for demanding that others conform to your pre-set “standards”. Or perhaps it’s just a trap door that you use o avoid further discussion if “the going gets tough”. Maybe you should reconsider doing this so often.

 

[tosca1]

Here's an argument being given by @poppopfox :

"By the way, the comb jelly is now regarded as the planets first animal, the father of us all and the first to have an anus!

View attachment 67451501

It is more or less speculating on this FAULTY premise, when it says:

All animals are related to each other, but comb jellies — a marine invertebrate found in oceans around the world — are the most distantly related to all other animals, shows a new study in Nature.

Comb jellies proven to be the sibling group to all other animals

New research proves comb jellies are a unique lineage or “sibling group” whose ancestors diverged before the common ancestor of all other animals.

news.ucsc.edu

That's what this thread is all about - debunking the myth of common ancestry.



Even if that comb jelly claim is proven accurate - and not eventually refuted (it's too early right now to have some refutations if there are) - that still, doesn't prove common ancestry.

It's referred to as a SIBLING group or SISTER group.







In phylogenetics, a sister group or sister taxon, also called an adelphotaxon,[1] comprises the closest relative(s) of another given unit in an evolutionary tree.[2]

The term sister group must thus be seen as a relative term, with the caveat that the sister group is only the closest relative among the groups/species/specimens that are included in the analysis.[6]

Sister group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nemiroff]

Here's an argument being given by @poppopfox :









It is more or less speculating on this FAULTY premise, when it says:

All animals are related to each other, but comb jellies — a marine invertebrate found in oceans around the world — are the most distantly related to all other animals, shows a new study in Nature.

Comb jellies proven to be the sibling group to all other animals

New research proves comb jellies are a unique lineage or “sibling group” whose ancestors diverged before the common ancestor of all other animals.

news.ucsc.edu

That's what this thread is all about - debunking the myth of common ancestry.



Even if that comb jelly claim is proven accurate - and not eventually refuted (it's too early right now to have some refutations if there are) - that still, doesn't prove common ancestry.

It's referred to as a SIBLING group or SISTER group.







In phylogenetics, a sister group or sister taxon, also called an adelphotaxon,[1] comprises the closest relative(s) of another given unit in an evolutionary tree.[2]

The term sister group must thus be seen as a relative term, with the caveat that the sister group is only the closest relative among the groups/species/specimens that are included in the analysis.[6]

Sister group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hey, still waiting on your response to my post about the evolution of the eye and similarities of arm bones across animal species. If god made all "kinds" from scratch, why did he use the same templates even when it made zero sense? Like a lazy programmer reusing models from a different game, humans have limited time and resources, but why would god need to take such shortcuts?

Like why make the eye full of liquid with the same properties as seawater for animals in the sea and on land? Maybe its because its all the same eye with small modifications?

 

[tosca1]

Hey, still waiting on your response to my post about the evolution of the eye and similarities of arm bones across animal species.

Like why make the eye full of liquid with the same properties as seawater for animals in the sea and on land? Maybe its because its all the same eye with small modifications?

You're talking about HOMOLOGY.

Long story short: it'd be an example of................................... D E S I G N.



Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Some think that our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” However, we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.

After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.

Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.


Like every other scientist, Denton recognizes the striking similarity in bone pattern evident between vertebrate fore- and hindlimbs. Yet no evolutionist, he says, claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.

Worse yet for evolution, structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. In such cases, the thesis that similar structures developed from genes modified during evolutionary descent is precisely falsified.


Perhaps the clearest anatomical evidence of creation is “convergence.” The classic example is the similarity between the eyes of humans and vertebrates and the eyes of squids and octopuses. Evolutionists recognize the similarity between the eyes easily enough, but they’ve never been able to find or even imagine a common ancestor with traits that would explain these similarities. So, instead of calling these eyes homologous organs, they call them examples of “convergent evolution.” Rather than evolution, however, we have another example of similarity in structure that cannot be explained as evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.

Comparative Similarities: Homology

Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas.

answersingenesis.org

If god made all "kinds" from scratch, why did he use the same templates even when it made zero sense? Like a lazy programmer reusing models from a different game, humans have limited time and resources, but why would god need to take such shortcuts?

You'll have to ask GOD for the straight answer.

Anyway - what's wrong with templates?
Actually, using templates - it makes more sense for DESIGN.

All organisms living together in the same planet - although of different environment (land, water, temperature, etc..,) - they still co-exist together, not to mention having a symbiotic relationship.


What's the problem with using templates?

 

[Nemiroff]

You're talking about HOMOLOGY.

Long story short: it'd be an example of................................... D E S I G N.



Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Some think that our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” However, we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.

After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.

Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.


Like every other scientist, Denton recognizes the striking similarity in bone pattern evident between vertebrate fore- and hindlimbs. Yet no evolutionist, he says, claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.

Worse yet for evolution, structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. In such cases, the thesis that similar structures developed from genes modified during evolutionary descent is precisely falsified.


Perhaps the clearest anatomical evidence of creation is “convergence.” The classic example is the similarity between the eyes of humans and vertebrates and the eyes of squids and octopuses. Evolutionists recognize the similarity between the eyes easily enough, but they’ve never been able to find or even imagine a common ancestor with traits that would explain these similarities. So, instead of calling these eyes homologous organs, they call them examples of “convergent evolution.” Rather than evolution, however, we have another example of similarity in structure that cannot be explained as evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.

Comparative Similarities: Homology

Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas.

answersingenesis.org

very poor design.
Like an overworked programmer reusing resources to save his limited time and money. Why wouldnt an all powerful being just DESIGN a brand new eye that is optimized to see in air instead of reusing the water one from a previous development.

Looks like proof of natural design, following a steady course without the ability to just start from scratch.... evolution!

 

[tosca1]

very poor design.

I'm not asking for your "professional" opinion.

Like an overworked programmer reusing resources to save his limited time and money. Why wouldnt an all powerful being just DESIGN a brand new eye that is optimized to see in air instead of reusing the water one from a previous development.

Looks like proof of natural design, following a steady course without the ability to just start from scratch.... evolution!

very poor rebuttal.


As shown.

 

[Nemiroff]

I'm not asking for your "professional" opinion.







very poor rebuttal.


As shown.

An eye designed in water is poor design for a creature that lives on land. That is not my professional opinion but an objective fact.

And that was a detailed rebuttal, one which it seems you cant respond to. As shown

 

[Nemiroff]

I'm not asking for your "professional" opinion.







very poor rebuttal.


As shown.

An eye designed in water is poor design for a creature that lives on land. That is not my professional opinion but an objective fact.

And that was a detailed rebuttal, one which it seems you cant respond to. As shown

This explains why you avoided responding originally.

This common "design" is just 1 proof of evolution and common ancestry. The steady increase of complexity with time is another. God can create humans and bacteria at the same time, but nature has to gradually develop complexity... and gradual increase in complexity over time is what we see.

Another piece of evidence I predict you will avoid. That is my professional opinion

 

[watsup]

You're talking about HOMOLOGY.

Long story short: it'd be an example of................................... D E S I G N.



Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Some think that our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” However, we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.

After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.

Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.


Like every other scientist, Denton recognizes the striking similarity in bone pattern evident between vertebrate fore- and hindlimbs. Yet no evolutionist, he says, claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.

Worse yet for evolution, structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. In such cases, the thesis that similar structures developed from genes modified during evolutionary descent is precisely falsified.


Perhaps the clearest anatomical evidence of creation is “convergence.” The classic example is the similarity between the eyes of humans and vertebrates and the eyes of squids and octopuses. Evolutionists recognize the similarity between the eyes easily enough, but they’ve never been able to find or even imagine a common ancestor with traits that would explain these similarities. So, instead of calling these eyes homologous organs, they call them examples of “convergent evolution.” Rather than evolution, however, we have another example of similarity in structure that cannot be explained as evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.

Comparative Similarities: Homology

Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas.

answersingenesis.org

You'll have to ask GOD for the straight answer.

Anyway - what's wrong with templates?
Actually, using templates - it makes more sense for DESIGN.

All organisms living together in the same planet - although of different environment (land, water, temperature, etc..,) - they still co-exist together, not to mention having a symbiotic relationship.


What's the problem with using templates?

“Answers in Genesis”. *L*

 

[tosca1]

An eye designed in water is poor design for a creature that lives on land.
That is not my professional opinion but an objective fact.

It's not objective!

BE SPECIFIC!

What eye by what animal?
PROVIDE A LINK!

I cannot take simply your word for it.
For all we know- you may not have understood what you've read.
That's happening a lot to some atheists on this forum.

And that was a detailed rebuttal, one which it seems you cant respond to. As shown

You're assuming I can read your mind and know what the heck you refer to!

Explain on that animal you're talking about.

 

[tosca1]

Evolutionists get so excited over nothing!
They're exhibiting....................CONFIRMATION BIAS!
They see what they wanna see!


It's all just about ADAPTATIONS, folks.
Here - you don't have to take my word for it.

Convergent Evolution Definition​

Convergent evolution is the process in which organisms that are not closely related independently evolve similar features.
Adaptions may take the form of similar body forms, colors, organs and other adaptions which make up the organism’s phenotype.
Often, convergence occurs when organisms are required to adapt to similar environmental conditions, such as in the evolution of thick water-retaining leaves and spines on cacti and Euphorbia species,
which are adapted to tolerate conditions of extreme drought but are native to separate continents.

Examples of Convergent Evolution​

Convergent Evolution - Definition and Examples | Biology Dictionary

Convergent evolution is the process in which organisms that are not closely related independently evolve similar features. Adaptions may take the form of similar body forms, colors, organs and other adaptions which make up the organism’s phenotype.

biologydictionary.net

Actually, how life-forms can ADAPT to their environments, seems more like an example of........................D E S I G N.

 

[Nemiroff]

It's not objective!

BE SPECIFIC!

What eye by what animal?
PROVIDE A LINK!

I cannot take simply your word for it.
For all we know- you may not have understood what you've read.
That's happening a lot to some atheists on this forum.

You're assuming I can read your mind and know what the heck you refer to!

Explain on that animal you're talking about.

Lmao, there is no need to read minds. Im literally talking about every eye on every animal. The fluid in ALL eyes. Human eyes, fish eyes. Bird eyes. All come from the same origin. From under the sea

 

[tosca1]

Lmao, there is no need to read minds. Im literally talking about every eye on every animal. The fluid in ALL eyes. Human eyes, fish eyes. Bird eyes. All come from the same origin. From under the sea

You gotta support your claim.
Show me your source that says fluids in all eyes come from under the sea!

 

[Nemiroff]

You gotta support your claim.
Show me your source that says fluids in all eyes come from under the sea!

Sure, here is a comparison of a mouse eye to that of a fish:
"In a mouse eye most of the refraction occurs at the air-cornea interface where the refractive index of air is approximately 1.0 and cornea is approximately 1.3. In a fish eye, refraction of light is minimal at the water – cornea interface where the refractive index of water is approximately 1.3 and nearly identical to the refractive index of the cornea."

The transparent lens and cornea in the mouse and zebra fish eye

The lens and cornea combine to form a single optical element in which transparency and refraction are the fundamental biophysical characteristics required for a functional visual system. Although lens and cornea have different cellular and extracellular ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As for the human eye:
"The anterior chamber of the eye, which is located between the cornea and lens capsule, is filled with a clear liquid––the aqueous humor having a refractive index n≈1.3335."

Optical Properties of the Eye - American Academy of Ophthalmology

The relaxed eye has an approximate optical power of 60 diopters (D) (ie, its focal length is 16.7 mm in air), with the corneal power being about 40 D, or two th

www.aao.org

 

[Nemiroff]

For rabbits:
VALENTIN (1879)reports a value of 1"337 as the refrac- tive index of the rabbit aqueous humour. FREYTA~ (1910) obtained a range of values from 1.33 to 1.329 for animals of between 9 days and 5 years of age.

A schematic eye for the rabbit

A schematic eye has been calculated for the rabbit with measurements made on excised but inflated eyes. The extent of the monocular and binocular visu…

www.sciencedirect.com