Hi! :)

[dayton]

Hi :)

I'm the poster from CF who mistakenly posted that bacteria are not alive. Apparently, I was wrong about that. I am not a scientist and I am just beginning to learn more about science.

Anyway, I am a Christian who accepts the Truth of Creation Science. I believe in Creationism because that is what I believe the Bible says. I am looking foward to debating you here.

[Duvenoy]

Greetings Dayton! We're delighted to have you here and we hope you will find us at least interesting.

Looking forward to the conversations.

doov

[RufusAtticus]

Hello Dayton,

Welcome to the SecWeb.

Since you are just starting out here, would you mind answering a few questions that might shed light on your biological education? If we have a better idea of what you know, we will have much more productive conversations.


Describe/define evolution, microevolution, and macroevolution as you understand them.
What evidence does science recognize to support evolution?
What evidence does science recognize to contradict evolution?
How does selection work?
Where does variation come from?
What are other biological forces that shape the structure of populations?

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
Hi :)

I'm the poster from CF who mistakenly posted that bacteria are not alive. Apparently, I was wrong about that. I am not a scientist and I am just beginning to learn more about science.

Anyway, I am a Christian who accepts the Truth of Creation Science. I believe in Creationism because that is what I believe the Bible says. I am looking foward to debating you here.

Hi Dayton, welcome. Good to see you can acknowledge you were mistaken; that's the first step in admitting you have a problem. ;) j/k

Looking forward to your answers to Rufus' questions.

[dayton]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus



Describe/define evolution, microevolution, and macroevolution as you understand them.
What evidence does science recognize to support evolution?
What evidence does science recognize to contradict evolution?
How does selection work?
Where does variation come from?
What are other biological forces that shape the structure of populations?


* Evolution is a broad term, I assume you mean the theory of evolution, which I believe to be false. Microevolution is adaptation/change within a kind, macroevolution is speciation, which does not happen.

* Mainstream science accepts the physical evidence (including K-Ar dating, fossil record, and comparison of modern and extinct creatures) of its own merits and does not recognize the Bible.

* Mainstream science does not contradict evolution.

* Natural selection does not work, I believe in Divine Selection.

* Variation can come from many factors, including adaptation, genetic mutation, and special creation.

* Biological forces include climate change, competition with other species for food, predation, and destruction of habitiat.

I am a young-earth Creationist, I hold to a literal reading of Genesis.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Dayton
* Evolution is a broad term, I assume you mean the theory of evolution, which I believe to be false. Microevolution is adaptation/change within a kind, macroevolution is speciation, which does not happen.


What's a kind?

Since you acknowledge that change can occur in a species,
what mechanism prevents those changes from accumulating, leading to a new species?

[dayton]

I believe that God is the mechanism that prevents speciation/evolution.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God is the mechanism that prevents speciation/evolution.

So God has to actively prevent it? If He didn't, evolution would happen?

[Oolon Colluphid]

What Doov said ;)

Welcome to Infidels E/C. I hope it reassures you to know that our bite is worse than our bark! IOW, as with anywhere I guess, treat us nice (as you have done so far), and we can be nice as pie. Our 'bite' is vicious though: there's some awfully knowledgable folks here, and nonsense tends to get slapped rather hard! So please, ask questions, and you'll get sincere answers. Try and tell us stuff with certainty, and the ride can get a little bumpy!

(I say all that because we've had many a creationist steam in, guns blazing, then when they've been blitzed, they get all upset :).)

I have just a couple of questions, if I may:

1. Please could you define 'kind' -- these groups of organisms that are supposedly immutable. Is it roughly a species (eg Canis lupus), a genus (eg Felis, as in F silvestris, F chaus and co), a family (eg Bovidae: sheep, cattle, antelopes etc)... or... what? If we're to show you that 'kinds' are not immutable -- ie that evolution is real -- we'll need to know! :)

2. Just wondering... if enough evidence is offered, are you willing to accept that 'creation science' is wrong? Could it be, do you think? IOW, are you open-minded to evidence that is contrary to your beliefs?

Best wishes, Oolon

[RufusAtticus]

Okay, I'm going to have more questions for you.

Originally posted by Dayton
* Evolution is a broad term, I assume you mean the theory of evolution, which I believe to be false.

1.) You still need to define/describe what evolution is.

Microevolution is adaptation/change within a kind,

I have an entire list of questions about "kinds." I'll start slowly though.

2.) What a "kind?"

3) What biological criteria exists to determine if any two individuals belong to the same "kind" or belong to different "kinds?"

macroevolution is speciation, which does not happen.

Speciation has been observed many times. We can get into many of the examples latter, but I want to start off with a single one.

4) If speciation can't happen, why are mosquitoes in the London Underground physically distinct from surface mosquitoes and can no longer breed with surface mosquitoes?

Mainstream science accepts the physical evidence (including K-Ar dating, fossil record, and comparison of modern and extinct creatures) of its own merits and does not recognize the Bible.

It also doesn't recongize the Qu'ran, Bagivad Gita, Illiad, Theogany, Metamorphoses, or any other mythology as empirical evidence.

Natural selection does not work, I believe in Divine Selection.

5) Then explain to me how the computer programs in the following two links work if selection does not.
Weasel (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60534) & Bitstrings (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58757)

Variation can come from many factors, including adaptation, genetic mutation, and special creation.

Adaptation doesn't produce variation; in fact it reduces it. Mutation, otoh, is the only known source of biological variation.

6) How does "special creation" work?

Biological forces include climate change, competition with other species for food, predation, and destruction of habitiat.

That's all selection. There are five major evolutionary forces: mutation, selection, drift, migration, and the mating system.

I am a young-earth Creationist, I hold to a literal reading of Genesis.

7) You're going to have to be more discriptive. Plenty of people claim to hold to "literal" readings, but they can't always agree on what is "literal."

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God is the mechanism that prevents speciation/evolution.

Oh dear. This makes it tough.

Ya see, Dayton, science does not, indeed cannot, deal with the metaphysical. As soon as you say, "God did it!" the argument is over. The reason is that no evidence can be found either pro or con.

But, just for the hell of it, I'll pass along a really great link:

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Enjoy the read!

doov

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God is the mechanism that prevents speciation/evolution.

And what literal reading of genesis leads you to this conclusion? Do you believe that if speciation were true, that God would not be?

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Dayton


I am a young-earth Creationist, I hold to a literal reading of Genesis.

In what language?

[dayton]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Okay, I'm going to have more questions for you.



1.) You still need to define/describe what evolution is.

Evolution is supposedly change in populations over time. According to the theory of evolution, all living organisms share a common ancestor. I believe evolution to be false, as it contradicts the Bible.



I have an entire list of questions about "kinds." I'll start slowly though.

2.) What a "kind?"

3) What biological criteria exists to determine if any two individuals belong to the same "kind" or belong to different "kinds?"


There is no biological criteria that defines a 'kind', as it is an arbitrary term. I would assume that members of the same kind would be capable of producing offspring together.





Speciation has been observed many times. We can get into many of the examples latter, but I want to start off with a single one.

4) If speciation can't happen, why are mosquitoes in the London Underground physically distinct from surface mosquitoes and can no longer breed with surface mosquitoes?

They are still mosquitoes. This does not prove evolution.


It also doesn't recongize the Qu'ran, Bagivad Gita, Illiad, Theogany, Metamorphoses, or any other mythology as empirical evidence.

The Bible is not mythology, it is God-breathed fact. Every single word of the Bible is inspired by God and it is true.



5) Then explain to me how the computer programs in the following two links work if selection does not.
Weasel (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60534) & Bitstrings (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58757)

Computer programs are not living organisms, so this has nothing to do with natural selection.



Adaptation doesn't produce variation; in fact it reduces it. Mutation, otoh, is the only known source of biological variation.

6) How does "special creation" work?



That's all selection. There are five major evolutionary forces: mutation, selection, drift, migration, and the mating system.

My mistake. I believe that small amounts of variation can occur, but not nearly enough to cause macroevolution.




7) You're going to have to be more discriptive. Plenty of people claim to hold to "literal" readings, but they can't always agree on what is "literal."

I believe that every word in the Bible is true. I am a young-earth Creationist and a geocentricist.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
* Natural selection does not work, I believe in Divine Selection.and
I believe that God is the mechanism that prevents speciation/evolution. .
Here’s something I never normally do, but it might help Dayton understand what he’s getting into. Try this link to Answers in Genesis: www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1332.asp
Most of it is hogwash, but Dayton needs to know that natural selection is accepted by all but the most rabidly loony creationists:
Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences.

Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. [hogwash omitted]
If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.

Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.
[...]
Creationists have long proposed such ‘splitting under selection’ from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark.
... and so on.

Now, Dayton, please don’t get misled by their talk about ‘information’ (not yet, at least!) The point is that creationists accept natural selection, they just think that there’s some sort of barrier preventing it producing new ‘kinds’ ... whatever they are! (And hence our questioning you about that.)

Cheers, Oolon

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that every word in the Bible is true. I am a young-earth Creationist and a geocentricist.

Just for my own personal curiosity, are you a flat-earther too?

[dayton]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
And what literal reading of genesis leads you to this conclusion? Do you believe that if speciation were true, that God would not be?

I believe that God Created exactly as described in the Bible. If specation occured, God would be a liar.

[dayton]

Originally posted by Roland98
Just for my own personal curiosity, are you a flat-earther too?

No, I believe that the earth is spherical, but I believe that the earth is the center of the universe. I do not believe in life on other planets.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created exactly as described in the Bible. If specation occured, God would be a liar.

May it have occurred to you that the Bible is not the Word of God? Yes, I know the Bible says it's the Word of God; but so does the Qur'an, and you don't think the Qur'an is the Word of God.

(added) Please explain where all the races came from. The Bible says Europeans are from Japheth, Semites from Shem and Northern Africans from Ham. Explain where Chinese, Native Americans and Australians come from.

Please explain why the Bible calls the Mediterranean "the Great Sea", when there are much greater seas in the world.

Please explain why the Bible calls the sun and moon "two great lights", when in reality neither is very great (compared to other stars such as Rigel and Betelgeuse) and only one of them is really a light (the moon only reflects sunlight).

Explain also cud-chewing hares, insects with four legs and bats being birds. Explain the heart and kidneys being the seats of reason and morality respectively, though we know today the brain is that place.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
Evolution is supposedly change in populations over time. According to the theory of evolution, all living organisms share a common ancestor. I believe evolution to be false, as it contradicts the Bible. Where? Please cite chapter and verse where it even gets mentioned.

What you have there, Dayton, is an interpretation. One that the easy majority of Christians disagree with. It is not a literal reading of anything, cos how God went about his creating just ain’t mentioned.
There is no biological criteria that defines a 'kind', as it is an arbitrary term. How do you know that such a thing exists then?I would assume that members of the same kind would be capable of producing offspring together.Uh-huh...They are still mosquitoes. Yep, which can no longer interbreed. Which are NOT capable of producing offspring together. But they used to be able to. This does not prove evolution. Evolution is supposedly change in populations over time. Erm, voilà!The Bible is not mythology, it is God-breathed fact. Every single word of the Bible is inspired by God and it is true. How do you know that? Nah, don’t answer that, we have a whole separate forum for those sort of questions!Computer programs are not living organisms, so this has nothing to do with natural selection. Selection is selection. It matters not a jot to what’s being selected whether it gets to reproduce because it fits its environment better than its rivals, because humans like the look of it, because God does some chosing personally or a computer does it. What the simulations show is that selection works.I believe that every word in the Bible is true. I am a young-earth Creationist and a geocentricist. Holy shit. Hmmm, the last four hundred years of scientific investigation have just passed you by, haven't they?!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
If specation occured, God would be a liar.
Well, speciation is an observed phenomenon. There's plenty of examples, just ask. But that doesn't matter, because god is a liar anyway: your own Bible says so!

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html

[Duvenoy]

Dayton, do study the link I posted. I'd be interested in your comments.

I have more, equally as interesting. These are peer reviewed and written by highly qualified people who have dedecated their lives to their studies. One might dismiss them with a verse and a hand wave, but it won't change their works.

doov

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
Evolution is supposedly change in populations over time. According to the theory of evolution, all living organisms share a common ancestor. I believe evolution to be false, as it contradicts the Bible.

So the Bible disagrees with change in populations over time. Okay. Therefore, according the the bible man hasn't changed since Adam and Eve were created. Okay, then explain to me what hair color they had. Red, Brown, Black, Blond, or White?

There is no biological criteria that defines a 'kind', as it is an arbitrary term.

Then what use is it to biology?

I would assume that members of the same kind would be capable of producing offspring together.

Does that mean that individuals in different kinds should not be able to reproduce?

They are still mosquitoes. This does not prove evolution.

Except that they are a new species of mosquito. Therefore, your claim that speciation does not occur has been disproved. Claiming that they are mosquitoes gets you nowhere. That's no different than claiming that humans, chimps, and whales are still mammals. If you can accept that two mosquitoes are related, why not three mammals?

The Bible is not mythology, it is God-breathed fact. Every single word of the Bible is inspired by God and it is true.

Likewise, the Theogany is not mythology, it is Muse-breathed fact. Every single word of the Theogany is inspired by Muses and it is true.

If you think your argument has merit, than you must accept that all other religions' creation stories have equal merit.

Computer programs are not living organisms, so this has nothing to do with natural selection.

I suspect that you didn't even take the time to look at those links, since I feel that I made it very clear within them what the connection is. Those simulations show quite well how selection works.

There is variation in traits in the population.
Certain individuals with certain traits leave more offspring than other individuals.
These advantageous traits can be passed on to the offspring.

If all three of these things are satisfied, then adaptation will occur. My simulations satisfy these requirements, and demonstrate the results. Please take a closer look at them. If you're having problem with the code, I can explain any section of it to you.

I believe that every word in the Bible is true. I am a young-earth Creationist and a geocentricist.

What happens when people cannot even agree on what a word in the Bible even is? Have you ever tried to compare translations? You're still not giving us enough to go on, because plenty of people claim they follow the Bible word for word, but they can never agree on what that entails. I'm esentially asking you to be more specific.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
No, I believe that the earth is spherical,
Curious, very curious. Because a literal reading of Matthew 4:8 is that the earth is indeed flat.

Tell me, how do you know which bits are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal? How come the parables aren’t just stories about people Jesus knew?

[dayton]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Dayton, do study the link I posted. I'd be interested in your comments.

I have more, equally as interesting. These are peer reviewed and written by highly qualified people who have dedecated their lives to their studies. One might dismiss them with a verse and a hand wave, but it won't change their works.

doov

Those reviews are extremely biased towards evolution. I really do not care if they are 'peer reviewed' because their peers all agree with evolution. I'm sure there is knowledge to be gained from reading those articles, but they will not convince me of evolution. I have already done the atheist/evolutionist thing.

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Dayton
My mistake. I believe that small amounts of variation can occur, but not nearly enough to cause macroevolution.


could you define a small amount for us?

Assuming the bible is the literal truth, and that there were only 2 of each kind on the ark, and since you have not defined kind for us, I will do so with an example: horses can breed with donkeys, and zebra. lions can breed with tigers, dolphins can breed with porpoises and a sort of killer whale.

now for that sort of rapid "adaptation" from "kind" to "sub-kind" would have required "adaptation" at a far more rapid pace than has ever been observed by a) us b) the egyptians or c) the chinese who would probably have written it down.....

not only that, but where are all the quasi sub-kinds... the horses that are sort of donkeys, or the lions that are sort of tigers?

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Dayton
No, I believe that the earth is spherical, but I believe that the earth is the center of the universe. I do not believe in life on other planets.
are you telling us that the sun orbits the earth and the galaxy orbits the earth but all the planets and all the other stars orbit the earth in a really odd funny way? also can you explain why we are red and blue shifted with respect to the cosmic microwave background?

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
Those reviews are extremely biased towards evolution. I really do not care if they are 'peer reviewed' because their peers all agree with evolution. I'm sure there is knowledge to be gained from reading those articles, but they will not convince me of evolution. I have already done the atheist/evolutionist thing.

Then explain to me how evolution ever surplanted creationism in science. Afterall, in Darwin's day by no stretch of the imagination can you claim that all the peers agreed with him before he even proposed his theory. If only unjustified bias keeps evolution in place, then why did it become popular without such biases in the first place?

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Dayton
Those reviews are extremely biased towards evolution. I really do not care if they are 'peer reviewed' because their peers all agree with evolution. I'm sure there is knowledge to be gained from reading those articles, but they will not convince me of evolution. I have already done the atheist/evolutionist thing.

Oh yeah, keep bangin' that wasp nest. :D :eek:

Did you even glance at the link? It concerns the evolution of certain reptiles to mammals and is the best study of that part of the fosil record I've found.

Dig it, if you blithly ignore the evidence presented you, why should we pay any attention to yours?

doov

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
Those reviews are extremely biased towards evolution. I really do not care if they are 'peer reviewed' because their peers all agree with evolution. I'm sure there is knowledge to be gained from reading those articles, but they will not convince me of evolution. I have already done the atheist/evolutionist thing. Well, okay. If you won’t believe those nasty evolutionists, perhaps you will believe other creationists. Try this link (pdf): Baraminology by Dr Kurt P Wise (http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W0799.pdf). THE BARAMIN
In the Bible, organisms are created “after their kinds” (Genesis 1:12,21,24-25), taken onto the ark “after their kinds” (Genesis 6:20; 7:14), and identified as clean or unclean “after their kinds” (Leviticus 11:14-16,19,22,29; Deuteronomy 14:13-15,18). Because “kind” is a word laden with other meanings, the term “Biblical kind” needed to be replaced by another. In 1941 Frank Marsh suggested the word “baramin” for the “Biblical kind”. “Baramin” is derived from two Hebrew words from Genesis Chapter One: bara which is
translated as “create” and the stem min which is translated as “kind”.

BARAMINOLOGY

[…]

The baramin is a set of organisms containing fewer than all organisms and almost if not always more than just a single species. As a result, the known members of a baramin (a group called a holobaramin) can be identified by approaching it from two directions at the same time—from above and from below. From above, a larger group of organisms can be divided into two or more smaller groups (called apobaramins) which are thought to be unrelated to each other or any other group. If this process is done correctly, larger groups will be divided into smaller and smaller groups until the holobaramin is encountered. From below, if we have some good reason to believe that two species are actually related to one another we can unite those species into a single group (called a monobaramin). This group can be continually enlarged by adding other related species. Hopefully this process will produce larger and larger monobaramins until we have encountered the holobaramin from below.

[…]

Since the time of Linnaeus, creationists have been inclined to believe that when two species produce offspring which can survive, that those two species must be considered part of the same baramin. This oldest of criteria for identifying baramins has resulted in suggestions that each of the following groups might well comprise a baramin: the canid family (dogs, coyotes, foxes, and wolves); the bovid family (cows, antelope, sheep, and goats); the anatid
family (ducks, swans, geese); and the equid family (horses and zebras).

[…]

DISCUSSION

Because baraminology is such a new field of science there is still much that is unknown and uncertain. It does appear, however, as if the baraminological view of life is much more consistent with the nature of the living world than is either the long discarded concept of species stasis or the currently accepted evolutionary view of life. First of all, organisms do change. Dogs are an excellent example of a group which has undergone a lot of change. In the 16th Century, there were only a few dog types in Europe. In the four centuries which have followed over 200 varieties of dogs have been derived from them.

[…]

Although few specific baraminology studies have been performed on specific organismal groups, it seems at this early stage that on the average the baramin might turn out to correspond rather closely to the biological “family”—two levels up from the species (species within genera within families) and four levels down from the kingdom (families within orders within classes within phyla within kingdoms).
What do you make of that, Dayton?

[MrDarwin]

Just back from vacation, and still wondering how biblical creationism explains the Hawaiian silversword alliance (http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm) better than evolutionary theory does. A few dozen species comprise three genera that are extremely different from each other and are found nowhere else on earth, yet despite their differences these genera are capable of interbreeding with each other. These genera are so different from all other species of plants that until recently there was controversy as what their closest non-Hawaiian relatives were. Molecular systematics has recently shown their closest relatives to be several genera from North America which look nothing like any of the Hawaiian species and have different chromosome numbers from the Hawaiian genera, yet turn out to be able to interbreed with them!

According to YECs, these genera must all have diverged from a single common ancestor just 4,000 or so years ago--where did all that variation and "new information" come from, and how did it happen so much faster than the several millions of years that evolutionary biologists say it took?

[Jet Black]

How does creationism explain the endogenous retroviruses that are common between humans, chimps and apes

[Arikay]

Yes, I do find it funny how Literalists can claim to be literalists and Ignore the parts that literally say the earth is flat. Often twisting them around or just ignoring them.
Makes you wonder if they are true literalists, or just pretend literalists, but really take their own personal views over the bible.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that there are more literal verses saying the earth is flat, than there are saying the earth is 6000 years old.

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Curious, very curious. Because a literal reading of Matthew 4:8 is that the earth is indeed flat.

Tell me, how do you know which bits are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal? How come the parables aren’t just stories about people Jesus knew?

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Arikay
Yes, I do find it funny how Literalists can claim to be literalists and Ignore the parts that literally say the earth is flat. Often twisting them around or just ignoring them.
Makes you wonder if they are true literalists, or just pretend literalists, but really take their own personal views over the bible.

or literalists until something is "obvious".. I just wonder how he is going to explain the geocentric argument though.

sorry, not how.... if....

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Spike Spiegel
How does creationism explain the endogenous retroviruses that are common between humans, chimps and apes Ah, now that's just nasty! We've got a geocentrist here; asking about retroviruses is plain cruel.

[Duvenoy]

Peer review is nonsense 'cause it's done by evolutionists?

Would you prefer that scientific studies were reviewed by plumbers?

Ok, do you have any emperical evidece debunking the Theory of Evolution? Have you found the Devonian bunny?

I would love to find that fossil. It would totally wreck the ToE. You see, there is no conspiricy surrounding the theory. Any scientist that finds that bunny will not bury it in order to protect the status quo, no. He'll shout it out until his pipes blow. We'll have to break his jaw to shut him up. Then, his name will replace Darwin's and he can collect his Nobel at his leasure. He'll earn a fortune boring people to distraction on the lecture circut. And he'll enjoy the adulation of his peers.

However, hand-waving and bible-shouting won't cut it. It takes hard money to buy good whiskey.

doov

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ah, now that's just nasty! We've got a geocentrist here; asking about retroviruses is plain cruel.

I asked him about orbital dynamics too!

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
I have already done the atheist/evolutionist thing.

Forgive my skepticism (I'm a skeptic, after all), but I don't buy it. The atheist thing would be quite difficult for me to show any evidence for, but if you "did the evolutionist thing," you did it very, very, very poorly, as evidenced by your posts here to date as well as the ones I've seen on CF.




Edited to fix format.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Answers in Genesis’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp):

There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’ For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.

‘Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural.’ AiG rejects this dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference frame, but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the centre of mass of the solar system is also a valid reference frame. See also Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation , TJ15(2):110–121; 2001.

[dayton]

Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Dayton

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that.

Yes, but in what language?? You do know that translations are done by humans, and that subjective interpretations of what various words actually mean are part of a translation.

Or do you believe that all translations of the Bible are mediated by Divine Intervention so that the literal truth is preserved across all languages in which it is written?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Dayton
I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that.


There are many Christians who accept evolution. Oh wait, they can't be True Christians™, can they?


Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

Sadly, an Honest Creationist... (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html) :rolleyes:

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.


But as Oolon pointed out, you do choose, indeed. You choose what to be taken literally, and what to be taken metaphorically. Simply by doing so, you put your own interpretation into the Bible. If not, please then explain why you are not a flat-earther.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Well, that about wraps it up folks. There's no arguing with that. Doesn't matter what we show him, evolution's still false.

Or maybe...

Say, Dayton. Your God created everything, right? All the wonders of nature, 'n' all that...? Clever chap, then. Except, he's not. The creator of the natural world was often an incompetent fool.

For he put eyes that do not work in creatures that do not need eyes at all.

He put wings that cannot work on beetles that live on the ground.

He thought that the simplest route for a nerve to travel, when going from one side of the neck to the other, was to loop it under the aorta by the heart and back up again, even in giraffes.

He gave a very nice lung ventilation system to birds (even kiwis), yet gave a different system that is ten times less efficient to bats (and also to cheetahs, wolves and us humans).

He gave us muscles to wiggle our ears with.

He made sea-going turtles have to come ashore to lay their eggs.

He made dolphins have to breathe air.

And so on, through many many more examples.

In short, you can have your designer god, if you wish. Have him, keep him. Because he is an incompetent, sadistic idiot.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Dayton
Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

Dayton, Dayton, Dayton. :rolleyes:

In the days when the Bible was concieved, the sun circling the earth actually was state of the art science to the shepards who told the stories and the rabbis who wrote about it. They had none of the tools of observation that we enjoy today.

I really find your views and your closed-mindedness quite astonishing.

doov

[Arikay]

Why do you believe the earth is round and not flat?
The bible clearly says its flat.

You are clearly going against literal scripture. By believing the earth is round, you are interpreting the bible and believing yourself and the world over the bible.

Originally posted by Dayton
Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
Thank you for replying to my thread.

I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

1Tim 1:6-7 For some men . . . have turned aside to fruitless discussion . . . even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

[Senlatheil]

Originally posted by Dayton
Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.

1 Cor. 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.


Hmm. Are we positive someone just didn't register Dayton's name and is pulling the wool over our eyes? I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This "Dayton" must be a fraud--he's duping us.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
1Tim 1:6-7 For some men . . . have turned aside to fruitless discussion . . . even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
Hmmm. A lesson for us all:

1 Timothy 7:2 "For some men . . . have turned aside to fruitless discussion . . . even though they know what they are saying will not be heeded, nor the matters about which they make confident assertions be understood."

On that note, I'm off home...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Senlatheil
Hmm. Are we positive someone just didn't register Dayton's name and is pulling the wool over our eyes? I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This "Dayton" must be a fraud--he's duping us.
Bugger. Should've realised. Yes, of course, nobody could be quite this idiotic... :rolleyes: :banghead:

[Note to self: don't let the white heat of replying to nonsense interfere with your scepticism.]

[Arikay]

I dont know, sure sounds like the same Dayton from CF.

Originally posted by Senlatheil
Hmm. Are we positive someone just didn't register Dayton's name and is pulling the wool over our eyes? I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This "Dayton" must be a fraud--he's duping us.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Senlatheil
Hmm. Are we positive someone just didn't register Dayton's name and is pulling the wool over our eyes? I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This "Dayton" must be a fraud--he's duping us.

I don't know if this Dayton is not the same individual. The same person could be trolling CF and IIDB.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Dayton
Anyway, I am a Christian who accepts the Truth of Creation Science. I believe in Creationism because that is what I believe the Bible says.

I guess the heart of the matter is, why do you believe everything the Bible says? The Bible is actually a collection of books, written by unknown authors at unknown times, collected into a single volume by a committee of men, and often interpreted in ways that are not the least bit suggestive of the original, literal words? (For example, do you believe that Eve was tempted by anything other than a talking snake, as Genesis quite plainly states? Do you believe that God lied to Adam by suggesting that Adam would die the same day as eating the fruit, which Adam clearly did not?)

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Senlatheil
Hmm. Are we positive someone just didn't register Dayton's name and is pulling the wool over our eyes? I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This "Dayton" must be a fraud--he's duping us.

Hmph. Hadn't thought of that.

But then, it took me a while to begin thinking that Ed might a student conning us into doing his homework.

How 'bout it, Dayton? Is you is, or is you ain't?

doov

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Senlatheil
I really doubt that anyone in this modern age (with access to the observational information available) would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth.

There still are:

www.geocentricity.com

www.fixedearth.com

Among modern geocentrist figures are: Gerardus Bouw, Marshall Hall, Malcolm Bowden (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm), R G Elmendorf, Walter van der Kamp, Paula Haigh and Paul Ellwanger (http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/). And they are all deadly serious.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I don't know if this Dayton is not the same individual. The same person could be trolling CF and IIDB.

Isn't there also a "Dayton" over at ARN? (BTW I might note that most of us have not trademarked out online handles, and two different users might use the same one completely uninentionally.)

[dayton]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Hmph. Hadn't thought of that.

But then, it took me a while to begin thinking that Ed might a student conning us into doing his homework.

How 'bout it, Dayton? Is you is, or is you ain't?

doov

Yes, I am the Dayton from CF, and yes, I do believe the Bible.

I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

[dayton]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Isn't there also a "Dayton" over at ARN? (BTW I might note that most of us have not trademarked out online handles, and two different users might use the same one completely uninentionally.)

That's not me, Dayton is a very common name on the net.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Dayton
I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

Hmm, I usually don't think that when I get up in the morning. This morning I thought how could it would taste to have blackberries in my corn flakes. ;)

Jason

[Arikay]

I dont think that existence is meaningless either.

Remember, atheism is Only the lack of belief of god. Not of anything else. Atheists can have a religion, etc. Those that dont have a religion, can still believe life has meaning.

Can you explain to us, why you think the earth is round, even though the bible says its flat based on a literal interpretation?

Originally posted by Dayton
Yes, I am the Dayton from CF, and yes, I do believe the Bible.

I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Dayton
I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God


Easy: there's just no evidence for God. And we, being rational people, can't believe what there is no evidence for.


and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

It's not meaningless, it's just filled up with other things than worship of God.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

Who says that atheists think their existance is meaningless? Our lives have the meanings that we give to them. I get out of bed much easier understanding that I am the only one in control of myself. Otherwise, what is the point of existance if some supernatural entity on a whim can suddenly fuck it up and you can't do anything about it?

[Senlatheil]

Originally posted by Dayton
Yes, I am the Dayton from CF, and yes, I do believe the Bible.

I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

What makes you think our lives are meaningless? I have a family that I love--that gives me lots of meaning. I am also a graduate student--and my research gives me more meaning. I also have family and friends. What is meaningless about this?

I give myself meaning. I give myself purpose. I don't need a God to give me meaning, because I'm strong enough to do it myself.

Btw, I'm still not totally convinced that this isn't a prank. Your statement that the sun revolves around the earth was just to rich. :D

*Edit* Damn, Rufus beat me again. :P

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton

I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?


A good question but completely off-topic. Perhaps it would do you good to either post it in another folder, or to simply browse around the threads already in existence--you might be surprised to find that, despite our non-belief in God, very few of us thing our existence is "totally meaningless."

[dayton]

Originally posted by Arikay
I dont think that existence is meaningless either.

Remember, atheism is Only the lack of belief of god. Not of anything else. Atheists can have a religion, etc. Those that dont have a religion, can still believe life has meaning.

Can you explain to us, why you think the earth is round, even though the bible says its flat based on a literal interpretation?

I believe that the earth is not flat because it is proven to be spherical. It is obvious that the earth is not flat. I am a Creationist, not an idiot.

[missus_gumby]

How can it be possible for any sane person to think that the sun orbits the earth? The answer is, of course, obvious. Therefore, I think this thread needs one of these:

http://www.english-atheist.co.uk/troll.gif

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Dayton
Yes, I am the Dayton from CF, and yes, I do believe the Bible.

I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist. How can you get up in the morning thinking there is no God and thinking that your existence is totally meaningless?

'K.

Where did you get the impression that I'm an atheist? I don't recall mentioning that.

Actually, I am, but there are a goodish number of theists on this board, as well.

Why must an organism, be it bacteria or Baptist, have any 'meaning' beyond it's contribution to it's species and it's environment (discussions of an afterlife are better suited to other fora)?

Look, we're trying to talk about evolution. Thus far, all you've contributed (numerous times) is the fact that you're a Christian who takes the Bible literally. Ok. fine. Gots no problem with that. Now, let us trade evidences, pro and con, re: the theory of Evolution.

doov

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that the earth is not flat because it is proven to be spherical. It is obvious that the earth is not flat. I am a Creationist, not an idiot.

Then you're not a biblical literalist. If the Bible was wrong about the earth being flat, what else is it wrong about, do you think?

[dayton]

Edited for legal reasons

[missus_gumby]

Paging Oolon! Paging Oolon!

Mr Oolon, your picture and question are needed in the forum.

Paging Oolon! Paging Oolon!

[Arikay]

And Heliocentric (earth revolving around the sun) has been "proven" as much as the earth being a sphere.

Evolution has pretty much been "proven" as much too.

So, if you dont take part of the bible literally, why are you clinging to creationism.

If you dont believe the earth is flat, you are not a true biblical literalist.

P.S. didnt you post, and get multiple answers to that article on CF?

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that the earth is not flat because it is proven to be spherical. It is obvious that the earth is not flat. I am a Creationist, not an idiot.

[Mageth]

Dayton, that link does not work. And if the article is from ICR and if you didn't get permission to copy it, you need to link to the article and not copy it; ICR doesn't allow copying of articles in whole or in part to other websites without permission.

From their homepage:

Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from ICR

Further, the copied article contains this at the beginning:

© Copyright 2003 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by missus_gumby
Paging Oolon! Paging Oolon!

Mr Oolon, your picture and question are needed in the forum.

Paging Oolon! Paging Oolon!

Is this the one you're looking for?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg


And the question would be something along the lines of, can you tell me where the fossils stop being an ape and start to be "human?"

Goes well with this claim posted by Dayton from the ICR site:

Rennie claims a "succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern". When I look at the fossil record I see apes (including australopithocines) and I see humans (including all in the genus Homo, that are hardly more diverse than today’s tribes), side-by-side, in deposits that are embarrassingly "old" [3] for the evolutionist. To the uninitiated, it looks a lot like apes have always been apes, and people, people [4] .

[Mageth]

http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html is a working link to the article Dayton copied.

[missus_gumby]

Originally posted by Roland98
Is this the one you're looking for?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg


And the question would be something along the lines of, can you tell me where the fossils stop being an ape and start to be "human?"

Goes well with this claim posted by Dayton from the ICR site:

Yes, that's the picture. And that's the question!

Dayton, what say you?

Martin

[Duvenoy]

At last! Evolution!

ICR et al, does little empircial science. here's some writings from people who live it:




The Origin of Tetrapods and Temnospondyls
It has been suggested (Romer, 1957) that the sarcopterygian ancestors of tetrapods had acquired limbs to move from pond to pond in the dry season. At the time, paleontologists thought that tetrapods had appeared in a period in which severe seasonal droughts were common and widespread. This theory was based on an interpretation of the redbeds of Texas as representing a dry, oxidizing environment. However tetrapods appeared in the Devonian, almost 100 my earlier, and there is no evidence that the climate in the Upper Devonian was especially dry. Recent studies suggest that even the redbeds may not have formed in a dry environment. Another problem with this theory is that recent functional studies suggest that the fleshy limbs of sarcopterygians evolved to allow locomotion on the substrate but under water. This is how modern fishes with fins resembling limbs use them. It is also probable that the fins of sarcopterygians would have been too weak to be used to walk. At best, they could have gripped the substrate while the body was undulating and allowed them to crawl slowly. Therefore, the limbs probably did not appear for life on land, but they were a preadaptation for terrestrial life, to a certain extent. This observation is consistent with the apparently aquatic to semi-aquatic way of life of most Devonian and early Mississippian tetrapods. Indeed, fully terrestrial tetrapods are not known before the Late Pennsylvanian, almost100 my after the appearance of tetrapods.

http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio356/lectures/temno.html


Recent Findings (Fishes With Legs)
Until the 1980s, the fossil record of early tetrapods was essentially limited to Ichthyostega, a Late Devonian tetrapod from eastern Greenland. (Another Greenland form and an Australian form were known only from fragmentary remains.) But the early tetrapod record has expanded dramatically since 1987. Moreover, the fossil record of their fish ancestors has also been greatly enlarged in recent years. These enhanced records, together with findings from other scientific disciplines has engendered a new understanding of how tetrapods evolved. Instead of fish escaping drought, the first tetrapods are now seen as fishes with legs.

http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html

"/bacteria/bacteria.html": Fossil Record

It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends "/precambrian/archaean.html" into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known. Cyanobacteria are larger than most bacteria, and may secrete a thick cell wall. More importantly, cyanobacteria may form large layered structures, called stromatolites (if more or less dome-shaped) or oncolites (if round). These structures form as a mat of cyanobacteria grows in an aquatic environment, trapping sediment and sometimes secreting calcium carbonate. When sectioned very thinly, fossil stromatolites may be found to contain exquisitely preserved fossil cyanobacteria and algae.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

And, I’ll refer you yet again to the link I posted earlier.

doov

[Senlatheil]

Psst, the link is broken, and we can't see the original context of the arguement. Having, said that...

Originally posted by Dayton


Point 1.

The fact of evolution? I like facts. Show me.

If Rennie is really unafraid of "indirect evidence" as he claims, then why object to the possibility of an "intelligence" behind biology? The connection between information and intelligence is well documented, as even Carl Sagan, the inspirer for the SETI Project, acknowledged. Yet the origin of the information on the DNA molecule is without a naturalistic explanation. Why not regard it as "indirect evidence" for an intelligent source? [1]



I'll take on Point 1, and I'm sure the other Points will be addressed by others more intelligent than I.

Firstly, Evolution is both a fact and a theory. (Scientists do not use "theory" as a guess, but an interpretation of observational evidence.)

Criminals are not sent to jail because there is a "theory" that they committed the crime. They are sent to jail because there is enough evidence for their crime that there is no reasonable doubt. They go to jail because of the facts. In the same way, Evolution is a proven fact based on the evidence.

Originally posted by Dayton
I like facts. Show me.

This is the easiest thing to do. At its heart, Creationists believe in the theory of creation and look for evidence to support it. Scientists first observe the evidence, and the theory of evolution is their explanation for what they observe. That is a very critical difference and leads scientists more towards the truth. You must understand this fundamental concept: the theory of evolution is only an explanation for what we observe. If what we observed had pointed to the theory of special creation, the majority of scientists today would be creationists. I am stressing this for one simple fact: if you want to address the theory of evolution, you must first address the evidence that supports it.

Imagine science is a cauldron where precious metals like gold (truth) are purified through multiple heating. What keeps the cauldron burning is skeptism. It is a flame that licks at the wealth of ideas the cauldron holds, burning off those that are not supported by the observable evidence. Just as you can never burn enough to get a sample of 100% pure gold, you can never 100% prove any theory. But, the more you heat, the closer you will get. Do you understand? Evolution has been boiling in that cauldron for 100+ years. It is still there because it is still the best explanation for what is observed. Remember, it is the observations—the evidence—that drives the theory, not the other way around.

I can demonstrate some evidence for evolution fairly easily here: Let’s first examine the chromosomes from two different animals from different species that are thought to be closely related. For the purpose of this example, let’s call them Species A and Species B. When we look at the chromosomes from the two species, Species A has 24 pairs of chromosomes and Species B has 23. Due to similar banding patterns and the way the genes are arranged, many have hypothesized that there was a chromosome fusion of two Species A chromosomes to form one Species B chromosome sometime in its evolutionary past.
Let’s use some soda pop cans to illustrate this. Take two pop cans, a can of Sprite, and a can of Diet Coke. Each can of pop represents a chromosome, and the letters on the cans represents groups of genes. Each of the two species has chromosomes that represent Sprite and Diet Coke, which are very similar.

In Species A these pop cans are separate chromosomes, but in Species B the chromosomes are together, the “D” in Diet Coke fused to the “S” in Sprite, like this:


Species A Species B
E
D K
S I O
P E C
R T T
I C E
T O I
E K D
S
P
R
I
T
E


All the genes are the same, and their arrangements are the same. How can we test that this was a chromosome fusion event that caused this?

Firstly, while chromosomes are long stretches of DNA with lots of genes, they have other characteristics as well. One characteristic they have is called a telomere. A telomere is a repetitive stretch of DNA at the end of all chromosomes—it is an important characteristic that allows cells to replicate their DNA without damaging the genes located near the ends of the chromosomes. The important point about telomeres is that they are located at both tips of the chromosome. For example, in the Sprite and Diet Coke chromosomes, I’ve represented the telomeres as a lower case “(t)”, like this:


Species A
(t)
(t) D
S I
P E
R T
I C
T O
E K
(t) E
(t)


See how the telomeres (t’s) are at the ends of the chromosomes? You can imagine these as the aluminum rims on our cans of soda. Now, here is where we get to do some science. We have a hypothesis that in Species B these two chromosomes fused together to form one large chromosome, EKOCTEIDSPRITE, sometime in that species evolutionary past. Let’s make some predictions to test that hypothesis: We predict, that if those chromosomes fused in the past, that there would be telomeres located in the middle of chromosome EKOCTEIDSPRITE. Do you think that is a reasonable prediction? Take your two cans of soda and stack them on top of each other, see how there are aluminum rims located in the middle of your two-can tower? It would look something like this:

Species B
(t)
E
K
O
C
T
E
I
D
(t)
(t)
S
P
R
I
T
E
(t)

Indeed, this is what we see in Species B. Notice that there are still telomeres at the end of the chromosome, the telomere at the end of DIET COKE(t) and the telomere at the end of SPRITE(t). But there are also telomeres in the middle of the chromosomes, precisely where we expected them to be, between the “D” in DIET COKE and the “S” in SPRITE. Further, there is also two of them, just as we expect.

Secondly, there is another characteristic of chromosomes we can look for, the centromere. Chromosomes line up during the process of cell division, and centromeres are a place in the chromosome where fibers in the cell grab onto and pull apart those chromosomes that line up together. I have diagramed the centromere in the SPRITE and DIET COKE chromosomes like this, where the centromere is a (c):

Species A

D
S I
P E
R T
(c) (c)
I C
T O
E K
E

Do you see how the centromeres are located in the inside of our chromosomes, with genes on either side? Now, let’s make some more predictions. If, in Species B, the SPRITE and DIET COKE chromosomes had fused in their evolutionary past, then we would predict that the EKOCTEIDSPRITE chromosome to have two centromeres. Do you think this is a reasonable prediction? This is what we would expect:

Species B
E
K
O
C
(c)
T
E
I
D
S
P
R
(c)
I
T
E

Do you see how there are two centromeres in the EKOCTEIDSPRITE chromosome? This is exactly what we see in the Species B chromosome.

Would you say, based on this evidence, that it looks like Species A and Species B might be related? It certainly isn’t conclusive proof, is it? I wouldn’t think so. But it does suggest a common ancestry between Species A and Species B, don’t you think? The real kicker though, is that Species A are chimpanzees and Species B are humans.

The paper where the telomere observation is reported in:


IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5 (PMID: 1924367, UI: 92020989)


In case you wanted to read the abstract of that paper, here it is: However, I encourage you to read the paper and look at the “raw data” yourself.


Abstract:
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

The paper where the two centromere observation is reported in:


Avarello R, Pedicini A, Caiulo A, Zuffardi O, Fraccaro M, Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 1992 May;89(2):247-9 (PMID: 1587535, UI: 92267537)

Abstract:
In situ hybridization, under low stringency conditions with two alphoid DNA probes (pY alpha 1 and p82H) labeled with digoxigenin-dUTP, decorated all the centromeres of the human karyotype. However, signals were also detected on the long arm of chromosome 2 at approximately q21.3-q22.1. Since it is supposed that human chromosome 2 originated by the telomeric fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes, these findings indicate that not only the telomeric sequences, but also the ancestral centromere (or at least its alphoid sequences), have been conserved.

Of course, this isn’t the only evidence for evolution, but this is one example of it. I'm sure you can view other threads for more evidence.

(This is an excert from a review of a book I read over for the Creationist/engineer author last year.)

*Editted to fix figures*

[Duvenoy]

Wait a minute! I’d forgotten I had this one:

The new species, Microraptor gui, provides yet more evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and could go a long way to answering a question scientists have puzzled over for close to 100 years: How did a group of ground-dwelling flightless dinosaurs evolve to a feathered animal capable of flying?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html

The dino-to-bird studies become more fascinating with each new discovery. The fossils coming out of China are extraordinary!

doov

[Mageth]

Psst, the link is broken, and we can't see the original context of the arguement.

I posted a working link a few posts below Dayton's. ;)

[Division By Zero]

78 replies in the course of four hours? You poor evolutionists must have been starving to DEATH! :D

Dayton, this has already been brought up, but I don't think you answered it (correct me if I'm wrong):

Originally posted by Dayton
Natural selection does not work, I believe in Divine Selection.
How can you possibly deny that natural selection happens? Natural selection says only that the most well-adapted creatures are more likely to survive than less well-adapted creatures. These creatures are therefore more likely to pass on their "fit" genes to another generation.

If you claim that natural selection does not happen, you would have to agree that a cheetah born with no legs is just as likely to survive as any other cheetah, and that a rabbit with a brown coat and a rabbit with a white coat are equally difficult to spot in the exact same environment.

You said that you accept microevolution. How do you suppose microevolution can occur without selection?

Perhaps you meant that selection occurs, but it cannot happen naturally. If this is the case, I totally fail to see how God's help is necessary to select a cheetah with legs over a cheetah with no legs.

[Albion]

Well, just in case Dayton hasn't got enough to be going on with, where's Scigirl and her challenge? Or would a discussion of human evolution be too much of a shock to the system just yet?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by missus_gumby
Mr Oolon, your picture and question are needed in the forum.

Paging Oolon! Paging Oolon!
Whuuuh... Oh, I see. Bloody hell, I've got to eat an' stuff, y'know! ;)

Thanks Roland for posting the pic. There really seems little to add at this point. So far we've discovered that Dayton is a Christian (of a sort likely disowned by most people who use that term of themselves, but still...), and that he knows how to cut 'n' paste. I and many others have asked more than enough questions to keep him going for a while. Make up your own minds, of course, but further discussion seems pointless until there is some discussion!

Which is a roundabout way of saying, nay demanding, that the questions from pages one and two get answered!

Personally, the ones I want Dayton to answer most are:

1. Which are the apes and which are the humans in those skull pictures. They're in chronological order, you know (except first and last).

2. And, why is your creator god not a blundering fool? I have evidence that he is...

TTFN, Oolon

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dayton is clearly a troll. Geocentrism is less popular than scientology. And besides no geocentrist is capable of operating a computer. Dayton's posts are full of YEC cliches. But it was the geocentrism that did it for me. Wasn't even asked of him and he devulges such information. The poster is looking for a battle.

*whistle blows*
Infidels out of the water, this is a troll alert

[Arikay]

I dont think he is a troll.

He has learned since he first came to CF. It is procceding slowly as would be expected if he thinks evolution could damage his faith, however he is learning.


Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
Dayton is clearly a troll. Geocentrism is less popular than scientology. And besides no geocentrist is capable of operating a computer. Dayton's posts are full of YEC cliches. But it was the geocentrism that did it for me. Wasn't even asked of him and he devulges such information. The poster is looking for a battle.

*whistle blows*
Infidels out of the water, this is a troll alert

[JaeIsGod]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins

*whistle blows*
Infidels out of the water, this is a troll alert [/B]

FYI , Trolls can't swim =p

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
FYI , Trolls can't swim =p True, but he's on a raft. ;)

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
True, but he's on a raft. ;)

I hope the raft has fewer holes than his theories.

[Happy Wonderer]

Hi, Dayton. A sincere welcome!

I know you are pretty busy, but if you could take the time for a short reply. Could you tell me what creatures do not have a common ancestor:

Northwestern Crow (Corvus Carnius) (http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/eco/taxalab/bio2002/corvusc.htm)
Black Oystercatcher (Haemapotus Bachmani) (http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/eco/taxalab/stewartm.htm)
Common (American) Crow (Corvus Brachyrhynchos) (http://www.neoperceptions.com/fauna/birds/scbirds/crow.htm)
Common Raven (Corvus Corax) (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/i4860id.html)
Bushtit (Psaltiparus Minimus) (http://birds.cornell.edu/BOW/BUSHTI/)
White-flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata) (http://www.penguin.net.nz/wf/wf.html)
Wolf (Canis Lupus)
Dog (Canis Lupus Familirus)
Brocolli
Cabbage
Brussels sprouts
Kale
Mustard
Lion
Tiger
Bonobo
Chimp
Man


hw

Check out www.racerocks.com it is a heck of a good website that I found when searching for examples.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Then explain to me how evolution ever surplanted creationism in science. Afterall, in Darwin's day by no stretch of the imagination can you claim that all the peers agreed with him before he even proposed his theory. If only unjustified bias keeps evolution in place, then why did it become popular with such biases in the first place?

[slight hijack]I just wanted to say, I think that's a great argument point! I've "discussed" evolution with conspiracy minded creationists before, but I had never thought of this angle.[/slight hijack]
:notworthy :D


Incidentally, over at Darwintalk/creationtalk we've had a geocentrist before; I think they have a pattern actually. Post a lot of nonsense and retreat. Ignore rebuttals to nonsense and argue from the bibles authority, then retreat-but never, and I mean never do they actually go back and forth the way good debates are supposed to go.

[dayton]

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Hi, Dayton. A sincere welcome!

I know you are pretty busy, but if you could take the time for a short reply. Could you tell me what creatures do not have a common ancestor:

Northwestern Crow (Corvus Carnius) (http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/eco/taxalab/bio2002/corvusc.htm)
Black Oystercatcher (Haemapotus Bachmani) (http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/eco/taxalab/stewartm.htm)
Common (American) Crow (Corvus Brachyrhynchos) (http://www.neoperceptions.com/fauna/birds/scbirds/crow.htm)
Common Raven (Corvus Corax) (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/i4860id.html)
Bushtit (Psaltiparus Minimus) (http://birds.cornell.edu/BOW/BUSHTI/)
White-flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata) (http://www.penguin.net.nz/wf/wf.html)
Wolf (Canis Lupus)
Dog (Canis Lupus Familirus)
Brocolli
Cabbage
Brussels sprouts
Kale
Mustard
Lion
Tiger
Bonobo
Chimp
Man


hw

Check out www.racerocks.com it is a heck of a good website that I found when searching for examples.

Animals and plants can only reproduce after their kinds, so any animals or plants of the same kind share a common ancestor.

Mustard does not have a common ancestor, as there are many mustard companies. I like French's. :)

[Roller]

Originally posted by Dayton
Animals and plants can only reproduce after their kinds, so any animals or plants of the same kind share a common ancestor.

Mustard does not have a common ancestor, as there are many mustard companies. I like French's. :)

Is it too early to tell him about polyploidy in plants?

[Doubting Didymus]

Dayton. Welcome to the E/C boards.

You've got plenty on your plate already, but I was wondering if you could spell out what sort of event you think would qualify as speciation.

[Albion]

Animals and plants can only reproduce after their kinds, so any animals or plants of the same kind share a common ancestor.

If you're going to make scientific-sounding statements about what can and can't reproduce, you're going to have to come up with a science-based definition of "kinds."

[dayton]

Speciation would be the change of one distinct species into another species that can no longer interbeed with the original species.

I will not compromise the Bible by attempting to make it 'science based'.

[Doubting Didymus]

Is interbreeding then your only criteria for a speciation event?

[Arikay]

1) Speciation has been observed.

2) ok.

Lets assume that God created the earth and nature.
Science is the study of the earth and nature.
Thus science is the study of gods creation.

The bible was written by inspired men (not dirrectly created by god).
You interpret the bible.

The study of gods creation is very indepth and it shows that Evolution is true.

So what you are saying is that you are taking your own personal interpretation of the bible, over the study of Gods creation.

When your interpretation clashes with the information god left in his creation, who is right, you or god?

Not to mention you have already sacrificed parts of the bible that say the earth is Flat and have followed the evidence god left in his creation to say the earth is round.

Originally posted by Dayton
Speciation would be the change of one distinct species into another species that can no longer interbeed with the original species.

I will not compromise the Bible by attempting to make it 'science based'.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Dayton
Animals and plants can only reproduce after their kinds, so any animals or plants of the same kind share a common ancestor.

Dayton, do you think that these plants:

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg

and

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg

and

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/sstrio.jpg

have been reproducing after their own "kind"?

[Ergaster]

Damn! This is the second creationist on as many boards iin as many weeks who's admitted that "kinds" is a meaningless and biologically useless concept.

I wonder if we can consider that "progress" of a sort...

Just to confirm, Dayton: are you admitting that if a new and unknown organism were discovered (either living or fossil), there is no way of determining what "kind" it might belong to?



Originally posted by Dayton
There is no biological criteria that defines a 'kind', as it is an arbitrary term. I would assume that members of the same kind would be capable of producing offspring together.

[Asha'man]

I'm sure that Dayton won't get around to this question, but I have to ask anyways:

Has man ever sent a robotic probe to land on Mars? To orbit Mars and take pictures? (I'll post pictures, if you want.)

Have we ever manged to get a probe into orbit around Jupiter to take pictures? Gotten one to fly past Saturn? (More pictures available...)

How can our smart boys at NASA mange such stupendous feats of navigation if they don't even know which direction is up and which direction things are moving?

Do you have any idea how complex it is to get a probe to another planet when that probe has only a few pounds of fuel? Can you imagine a journey that takes years to complete when the steering rockets can only fire for a few seconds?

Imagine yourself and a friend on opposite sides of a merry-go-round. Could you toss a ball between you and your friend if the merry-go-round was spinning and you didn't know it?

[dayton]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Dayton, do you think that these plants:

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg

and

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg

and

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/sstrio.jpg

have been reproducing after their own "kind"?

These plants are not related. They each reproduce after their own kind, but they are not of the same kind.

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by Dayton
Animals and plants can only reproduce after their kinds, so any animals or plants of the same kind share a common ancestor.

Mustard does not have a common ancestor, as there are many mustard companies. I like French's. :)
Hi Dayton!

Your response was admirably brief. However, surely you have an opinion on which animals in my list were of the same kind? North Western Crow and the American Crow are very similar animals. You have to be pretty into corvids to be able to tell them apart. Would they be the same "Kind"? AFIK they do not normally interbreed.

Ravens and crows are similar enough that a layman may have difficulty telling a small raven from a large crow (until they speak, at least.) They do not interbreed, and crows will mob any ravens that approach. Both have a fairly wide vocabulary, but their stereotype calls are quite distinctively different. Their beaks are quite different, and ravens lack some wing features that crows have. With all of this said, though, it is fairly easy to see how a crow and a raven might have a common ancestor.

Bushtits are tiny birds, so I would not be surprised if you thought that they were a different kind than a large bird such as a raven. However, to qoute some learned creationist I have read "they are still both birds."

The mustard I was referring to is Brassica juncea. Hint: brocolli is known as Brassica oleracea. All of the plants I listed are Brassica, and I believe that they are all interfertile. Another hint: Dijon mustard is far superior to that yellow baby poop known as "French's."

Anyway, this is not just for argument's sake, I really do want to know how a creationist makes sense of all the creatures in, er, creation. So to simplify:

Is the American crow the same kind as the North West crow?
Is the American crow the same kind as the Common raven?
Is the American crow the same kind as the bushtit?
Is Brocolli the same kind as mustard?


hw

[dayton]

They (NW crow, NA crow, raven) are all of the same kind. However, an ostritch is not related to a hummingbird, but an ostritch may be related to an emu. They are all birds, but there are significant differences between them.

[dayton]

Broccoli is probably of the same kind as mustard, but since 'kind' is an arbitrary term, there is no way to know for sure.

[Gregg]

Dayton, earlier in this thread you say this:I am a Christian, and as a Christian I accept all of the truths in the Bible, I don't pick and choose what I like and believe that. Science says that life evolved, God says that life was Created. Science says the earth orbits the sun, God says the sun orbits the earth. I believe the Bible over science.And then later you say this: I believe that the earth is not flat because it is proven to be spherical. It is obvious that the earth is not flat. I am a Creationist, not an idiot.But the Bible says the earth IS flat. Therefore, by your own standards, you must ignore the evidence for its roundness and believe that it is flat.

Also, the Bible says that if you paint sticks different colors and show them to pregnant cows, the babies will be the same colors as the sticks. So you must believe that, also.

[Albion]

These plants are not related. They each reproduce after their own kind, but they are not of the same kind.

On what basis are you determining that they're different "kinds"?

[Arikay]

One quick question dayton.

If God created the earth, and science is the study of gods creation, and gods creation says that your interpretation of the bible is wrong, who do you believe?
Gods creation, or your interpretation of the bible?

And, again, why do you call yourself a literalist, if you go against the bible and its flat earth?

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Dayton
However, an ostritch is not related to a hummingbird, but an ostritch may be related to an emu.

Actually, an ostritch and a hummingbird can mate... but it's not a pretty sight!! ;)

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by Dayton
Broccoli is probably of the same kind as mustard, but since 'kind' is an arbitrary term, there is no way to know for sure.
Good. In a way I agree with you, all taxonomic classifications are arbitrary human inventions. The important question, then, is "do they share a common ancestor?" IOW, was the ancestor to corvids created separately from the ancestor to the hummingbird? How do we tell? Given that we have a pretty decent technology available to us now, where would you start to determine if hummingbirds and corvids (can't spell ostrich) were related?

hw

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Dayton
They (NW crow, NA crow, raven) are all of the same kind. However, an ostritch is not related to a hummingbird, but an ostritch may be related to an emu. They are all birds, but there are significant differences between them.
<sigh> Well I’ll ask (actually, repeat) it anyway... I had hoped that Dayton would not be so cowardly as to avoid the question earlier.

Why did God, when separately creating hummingbirds and ostriches, give them the same through-flow lung system?

And why, when fully capable of putting that system into different creatures, might he have instead given a different system -- one that is ten times less efficient than the bird one -- to bats?

He also put the inefficient bat system into cheetahs (sprinters) and wolves (long-distance runners)... and in sloths? Surely it is a poor design to put a less efficient system than one you already know about into creatures that could clearly benefit from the better one...?

Surely you can comment on this?

Surely it is a waste of materials to give us humans an extensor coccygis muscle, which would move our coccyx -- if only it weren’t fused into a single lump? Surely this is poor design.

Surely you can comment on this?

The human appendix has an unimportant role in our immune system. Why does this minor role dictate it be such a dangerous shape -- the perfect shape for bacteria to get trapped in? I’d hazard that whatever its immune contribution, it is more than offset by the possibility (7% in the US) of appendicitis? The appendix could be just about any other shape, and still do what it does. Surely this is poor design.

Surely you can comment on this?

I respectfully suggest that your creator is a blundering idiot.

Surely you can comment on this?

TTFN, Oolon

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Gregg

Also, the Bible says that if you paint sticks different colors and show them to pregnant cows, the babies will be the same colors as the sticks. So you must believe that, also.

where? oh that is brilliant :)

[Jet Black]

Dayton... I didn't know this either, so here is the bird through flow system for you... it's pretty neat, and I wish I had it.

http://www.earthlife.net/birds/breath.html

[Bialar Crais]

Originally posted by Dayton
Broccoli is probably of the same kind as mustard, but since 'kind' is an arbitrary term, there is no way to know for sure.

Is "probably" the same kind? no way to know for sure? Didn't you, earlier in this thread, assert that "one kind have never been changed into another kind"? How can you know if "kind" is such an arbitrary term that you can not be sure what constitutes a kind?

if I said that "Since brankelfnattar have been observed to change into häkschlebröölen, evolution is true", would you accept this statement and its conclusion?

[Gregg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gregg

Also, the Bible says that if you paint sticks different colors and show them to pregnant cows, the babies will be the same colors as the sticks. So you must believe that, also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



where? oh that is brilliant :)

Genesis 30:37-42.

Actually I should have looked that up before I posted, it had been a while since I'd read that passage. It wasn't cows, it was goats, and the sticks weren't painted, rather Jacob peeled off strips of bark to expose the white wood underneath. But my post is correct in the essentials.

Edited to add:

I Googled to find this passage and finally found it here (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/genetics.html), in a pretty good article on Biblical errancy which is worth a read.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Dayton:

Quite apart from the Bible's flat-Earthism, I'm curious to know why you are so convinced that the Earth is spherical? Have you seen the Earth from space, with your own eyes?

I have, with my own eyes, seen evidence that the Bible is false. I have also seen, with my own eyes, more evidence for evolution than for the theory that the Earth is round. What do you say to that?

There's nothing mysterious about science: it's merely a set of confirmed, reproducible observations. I'd wager that you discovered the route to your local supermarket by a "scientific" process, rather than consulting the Bible or chewing magic mushrooms.

...And yet, when others claim that observed evidence contradicts the Bible, some sort of mental lock-down occurs: this "cannot be true".

Why is this? WHY do you cling to the delusion that the Bible is true?

...And do you think this gives you the authority to assert falsehoods as fact? You may truthfully say things like "I do not believe that speciation occurs", but when you claim that speciation DOES NOT occur, you are uttering falsehood: the phenomenon that has become well-known to us as "Lying for the Lord".

Creationism is rife with such claims: while individual creationists merely repeat them without knowing they are false, such creationist claims originate with a bare-faced lie by somebody making a false statement in the full knowledge that it is without any foundation other than "I wish this were so".

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Actually, an ostritch and a hummingbird can mate... but it's not a pretty sight!! ;)

Really? They are genetically similar enough to produce offspring?

[and now, for something completely different] What would you get? A really fast ground bird that tries to hover over flowers? Over a small hummingbird-like creature that dives into the sand to hide it's head? :D

Back to the topic. I'm still waiting for a debate!!

Cheers,
Lane

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler
Really? They are genetically similar enough to produce offspring? No.Back to the topic. I'm still waiting for a debate!! Me too... [and now, for something completely different] What would you get? A really fast ground bird that tries to hover over flowers? Over a small hummingbird-like creature that dives into the sand to hide it's head? :D Old The Good Life joke:

“The Ooh-Ah bird is so-called because it lays square eggs.”

Cheers, Oolon

[VonEvilstein]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Old The Good Life joke:

“The Ooh-Ah bird is so-called because it lays square eggs.”

Cheers, Oolon

{straying wildly off topic}

Would this belong to the same kind as the Ooohmegoolies bird? This bird has no legs, hence when the male lands from flight, you can hear its distinctive call of "oooh me goolies!"

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler
Really? They are genetically similar enough to produce offspring?

[and now, for something completely different] What would you get? A really fast ground bird that tries to hover over flowers? Over a small hummingbird-like creature that dives into the sand to hide it's head? :D

Back to the topic. I'm still waiting for a debate!!

Cheers,
Lane

I would think it would require a male hummingbird breeding with a female ostrich. Doing it the other way around would cause the hummingbird to explode. ;)

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Wait a minute! I’d forgotten I had this one:

The new species, Microraptor gui, provides yet more evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and could go a long way to answering a question scientists have puzzled over for close to 100 years: How did a group of ground-dwelling flightless dinosaurs evolve to a feathered animal capable of flying?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html

The dino-to-bird studies become more fascinating with each new discovery. The fossils coming out of China are extraordinary!

doov

They're just chickens with rickets.

[Division By Zero]

Dayton, I'll repeat my question: What is your justification for stating that natural selection "does not work?"

[Roland98]

Dayton,

I see you've answered (sort of) the plant question; so at the risk of being annoying, I'll post this pic again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Which "kind" is each, and why?

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
They're just chickens with rickets.

Of course they are! Carnivorus KFC bait sffering from poor nutrition!! The scales have fallen from mine eyes and I can see it all with great clarity, now! (insert hysterical smily here.)

:D

doov

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Dayton
These plants are not related. They each reproduce after their own kind, but they are not of the same kind.

Then why do molecular systematic studies show that these plants are more genetically similar to each other than they are to any other plants on earth? Upon discovering this genetic relationship, the researchers then went on to cross these different genera with each other... and produced fertile hybrid offspring. This is interesting but not terribly astonishing to the evolutionary biologist; the plants are descended from a common ancestral species, and its descendants have simply retained the ability to interbreed even though they have changed quite a bit morphologically since they diverged. These plants, despite their obvious differences, are related.

How does biblical creationism explain these facts better than evolution does? Why should an evolutionary biologist give up a perfectly good evolutionary explanation in favor of special creation?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Why should an evolutionary biologist give up a perfectly good evolutionary explanation in favor of special creation? It’s plain that we do not have to. It is Dayton who would rather stick his fingers in his ears and sing “La-la-la-la-la-I’m-not-listening!”

Oolon

[Principia]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
It’s plain that we do not have to. It is Dayton who would rather stick his fingers in his ears and sing “La-la-la-la-la-I’m-not-listening!”

Oolon

And where else better to do that, than to trek over to la-la land (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000609.html)? :D

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Principia
And where else better to do that, than to trek over to la-la land (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000609.html)? :D
Ha! Well I guess he'll feel rather more at home there amid the other... um... oh, fill in your own adjective... people there.

Well he had all the hallmarks of a drive-by anyway, but when we did get a few replies, he got my hopes up. Still, the evening is still young, he may return with some answers to our questions...

Oolon

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ha! Well I guess he'll feel rather more at home there amid the other... um... oh, fill in your own adjective... people there.

Well he had all the hallmarks of a drive-by anyway, but when we did get a few replies, he got my hopes up. Still, the evening is still young, he may return with some answers to our questions...

Oolon

..not holding my breath. (insert little smiley turning blue here)
*sigh*

[Daggah]

Dayton, do you believe that microevolution can account for all the various breeds (and the differences between them) of dogs? Are poodles and labradors the same kind?

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Daggah
Dayton, do you believe that microevolution can account for all the various breeds (and the differences between them) of dogs? Are poodles and labradors the same kind?

Hmm, yes. And what about the Cape hunting dogs, fennic foxes, and dingos?

How 'bout hyenas? They certainly look enough like dogs.

Could any of these interbreed sucessfully (less the hyena, of course, who is not a canine and would happily devour the others long before the nuptuals, anyway)? Hey, I don't know; I'm asking.

doov

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
How 'bout hyenas? They certainly look enough like dogs.

Ah, but we can do better than that even! What of hyaenas and the aardwolf? Shame I can't easily find a picture of each's skulls.. but here they are 'in the flesh':

Hyaena
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020427/a1609_2948.jpg

Aardwolf
http://www.livingdesert.org/images/aardwolftld.jpg

Their skulls -- everything about them, really -- are very very similar... with the exception of the aardwolf's teeth, which are greatly reduced. But then, it feeds pretty well exclusively on termites, and crushing termite bones is fairly easy. It has sticky saliva instead. (Is stickiness of saliva something that could not incrementally improve as generations pass?)

Note that these critters are in separate genera: Crocuta for hyaenas and Proteles for aardwolves.

No comments from Dayton, I suppose? (Where's the 'What kind is it' thread? If he returns, maybe he could treat us to some baraminology...)

Cheers, Oolon

[dayton]

Originally posted by Roland98
Dayton,

I see you've answered (sort of) the plant question; so at the risk of being annoying, I'll post this pic again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Which "kind" is each, and why?

Most are apes, but some are humans. None are related. I am not a scientist, but I would probably have to say that the last four are humans and the rest are apes.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Dayton
Most are apes, but some are humans. None are related. I am not a scientist, but I would probably have to say that the last four are humans and the rest are apes.

What criteria did you use to draw that conclusion?

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
Most are apes, but some are humans. None are related. I am not a scientist, but I would probably have to say that the last four are humans and the rest are apes.

Hi Dayton, good to see we didn't scare you off--thanks for your reply. Why do you think the last are human, and why did you draw the line there? What features did you use to reach your conclusion?

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ah, but we can do better than that even! What of hyaenas and the aardwolf? Shame I can't easily find a picture of each's skulls.. but here they are 'in the flesh':

Hyaena
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020427/a1609_2948.jpg

Aardwolf
http://www.livingdesert.org/images/aardwolftld.jpg

Their skulls -- everything about them, really -- are very very similar... with the exception of the aardwolf's teeth, which are greatly reduced. But then, it feeds pretty well exclusively on termites, and crushing termite bones is fairly easy. It has sticky saliva instead. (Is stickiness of saliva something that could not incrementally improve as generations pass?)

Note that these critters are in separate genera: Crocuta for hyaenas and Proteles for aardwolves.

No comments from Dayton, I suppose? (Where's the 'What kind is it' thread? If he returns, maybe he could treat us to some baraminology...)

Cheers, Oolon

Hah! I had not considered the aardwolf. Wish I had. Thanks!

Even without all of the human intervention, much of it silly, dogs are a widely and wildly diverse group of animals. But, o'course, they are all 'dog' kind. I would not be suprised if hyenas and aardwolves were summerly placed in this catagory, by some creationists on appearence alone. :rolleyes:.

I rather hope Dayt