PDA

View Full Version : Unbelievable!!! Mk II



rwatts
10-11-2014, 02:48 PM
Hello fellow TWebbers,


Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

Gasp. Shock. Horror



Here is the offending article:-

The fact of natural selection (http://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza)

CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:

If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing? :huh:

However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
.
.
The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

"To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

“But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."

With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. :yipee:
WOW !!!  

Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)


:rofl: :rofl:

rogue06
10-11-2014, 03:14 PM
More and more young earth creationists are inching closer and closer to accepting evolution (or at least all of its features) -- but only as long as you don't call it evolution :smile:

The folks over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) -- Ken Ham's outfit -- have abandoned the notion that species are all divinely and separately created and acknowledge that not only speciation (the splitting of a single biological lineage into two or more genetically distinct ones) takes place but that natural selection and mutation are involved. That's pretty much the core of evolution!


"A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place... Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches.

And according to an article by Ham himself along with Terry Mortenson


Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases. ... Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.

In a couple more decades they'll probably embrace all of the elements of basic evolutionary theory, insist that they have done so all along, but call it "Biblical Adaptationism" or something like that so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong :lol:

rogue06
10-11-2014, 03:17 PM
More and more young earth creationists are inching closer and closer to accepting evolution (or at least all of its features) -- but only as long as you don't call it evolution :smile:

The folks over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) -- Ken Ham's outfit -- have abandoned the notion that species are all divinely and separately created and acknowledge that not only speciation (the splitting of a single biological lineage into two or more genetically distinct ones) takes place but that natural selection and mutation are involved. That's pretty much the core of evolution!


"A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place... Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches.

And according to an article by Ham himself along with Terry Mortenson


Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases. ... Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.

In a couple more decades they'll probably embrace all of the elements of basic evolutionary theory, insist that they have done so all along, but call it "Biblical Adaptationism" or something like that so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong :lol:
To add to this, AiG has also acknowledged that Darwin got something right


To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years).

Cow Poke
10-11-2014, 03:21 PM
...so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong :lol:

He was MARRIED, wasn't he? So of COURSE he was wrong! :glare:

Teallaura
10-11-2014, 03:39 PM
Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.

:shrug:

rogue06
10-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.

:shrug:
Back in the early days when Harold W. Clark published "Genes & Genesis" (1940), suggesting that species were the result of hybridizations he came under withering attack from other YECs who held to a total fixity of species and accused him of being a "semi-evolutionist."

Over at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) just the mention of speciation and natural selection can send the majority of YEC posters in the evolution/creationism forum into virtual fits. One refers to such things as "specularization" (speculation by secularists).

Juvenal
10-11-2014, 05:29 PM
He was MARRIED, wasn't he? So of COURSE he was wrong! :glare:

That's wrong, Wrong, WRONG, to you, mr., Mr., MR.

:guffaw: :Guffaw: :GUFFAW:

rogue06
10-11-2014, 06:56 PM
That's wrong, Wrong, WRONG, to you, mr., Mr., MR.

:guffaw: :Guffaw: :GUFFAW:
This is lao's imitation of Jorge.


Captain O strikes again :grin:

Juvenal
10-11-2014, 07:21 PM
Captain O strikes again :grin:

That's redundant, Redundant, REDUNDANT.

rogue06
10-11-2014, 07:23 PM
That's redundant, Redundant, REDUNDANT.

Admit it. You winced, Winced, WINCED when you read it :smug:

jordanriver
10-12-2014, 07:57 AM
Hello fellow TWebbers,


Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

Gasp. Shock. Horror



Here is the offending article:-

The fact of natural selection (http://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza)

CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:

If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing? :huh:

However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
.
.
The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

"To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

“But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."

With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. :yipee:
WOW !!!  

Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)


:rofl: :rofl:

Define 'Natural Selection'

Jorge
10-12-2014, 09:00 AM
Hello fellow TWebbers,


Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

Gasp. Shock. Horror



Here is the offending article:-

The fact of natural selection (http://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza)

CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:

If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing? :huh:

However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
.
.
The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

"To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

“But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."

With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. :yipee:
WOW !!!  

Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)


:rofl: :rofl:


WOW is right!!! :no: :dizzy:

I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that. :shrug:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
10-12-2014, 09:37 AM
SQUAAAAWK!! BWAAAAAK!! buk buk buk SQUAAAAWK!

:chicken:

Hey Clucky, how's your revolutionary new book on "information theory" coming? Weren't you supposed to have it published by now? Are you going to buy another fake PhD to claim on the dust jacket like you did with the last pile of anti-intellectual vomit you and Gitt barfed up?

rwatts
10-12-2014, 01:57 PM
Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.

:shrug:Clearly from what Dr Sarfati (a creationist) writes, many creationists refuse to accept that natural selection happens.


On many of the forums I post on, getting a creationist to admit that speciation and/or mutation+selection happens is an impossibility. They will often admit to variation or sub-speciation, but when asked as to the mechanism behind it, silence always follows.

rwatts
10-12-2014, 02:01 PM
WOW is right!!! :no: :dizzy:

I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that. :shrug:

Jorge Joooooorge, wouldn’t it be AMAZING if you actually showed some kind of ability to sensibly CRITIQUE this essay:-

Dinosaur to bird-tail transition Testing the theory. Genetics and the fossil record (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2965-Dinosaur-to-bird-tail-transition-Testing-the-theory-Genetics-and-the-fossil-record)

- or this one:-

“DeNovo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes” or How Some New Genes Come About. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3460-%93DeNovo-Origin-of-Human-Protein-Coding-Genes%94-or-How-Some-New-Genes-Come-About)

rwatts
10-12-2014, 02:06 PM
Define 'Natural Selection'It's any environment in which variations (often genetic) provide a differential advantage (in, say a function) to the hosting organism relative to other organisms which also have their variations, such that the variation leads to greater reproductive success for the organism relative to the others. That is a positive selection.

A negative selection an environment where variations provide disadvantages, leading to less reproductive success.


(Darwin, in addition to natural selection, proposed that sexual selection also plays a major role in evolution.)

jordanriver
10-12-2014, 02:23 PM
earlier, jordanriver posted"
"Define 'Natural Selection' "


It's any environment in which variations (often genetic) show a differential outcome (say a function) relative to each other such that one variation leads to greater reproductive success relative to another.

what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment

and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.

rwatts
10-12-2014, 02:32 PM
WOW is right!!! :no: :dizzy:

I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that. :shrug:

JorgeSo Jorge?

Do you believe in natural selection?


Creation scientist, Dr Sarfati, who, when he was a mainstream scientist, actually co-authored an article for Nature is telling you that you WON'T go to hell for accepting the reality of natural selection.

rwatts
10-12-2014, 02:34 PM
what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment Extinction happens JR. Many creationists now accept the reality of past extinctions too.


and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.I reckon so. It's the existence of the environment in which the variation occurs that's important here.

It would be intelligent selection if the intelligence did the selecting. But you have made no mention of that.

jordanriver
10-12-2014, 02:47 PM
Extinction happens JR. Many creationists now accept the reality of past extinctions too.

I reckon so. It's the existence of the environment in which the variation occurs that's important here.

It would be intelligent selection if the intelligence did the selecting. But you have made no mention of that.

I am not sure if any intelligence needs to intercede that much,
....not if it already installed the latest mechanisms to take care of the types of problems that happen in a hostile environment.

...seems to me, if the ID was the one who stuck us in this hellish environment, the least the ID can do is provide a few tools for us to get by.


.....oh, how do we know there was extinction. How do we know the "extinct" species didn't leave any descendants, ...like birds for example , .....dinos to birds ?

rwatts
10-12-2014, 03:27 PM
.....oh, how do we know there was extinction. How do we know the "extinct" species didn't leave any descendants, ...like birds for example , .....dinos to birds ?Well we know that there have been many extinctions in the past in this sense - we note that at various times in the past, certain organisms did exist but now (to the best of our knowledge) they do not.

Sure, birds did evolve from dinosaurs, but T-Rex, as an example, existed 65,000,000 years ago, but it does not exist today. And birds were around when T. Rex was around. So birds survived the extinction event whereas T-Rex and its close kin did not.

(Naturally, there is always the remote possibility that on some unexplored plateau somwhere, a whole group of T-Rex exist which are unknown to us. But this is a very, very, very remote possibility.)

Omniskeptical
10-12-2014, 04:01 PM
T-Rex is a bird, and they only thing which evolved from it was a small chicken. :chicken:

rogue06
10-12-2014, 05:15 PM
(Darwin, in addition to natural selection, proposed that sexual selection also plays a major role in evolution.)
I think he wrote a famous book on that concept. :smile:

rogue06
10-12-2014, 05:23 PM
T-Rex is a bird, and they only thing which evolved from it was a small chicken. :chicken:
Not exactly.

klaus54
10-12-2014, 09:32 PM
what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment

and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.

Yes, that's called "extinction". That's happened in a large (mass) way several times in Earth's history.

I thought you knew all about "Darwinism"?

What gives?

K54

Jorge
10-13-2014, 04:05 AM
So Jorge?

Do you believe in natural selection?


Creation scientist, Dr Sarfati, who, when he was a mainstream scientist, actually co-authored an article for Nature is telling you that you WON'T go to hell for accepting the reality of natural selection.

I will not waste more of my time re-stating what I have done so countless times before. SUMMARY: there is evolution and then there is Evolution. The former is science, the latter is part of a religion. You can figure out the rest (but you won't since that wouldn't serve your agenda).

Jorge

jordanriver
10-13-2014, 05:35 AM
Well we know that there have been many extinctions in the past in this sense - we note that at various times in the past, certain organisms did exist but now (to the best of our knowledge) they do not.

Sure, birds did evolve from dinosaurs, but T-Rex, as an example, existed 65,000,000 years ago, but it does not exist today. And birds were around when T. Rex was around. So birds survived the extinction event whereas T-Rex and its close kin did not.

(Naturally, there is always the remote possibility that on some unexplored plateau somwhere, a whole group of T-Rex exist which are unknown to us. But this is a very, very, very remote possibility.)

would they have to be T-Rex.
I was under the impression that if a species left descendants of any type, then it technically never went extinct (IOW, speciation instead of extinction):

"Over geological time, a species can have one of two fates -- it can continue, and occasionally divide so as to produce other species, or it can become extinct." Colorado Univ Biology lecture notes 5: species (http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/lectureNotes/Topic1E_Evo.htm)
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/lectureNotes/Topic1E_Evo.htm



And if you believe in such Deep Time, and Natural Selection-Evolution, the T-Rex or birds could one or the other be ancestral/descendant, no way of knowing which came first:

IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME Henry Gee ISBN 068485421X
p 147-148 (context cladistics diagrams)
"Such a diagram could be drawn for any pair of organisms, living or extinct. It could apply to two fossil fishes, a and b. Confronted with these two fossils, one might speculate that a (which is geologically the older of the two) is ancestral to b. Broadly, we might say that the species to which a belongs (let us call this species A) is ancestral to the species to which b belongs (let this be species B). We could never know this to be true. Why? First, because fossils are not found with their pedigrees; second, because there is at least one other alternative. That is, it is also possible that species B is ancestral to species A.
How can this be, if fossil a is older than fossil b? It is conceivable that species B could have evolved first. Species A could have evolved from a small population of B, but the main population of B continued alongside A. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is possible that fossil a could be a very early example of species A, and that fossil b is a late example of species B, younger than a. To say then, that a is ancestral to b might be wrong, but we can never prove the second scenario, either.
*that was an oldie, the last time I cited Gee's book (same pages), Sylas gave me points for actually reading it (during the old TWEB)

....oh, and BTW, where is this 'creationist resistance to extinction' business coming from??
Maybe you don't remember, (speaking of the old TWEB) , I was the one arguing against A. afarensis (Donald Johanson's "Lucy" hominids) being our ancestor, I argued that it was some species that went EXTINCT as a "side-branch", therefore not on any line leading to us.

later I may have been vindicated according to the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis which supposedly knocked off the whole Australopithecus genera from modern human ancestor consideration
....then Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovery about the time the scientists began to reconsider whether or not Orrorin tugenensis was worth keeping in the ancestor box, since it was only a few teeth and bone scraps

.....heh heh, yeah o-well whatever.

klaus54
10-13-2014, 06:48 AM
Genetic lines at the species and genus level have gone extinct MANY times in geologic (not ANE Genesis) history.

Dat mean dey don't leave descendants.

However the higher level taxa usually remain, and they DO have descendants. One notable exception would be trilobites (class = Phacopida) which were totally wiped out by then end of the Paleozoic.

I guess Noah d'Ark forgot to put a mating pair in one of his aquaria.

Now, how's 'bout some geology?

K54

rwatts
10-13-2014, 11:16 AM
Now, how's 'bout some geology?

K54When it comes to creationist geology, YECs are great uniformitarian thinkers.

Roy
10-13-2014, 03:04 PM
Genetic lines at the species and genus level have gone extinct MANY times in geologic (not ANE Genesis) history.They've gone extinct many times in the ANE Genesis timeframe too. Dodo*, passenger pigeon, Pyrenean ibex, Thylacine, o-o, Steller's sea cow, quagga, moa, elephant bird, Yangtze River dolphin, bluebuck, and many others for which I might have to think awhile.

Roy

*excepting Jorge

phank
10-13-2014, 03:21 PM
They've gone extinct many times in the ANE Genesis timeframe too. Dodo*, passenger pigeon, Pyrenean ibex, Thylacine, o-o, Steller's sea cow, quagga, moa, elephant bird, Yangtze River dolphin, bluebuck, and many others for which I might have to think awhile.

Roy

*excepting Jorge

Here's another cut:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Timeline_of_extinctions?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com


If we're interested in VERY recent history, here's the list:


2000s
2000 - "Celia," the last Pyrenean Ibex dies under a fallen tree. The reasons for its extinction are still being debated. However in 2009 it was cloned back into existence but died 7 minutes later due to defects in the lungs, making it extinct once again.
2003 - The last individual from the St. Helena Olive, which was grown in cultivation, dies off. The last plant in the wild had disappeared in 1994.
2006 - A technologically sophisticated survey of the Yangtze River failed to find specimens of the Baiji Dolphin, prompting scientists to declare it functionally extinct.[19]
2008 - The Liverpool Pigeon (Caloenas maculata) is thought to have become extinct.

2010s
2010 - The Alaotra Grebe (Tachybaptus rufolavatus) is declared extinct.
2011 - The Eastern Cougar was declared extinct.[20]
2011 - The Western Black Rhinoceros was declared extinct.[21]
2012 - The Japanese River Otter (Lutra lutra whiteneyi) has been declared extinct by the country’s Ministry of the Environment, after not being seen for more than 30 years.
2012 - "Lonesome George," the last known specimen of the Pinta Island Tortoise died on 10 June 2012.
2013 - The Cape Verde Giant Skink, is declared extinct.
2013 - The Formosan clouded leopard, previously endemic to the island of Taiwan, is officially declared extinct.[22]
2013 - The Scioto madtom, a species of fish is declared extinct.

klaus54
10-13-2014, 04:09 PM
When it comes to creationist geology, YECs are great uniformitarian thinkers.

Except when it comes to Siccar Point -- that confuses the Dickens out of 'em.

Uniformitarianism can bite them in the behind sometimes.

But they don't care.

The Noah d'Ark story and My First Picture Bible trumps all.

Obviously.

Just ask JordanFluss,

It's "history" after all.

Oh, and lots of other stuff.

K54

2316

rwatts
10-14-2014, 01:00 AM
would they have to be T-Rex.
I was under the impression that if a species left descendants of any type, then it technically never went extinct (IOW, speciation instead of extinction):

"Over geological time, a species can have one of two fates -- it can continue, and occasionally divide so as to produce other species, or it can become extinct." Colorado Univ Biology lecture notes 5: species (http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/lectureNotes/Topic1E_Evo.htm)
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/lectureNotes/Topic1E_Evo.htm

Well if that's how you interpret it then technically, almost nothing goes extinct. Eukaryotes still live (we are eukaryotes).

So JR, if you can show me a T_Rex living on some remote, unexplored plateau then I am all eyes.


And if you believe in such Deep Time, ...We do have evidence for it, based on things that are seen.


... and Natural Selection-Evolution, ...Dr Sarfati "believes" in it. Do you know who he is?


... the T-Rex or birds could one or the other be ancestral/descendant, no way of knowing which came first:

IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME Henry Gee ISBN 068485421X
p 147-148 (context cladistics diagrams)
"Such a diagram could be drawn for any pair of organisms, living or extinct. It could apply to two fossil fishes, a and b. Confronted with these two fossils, one might speculate that a (which is geologically the older of the two) is ancestral to b. Broadly, we might say that the species to which a belongs (let us call this species A) is ancestral to the species to which b belongs (let this be species B). We could never know this to be true. Why? First, because fossils are not found with their pedigrees; second, because there is at least one other alternative. That is, it is also possible that species B is ancestral to species A.
How can this be, if fossil a is older than fossil b? It is conceivable that species B could have evolved first. Species A could have evolved from a small population of B, but the main population of B continued alongside A. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is possible that fossil a could be a very early example of species A, and that fossil b is a late example of species B, younger than a. To say then, that a is ancestral to b might be wrong, but we can never prove the second scenario, either.
*that was an oldie, the last time I cited Gee's book (same pages), Sylas gave me points for actually reading it (during the old TWEB)Yes that is always a possibility I suppose.

But then there is a point at which the argument becomes ridiculous.

Let's face it, if you believe in time and sexual reproduction then Gee's argument, taken on face value, would mean that you could never empirically determine who was ancestral - Adam and Eve, or your great great grandparents.

So do you think you might be missing something? Here you go:-

"Campbell, Anthony (September 2011). "Book review: In Search of Deep Time". "Henry Gee, who is now Senior Editor of Nature, was a witness of this turmoil because he was working at the museum as a student in the 1970s, when he got to know the chief actors in the drama. He remains convinced that the science of cladistics is a vital intellectual tool for our understanding of what he calls Deep Time, to distinguish it from ordinary historical time, which he sees as being qualitatively as well as quantitatively different." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gee)


....oh, and BTW, where is this 'creationist resistance to extinction' business coming from?????

It's resistance to natural selection.

Did you not read the link I provided to an article by Dr Sarfati at CMI?

Nevertheless you did write in a previous post:-

"what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment"

- and I simply pointed out the obvious - "extinction happens".


Maybe you don't remember, (speaking of the old TWEB) , I was the one arguing against A. afarensis (Donald Johanson's "Lucy" hominids) being our ancestor, I argued that it was some species that went EXTINCT as a "side-branch", therefore not on any line leading to us.See above.


later I may have been vindicated according to the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis which supposedly knocked off the whole Australopithecus genera from modern human ancestor consideration
....then Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovery about the time the scientists began to reconsider whether or not Orrorin tugenensis was worth keeping in the ancestor box, since it was only a few teeth and bone scraps

.....heh heh, yeah o-well whatever.?

rwatts
10-14-2014, 01:08 AM
I will not waste more of my time re-stating what I have done so countless times before. SUMMARY: there is evolution and then there is Evolution. The former is science, the latter is part of a religion. You can figure out the rest (but you won't since that wouldn't serve your agenda).

JorgePotentially you could be a good runner Jorge, but I suspect that you are even too old for that. So all you have left is ranting and irrelevancy.

You are fun to parody however.


... there is evolution and then there is Evolution.

Well that's nice. Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

Jorge
10-14-2014, 02:29 AM
Potentially you could be a good runner Jorge, but I suspect that you are even too old for that. So all you have left is ranting and irrelevancy.

You are fun to parody however.



Well that's nice. Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

oxmixmudd
10-14-2014, 06:40 AM
To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

Yet another fact filled post by Jorge to add to his thousands of similarly fact filled posts.

So Jorge, where is this mysterious barrier that keeps 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 from equaling 1000?

IOW: What keeps the numerous small changes we can OBSERVE and catalogue, which we have OBSERVED become arger and somewhat significant changes (though at a lower frequency - e.g. nylonase) from becoming changes large enough to account for the history we OBSERVE in the fossil record and the correlations we observe in the Genome of life on the planet?


Jim

rogue06
10-14-2014, 10:04 AM
So Jorge, where is this mysterious barrier that keeps 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 from equaling 1000?
As we well know 1+1=2 but the wild notion that 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 could equal a thousand is nonsense. The former is observed MICROmathematics whereas the latter is assumed MACROmathematics. The difference is obvious. We have math with a small "m" and Math with a capital "M" which transforms it into a religion.

Anyone who does not acknowledge this blatant truth is either on drugs/drunk/dumb/deceived/deranged... or some other d-word that means they refuse to see the brilliance of this argument.

Need even more proof, Proof, PROOF? We have math with a small "m" (legitimate MICROmathematics) and Math with a capital "M" (MACROmathematics or mathematics so-called) which transforms it into a religion.

There. I repeated myself so I fully corroborated what I initially said. I'm right and you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG. So there.

klaus54
10-14-2014, 10:52 AM
To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

If you're FOUND, I'm glad to be LOST.

But I still love God and can sing Baptist hymns are tear up with the best of 'em.

Think about that.

K54

klaus54
10-14-2014, 10:56 AM
As we well know 1+1=2 but the wild notion that 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 could equal a thousand is nonsense. The former is observed MICROmathematics whereas the latter is assumed MACROmathematics. The difference is obvious. We have math with a small "m" and Math with a capital "M" which transforms it into a religion.

Anyone who does not acknowledge this blatant truth is either on drugs/drunk/dumb/deceived/deranged... or some other d-word that means they refuse to see the brilliance of this argument.

Need even more proof, Proof, PROOF? We have math with a small "m" (legitimate MICROmathematics) and Math with a capital "M" (MACROmathematics or mathematics so-called) which transforms it into a religion.

There. I repeated myself so I fully corroborated what I initially said. I'm right and you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG. So there.

And don't get me going about Aleph-Null.

K54

2319

rwatts
10-14-2014, 12:37 PM
To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

JorgeWe all note that you couldn't even raise a comment on this part of a very short post:-


Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

You've had to carry your stinging bottom out on a tray every time we've discussed it Jorge. Even on that point, you are unable to mount a coherent, reasoned, evidence based argument.

Those essays I wrote, on the bird/dinosaur tail transition and denovo genes, all you could offer was a short rant, before running off.

Besides it's nice to have friends who are Christians as it is to have friends who are non Christian. None of them are runners, and so I can be sure that they will stick around.

rwatts
10-14-2014, 12:42 PM
Except when it comes to Siccar Point -- that confuses the Dickens out of 'em.

Uniformitarianism can bite them in the behind sometimes.

But they don't care.

The Noah d'Ark story and My First Picture Bible trumps all.

Obviously.

Just ask JordanFluss,

It's "history" after all.

Oh, and lots of other stuff.

K54

2316Yummy. A picture of a chocolate flake wafer bar. :teeth:

klaus54
10-14-2014, 03:33 PM
Yummy. A picture of a chocolate flake wafer bar. :teeth:

2323

rwatts
10-14-2014, 08:27 PM
2323
Any news on how Jorge is holding up under the strain of a creation scientist telling him not to be afraid of natural selection?


( I still reckon that picture is of a chocolate bar. We have 'em here in Oz, called "Flake":-

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://mygroceriesdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cadbury-flake.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mygroceriesdirect.com/product/cadbury-flake/&h=129&w=389&tbnid=5dm5-B5-iZzKwM:&zoom=1&tbnh=66&tbnw=200&usg=__KwDZOHOtBE09C3KqYdM3vsX7rr8=&docid=Jii4XWHbYNyecM&itg=1&ved=0CJQBEMo3&ei=yuo9VOTNNsXCigKkm4GYDQ

- and when they get a bit crumbly inside the wriapping, they look just like that.)

klaus54
10-15-2014, 06:34 AM
Any news on how Jorge is holding up under the strain of a creation scientist telling him not to be afraid of natural selection?


( I still reckon that picture is of a chocolate bar. We have 'em here in Oz, called "Flake":-

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://mygroceriesdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cadbury-flake.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mygroceriesdirect.com/product/cadbury-flake/&h=129&w=389&tbnid=5dm5-B5-iZzKwM:&zoom=1&tbnh=66&tbnw=200&usg=__KwDZOHOtBE09C3KqYdM3vsX7rr8=&docid=Jii4XWHbYNyecM&itg=1&ved=0CJQBEMo3&ei=yuo9VOTNNsXCigKkm4GYDQ

- and when they get a bit crumbly inside the wriapping, they look just like that.)

Well, I am rather a "flake", but I do wonder how Jor and JR would explain this formation.

A work of the Devil perhaps?

K54