Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 81 of 137 (601250)
01-19-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
01-19-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
They can produce offspring that can produce offspring.
So how did you determine that the 330 species of foraminifera were interfertile? Also, can you actually show me the offspring of a chihuahua and wolf? Does such a critter exist? How would that work, exactly?
Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose.
I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage. The overwhelming signal is common ancestry and the expected nested hierarchy. This also follows through for overal ERV divergence and LTR divergence, the two other phylogenetic signals seen in ERV's.
And I still have not seen a creationist explanation for the pattern of homology in the hominid fossil record. Why is it that we see the emergence of modern human features through time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 12:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 2:32 PM Taq has replied
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 6:29 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 83 of 137 (601270)
01-19-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by barbara
01-19-2011 2:32 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Mu understanding is there is only 7 ERV's shared in all primates and that is also out of thousands mentioned here.
Such ERV's would probably need to be under positive selection to keep from being mutated beyond recognition since integration in the common ancestor of all primates (ca 35 million years if memory serves). For all apes we have a much more recent common ancestor (ca 10 million years).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 2:32 PM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 90 of 137 (601542)
01-21-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
01-21-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God.
Which of the fossils in the post above are different critters from humans, and what criteria are you using?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:09 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 102 of 137 (601582)
01-21-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Which one is less than 10,000 years old?
Since you don't accept radiometric dating you will have to tell me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 3:12 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 104 of 137 (601584)
01-21-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:28 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Would you classify the two horses in my avatar as different critters?
I wouldn't classify any two living species as different critters. I would, however, classify them as different species if there were a population of large horses and small horses with no genetic flow between the populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:28 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 105 of 137 (601586)
01-21-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
01-21-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Isn't cancer a mutation?
Isn't plaque a mutation?
In fact isn't all our physical problems caused by a mutation?
Seriously? Read up on the difference between somatic mutations and germ line mutations. Also read up on plaque (hint: microorganisms). Also, if someone breaks their leg in a car accident is that due to a mutation? You have heard of "wear and tear" have you not?
Sure it is possible. But if the DNA is the same to begin with they could end up with the same sets of mutations regardless of their location.
False. Mutations are random so each population will accumulate DIFFERENT mutations which causes the two populations to diverge over time. The more time that passes the less similar the populations are.
They could also be related to different beginnings of different creatures.
Based on what evidence?
I think I would call it the opposite of evolution as it seems that when enough time has passed everything becomes extinct.
Obviously, not all lineages went extinct. Do you ever think these things through?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 3:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 2:40 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 106 of 137 (601587)
01-21-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:47 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
But I do have other information it is called "God's Word".
How did you determine that this information is correct?
Does that mean they would be a lot different from their predecessors? Not necessarly because the designer would only make revisions and addtions to the original design to produce the modern man.
Why would the designer do this? Why not start from scratch? For an all powerful and all knowing deity it would be just as easy to start from scratch as it would to redesign an already existing species. Also, this doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. There is nothing stopping a redesign from incorporating designs from other lineages.
If they were not capable of leaving that iformation then they are not the same as modern man, we have planted the information.
There are tons of cave paintings that predate modern man.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:47 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 116 of 137 (601812)
01-24-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
01-22-2011 3:12 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Can you produce any post in which I have ever expressed an opinion as to the whether I accept or reject radiometric dating methods?
I can't remember in over 3 years where I expressed that opinion.
Then I apologize for confusing your claims with others.
With that said, is your sole criteria the age of the skull for determining whether or not the skulls are from modern humans? What methodologies do you approve of for determining the age of these skulls?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 3:12 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 117 of 137 (601813)
01-24-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
01-22-2011 2:40 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Are you saying, each cancer does not starts with changes in one cell or a small group of cells?
None of which are passed on to the next generation. Somatic mutations are not heritable.
Are you saying, arterial plaque does not start with damage to the artery and the response of the cells multiplying?
You began by talking about plaque which I assumed was oral plaque which is the result of bacterial growth, not mutations. Also, arterial plaques are not due to mutations.
Not yet.
We have thousands of species going extinct each year.
How many replacements do we have coming on line?
The number of living species has been highly variable through time. The Permian extinction even saw the disappearance of roughly 95% of species. The K/T extinction even 65 million years ago saw the same extinction rate for species larger than 30 kg or so. It took quite some time for species diversity to return after these major extinction events. Smaller extinction events have also occurred, such as the extinction of megafauna after the last ice age. And yet, every living species has an ancestor that made it through those extinction events. Species diversity is always in flux, and I would expect the future will be the same.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 2:40 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 6:25 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 136 of 137 (602532)
01-28-2011 6:14 PM


The creationist explanations in this thread fail to explain the hominid fossil record for the following reasons:
1. It fails to explain the nested hierarchy. A designer who is improving on old designs is free to mix and match parts from other lineages. In fact, this is exactly what we see in human designs. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, nor is there any reason that they should. A human designer is capable of taking the tires from a Volvo, the engine from a Subaru, the chassis from a Ford, and the suspension from a BMW, put them altogether, and voila, a new and improved car. In biology we do not see that. Instead, new features stay within the lineages proposed by evolution. Clearly, the nested hierarchy can not be explained by creationism and it has not explained the nested hierarchy seen in the hominid fossil record.
2. Creationism can not explain why it took multiple steps to begin with. This is not an idea that comes from creationism itself. The "theory" of creationism does not predict that we should find hominid fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. Even more, creationism suggests that the hominid record is the result of descent with modification. Hmm, what does that sound like? I think it starts with an E.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024