IF evolution is true,

Creation is theitic, evolution is atheistic.

 

Creation is theitic, evolution is atheistic. </font>[/QUOTE]Should read: Creation is theistic, evolution is atheistic.

 

Uh - Old Regular - this theistic evolutionist exists. And I'm not the only one in the world.

 

How many atheistic creastionists are there?

 

Evolution is only as atheistic as relativity or electromagnetism or germ theory. Virtually all atheists accept these theories as well.

If your focus is on always being contrary to atheists, you have the wrong perspective. We are to embrace the truth, regardless of whether the world agrees or disagrees. If most atheists claim that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean Christians should look for an alternate type of math they can call their own. Reality is what it is for both Christians and atheists alike.

 

Good point Mercury!

 

Mercury

I'll ask you what I have asked others. Please show me your proof of evolution. I will consider it carefully and respond.

 

Hi jdcanady,

As you probably know, proof is not in the domain of science. (Proof is for math and alcohol, as the saying goes.) What I can do is point to evidence that helped to convince me when I was dealing with this issue myself. My interest in science is only as a hobby, and I encourage you to dig deeper into these issues and see where the evidence points. I'll focus on evidence for common descent, since that appears to be the part of evolution you disagree with.

One piece of evidence that helped change my mind about evolution is how humans and apes have the same gene for producing vitamin C as other mammals, but this gene is disabled due to mutations. Further, some of the mutations are the same across all these species. On the other hand, guinea pigs also have this gene disabled, but for them it is disabled in a different way with different mutations (although the guinea pig gene has not yet been studied in as much detail as the ape and human genes). This is what common descent predicts. Humans and apes are closely related, so if apes and humans share a genetic problem, it would be due to inheriting it from a common ancestor. On the other hand, the common ancestor between guinea pigs and apes is far more distant, and there are many other mammals that descend from the same ancestor without any problem in this gene. So, the theory would predict that the way the gene is broken in apes and humans should be related, and yet unrelated to how it is broken in guinea pigs. This is what we find.

Natural selection also explains how the gene would become disabled in the first place. Both guinea pigs and the common ancestor of the apes had diets high in vitamin C, so losing the ability to manufacture it would not be a disadvantage. As such, natural selection would not weed out (through death or lower birth rates) those animals who were born with a mutation that disabled this gene. However, after the disabled gene had spread throughout the population, it would continue to be there even when part of the population split and adapted to an environment where the ability to manufacture vitamin C would come in handy. So, this is why humans still have this deficiency and have to be careful to eat enough vitamin C to ward off scurvy.

Here's a more technical description of the issue ([click here] for source):

This is just one of many cases where the data not only fits common descent, but does not easily fit with the idea of an intelligent designer who created these species independently. Of course, the data also accords with the idea that evolution, including common descent, describes how God made all the species.

Atavisms are also a compelling piece of evidence for common descent. Whales have been found [with hind limbs]. This is compatible with common descent, because whales are thought to have evolved from land-based mammals who had hind limbs.

If sharks had been found with these limbs instead of whales, it would have falsified the current theories of common descent, because sharks do not have ancestors who once had hind limbs. And so, not only does the present evidence support common descent, but the theory makes predictions for what will and will not be found in the future, and the ongoing accuracy of these predictions allows us to judge the theory's veracity.

 

This isn't proof. It's speculation.

A bicycle, Subaru, and a dump truck all have tires that aren't "perfect". They wear out over time. All rational people who give thought to this commonality conclude that there was some engineering concepts shared between designers concerning the best way to make a tire. No one would ever assume without a valid, demonstrable mechanism for making it happen that the dump truck evolved from the Subaru and the Subaru from the bicycle... especially not based on the fact that any of them require tire replacement.

Human's were designed using "shared engineering" characteristics with animals. After the fall, these very pure genetic creatures were subjected to radical environmental changes in a relatively small locale. There is exactly the same amount of proof that these mutations developed because creatures that shared some common design characteristics were exposed to the same environmental shift as there is that they share a common ancestor.

Before you argue that this "could not occur", please remember that evolution depends on a great number of parallel paths of mutation. I forget the term but basically it says that the same evolutionary process takes place multiple times among different groups.

And another thing take a look at this article (notably not a creationist plot): http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/uocm-uoc060305.php

You make a case of the theory being "predictive". Here is a major case of it not being predictive but rather the opposite.

OTOH, I argued with an evolutionist here awhile back that given a much more pure genome "the kinds" of animals taken onto the Ark could have speciated (generally downward evolution) from the greater kinds to the animals we see today. This article seems to suggest a mechanism for that theory.

IOW's, my theory was predictive. Scientists have now found proof that an incredibly radical change of environment producing a bombardment of mutations would result in very fast, retained mutations.

The key difference between my theory and evolution is that we can see changes that require a loss of genetic variability or nil at best. We don't see useful new expansions of genetic information in natural processes (the kind that would cause the creation of a new, functioning system).

 

No one would ever assume without a valid, demonstrable mechanism for making it happen that the dump truck evolved from the Subaru and the Subaru from the bicycle... especially not based on the fact that any of them require tire replacement.

But each bicycle, Subaru, and dumptruck has a serial number and can be traced back to a factory where it was assembled. If that were the case with organisms we would not be having a debate.

 

Can they go backwards to land dwellers?

It would seem that the path back should be genetically very clear and easy. Assuming that whales were once land animals and that their current form is the result of an accummulation of information rather than a loss of information... where is that information? Why can't it be used?

Can you prove that the whale or any other animal is the net result of a lower form of animal evolving into higher forms? Why doesn't any "evidence" you point to for this idea likewise support the opposite... that "higher forms" or kinds of animals "evolved" by mutation and loss of genetic variability into basically what amounts to lower forms?

 

Charles, The point is about design. Please deal with that point rather than trying to divert.

My point is very simple. Design predicts and explains the things Mercury is talking about at least as well as evolution. I believe much better... but maybe that is because I work in engineering/manufacturing. When something in a machine has a given result, you can expect a certain kind of mechanism.

The whole debate that evolutionists want to avoid concerning ID is that design and engineering have characteristics. Some biologists according to reports I have seen lately are using reverse-engineering to foster genetic discovery... Basically without saying so (lest they be called scientific heretics), they are "assuming a creator" rather than "assuming naturalism"... and their assumptions are leading to predictions that work.

 

" Can they go backwards to land dwellers?"

Why yes they can.

Here is a thread for you to check out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/23.html?

Let's see how the whales go back to their land dwelling ancestors.

One of the hints that whales come from land dwelling ancestors has already been mentioned. Occasionally whales will be born with atavistic legs. Just where are they supposed to have gotten the genes for making these legs if their ancestors did not once have legs?

A very closely related issue is the development of whales. During the embryonic and fetal development, they make little tiny legs just like land dwelling mammals make except that they are reabsorbed by the time birth comes along. Except in the case of the atavisms when the genetic switch to reverse the development fails. Again, if they did not have land dwelling ancestors, why do they go through a development stage with legs?

Another closely related piece of information are some of the vestigal structures that whales have. Two examples are the vestigal pelvis and the humerous, radius, ulna, wrist and fingers of the flippers. Now the normal YE counter at this point is that these structures still have roles to play even if they are minor. The point that is missed in that is that, taking the pelvis as an example, if all that was needed was a place to anchor a few minor muscles, a much simpler structure would suffice. The only reason for something as complex as a pelvis to be in there is if the ancestors once had use for that pelvis. So, just why would whales have such vestiges if they did not have land dwelling ancestors.

From here, we can actually move to the fossil whales intermediate between land dwelling and sea going. Some of these include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus. As it turns out, the ratio of oxygen isotopes is different in fresh and marine water. So we can compare the fossils to their ratios of oxygen isotopes and show that the fossils that we would think were more aquatic actualy were. Just why would the oxygen ratios match up with the fossils if they really do not show a progression from a land dwelling animal to a marine mammal?

Now here comes the most interesting part. If you trace the whales fossils back, you come to the same group of ancestors you find if you trace the even-toed ungulates back. These are animals like deer, pigs, hippos, camels, llamas, giraffes, goats, sheep, cattle, and antelopes. Here is the good part. If you take a wide variety of mammals and do genetic testing, you will find that whales genetically test as most closely related to these even-toed ungulates. YEers usually try and dismiss genetic testing by claiming that animals with similar lifestyles and appearances should be expected to have similar DNA. (Just why they try and do this with noncoding DNA is beyond me. SOmetimes they just attempt to use a poor analogy with such examples. Maybe a story about tires after a particulary troublesome example of a shared mutation across the apes.) I would really like to see the case for a whale and a camel being so similar that we should expect them to have the same DNA! In any case, if the whales and other even-toed ungulated are not related through common descent, then why do they test as so genetically similar?

Let's end with one final piece. The sense of smell can be divided into two broad categories. Some animals, fish for example, have a sense dedicated to detecting odors in water. Some animals, maybe a dog, have a sense dedicated to detecting airborn odors. Now for each there will be dozens of genes to detect the wide variety of scents. Whales curiously have only the genes for making the sense of smell for airborn odors. Furthermore, all of these genes have become disabled and are no longer useful. I would be curious to know why a whale designed from scratch would be denied the ability to detect water born odors and would be given a disabled set of genes for detecting air born odors. So, if whales did not evolve from land dwelling ancestors, then just why do they have dozens of disabled genes for a sense of smell for airborn odors?

Recapping...

Just where are they supposed to have gotten the genes for making these legs if their ancestors did not once have legs?

If they did not have land dwelling ancestors, why do they go through a development stage with legs?

Why would whales have such vestiges (pelvis and front flipper with all the normal arm, wrist, hand and finger bones) if they did not have land dwelling ancestors?

If the whales and other even-toed ungulated are not related through common descent, then why do they test as so genetically similar?

If whales did not evolve from land dwelling ancestors, then just why do they have dozens of disabled genes for a sense of smell for airborn odors?

And please, logical and factual answers instead of arbitrary and capricious ones.

 

Since vehicles do not give birth to other vehicles, and since they do not pass down characteristics in an inheritable fashion, such as DNA, your analogy is faulty.

The trouble is that if you take that approach, the example I gave is a case of a shared engineering defect.

That would only be true if mutations were not random. As you've pointed out elsewhere (at least I think it was you), they are random. As such, there's no reason to believe that different kinds of animals would be affected by the same type of mutations in the exact same locations. That is what has happened in the gene responsible for vitamin C production in apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques) and humans.

Of course, there are also other mutations in the same gene that only show up in a few of these species, just as one would expect if mutations continued to accumulate after the gene was broken and after the apes further speciated. The amount of mutations is useful in determining the lineage, much the way that errors in manuscripts are evaluated to determine which text family they come from, and where they fit in that family.

Exactly. Just like how this deficiency turned up once in apes and again in guinea pigs. But, the two occurrences have completely different mutations, while those that inherit the nonfunctional gene in the ape line show the same base mutations (although with extra mutations as well, as described above).

The trouble is that your case and my case are two completely different things. You can discuss that article with someone else, if you wish. It's a verified prediction that the broken gene for vitamin C deficiency would be related among apes and humans. The prediction remains that sharks will not be found with hind limbs. Why aren't creation scientists out there trying to falsify predictions like this? If they are correct, then it should be as reasonable to find a shark with hind limbs (or avian-style wings, for that matter) as finding whales with hind limbs. If a designer decided to bury the genetic information for hind limbs into whales, what is to preclude that designer from doing the same thing with sharks?

Except, of course, for when we do. (See how easy it is to make an unsupported assertion?) If you'd like to support your assertion, or counter the evidence against that assertion, there's a [quiet thread on the Science board] where you can do so.

Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms. Modern bacteria are just as evolved as we are (in fact, if you go by number of generations, they are far more "evolved" than mammals). My own belief, based on the Bible, is that there is only one type of creature on this planet that shares God's image, and that is humanity. This is why humanity is special, not because our physical bodies are made of different stuff than other animals.

 

The trouble is that if you take that approach, the example I gave is a case of a shared engineering defect.</font>[/QUOTE] And that is exactly what my analogy was addressing within acknowledged limits of parallel.

Two or more designed machines can share some characteristics such as tires. Tires wear out. The only thing that proves is that a common solution was applied to different design projects.

Same with creation. The only thing these shared mutations prove is that there was a common design characteristic in the creatures- whether that characteristic came from a common ancestor or common designer.

That would only be true if mutations were not random. As you've pointed out elsewhere (at least I think it was you), they are random. As such, there's no reason to believe that different kinds of animals would be affected by the same type of mutations in the exact same locations. That is what has happened in the gene responsible for vitamin C production in apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques) and humans.

Of course, there are also other mutations in the same gene that only show up in a few of these species, just as one would expect if mutations continued to accumulate after the gene was broken and after the apes further speciated. The amount of mutations is useful in determining the lineage, much the way that errors in manuscripts are evaluated to determine which text family they come from, and where they fit in that family.

Exactly. Just like how this deficiency turned up once in apes and again in guinea pigs. But, the two occurrences have completely different mutations, while those that inherit the nonfunctional gene in the ape line show the same base mutations (although with extra mutations as well, as described above).</font>[/QUOTE] You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim something is not only possible be reality when it benefits your argument. On the other hand, you deny that it is possible when it supports ID.

Just be honest enough to say that if evolution can claim parallel but independent mutations then the same claim is valid when used by creationists.

The trouble is that your case and my case are two completely different things. You can discuss that article with someone else, if you wish. It's a verified prediction that the broken gene for vitamin C deficiency would be related among apes and humans. The prediction remains that sharks will not be found with hind limbs. Why aren't creation scientists out there trying to falsify predictions like this?</font>[/QUOTE] Because they aren't true predictions. The theory is superimposed over discovery but any time the theory fails to correctly "predict", the incident is called an anomaly or somehow twisted into another "evidence" for evolution. This is another evidence that evolution isn't truly scientific.

Nope. God designed a set of animals capable of adaptation within their kind. This is biblically expressed. Your contention is completely without merit.

Nothing except He didn't. The only difference here is that you believe these things showed up by blind chance. I believe they were designed into the animal for a purpose.

We don't actually know very much at all about the changes during the line of descent in whales. Every supposed land dwelling ancestor proposed by evolutionists has been very poorly supported... not to mention highly imaginative with the scant evidence available.

Whales might have once dwelt on land... even under a creation model. They also may have used those limbs for locomotion in shallow, ante-deluvian waters or even just used it for balance or to facilitate breeding or a thousand other things other than walking on dry land. The only thing you have here is something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless.

Except, of course, for when we do. (See how easy it is to make an unsupported assertion?) If you'd like to support your assertion, or counter the evidence against that assertion, there's a [quiet thread on the Science board] where you can do so.</font>[/QUOTE] Point to a case where a species has been observed through the process of accepting a new mutation that results in a more complex genome with greater variability... and a new useful system- not simply the adaptation of an old one.

If all you have is a creative evolutionist's explanation of something that exists, I have seen those things before and am wholly unimpressed. Possible explanations aren't facts except when they are.

UTEOW (sp?) posted a bunch of non-sense like that before. Even as a layman, it was easy to discern that the functional part of the supposed proof was conjecture, not observation.

Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).

That is an assumption. Not a fact.

The theory as I understand it suggests that bacteria separated from the tree that led to more complex animals early on.

I read something awhile back (though I doubt I will be able to find the reference so just take it for what you think its worth) that bacteria were recently found preserved inside of something that should have been millions of years old. As I remember, one of the surprises was that they varied so little from modern species.

God's declaration of man's uniqueness is first made with the claim that He created the first man, in a day, from the dust of the earth... it neither says, implies, nor even allows for billions of years of evolution from amoeba to man.

Not true. God said He formed man's body.

Man has unique physiology that enables him to think and function in ways that even the most capable animals cannot. Further, man has a unique brain design that allows for a "mind" to reside there.

If you are interested, Stroebel's "Case for a Creator" has a section that deals with the scientific evidence for and study of the fact that the mind exists separate from the brain. These studies again aren't the contrivance of whacked out creationists but rather are being conducted by large, secular universities. Fortunately, evolutionists haven't noticed the danger to their dogams and attempted to defund this important research.

If the mind is proven to be a separate entity from the brain as the evidence suggest, it means that the immaterial and unmeasurable is just as real as the material... Which completely destroys the premise of evolution.

 

The trouble is that if you take that approach, the example I gave is a case of a shared engineering defect.</font>[/QUOTE] And that is exactly what my analogy was addressing within acknowledged limits of parallel.

Two or more designed machines can share some characteristics such as tires. Tires wear out. The only thing that proves is that a common solution was applied to different design projects.

Same with creation. The only thing these shared mutations prove is that there was a common design characteristic in the creatures- whether that characteristic came from a common ancestor or common designer.

That would only be true if mutations were not random. As you've pointed out elsewhere (at least I think it was you), they are random. As such, there's no reason to believe that different kinds of animals would be affected by the same type of mutations in the exact same locations. That is what has happened in the gene responsible for vitamin C production in apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques) and humans.

Of course, there are also other mutations in the same gene that only show up in a few of these species, just as one would expect if mutations continued to accumulate after the gene was broken and after the apes further speciated. The amount of mutations is useful in determining the lineage, much the way that errors in manuscripts are evaluated to determine which text family they come from, and where they fit in that family.

Exactly. Just like how this deficiency turned up once in apes and again in guinea pigs. But, the two occurrences have completely different mutations, while those that inherit the nonfunctional gene in the ape line show the same base mutations (although with extra mutations as well, as described above).</font>[/QUOTE] You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim something is not only possible be reality when it benefits your argument. On the other hand, you deny that it is possible when it supports ID.

Just be honest enough to say that if evolution can claim parallel but independent mutations then the same claim is valid when used by creationists.

The trouble is that your case and my case are two completely different things. You can discuss that article with someone else, if you wish. It's a verified prediction that the broken gene for vitamin C deficiency would be related among apes and humans. The prediction remains that sharks will not be found with hind limbs. Why aren't creation scientists out there trying to falsify predictions like this?</font>[/QUOTE] Because they aren't true predictions. The theory is superimposed over discovery but any time the theory fails to correctly "predict", the incident is called an anomaly or somehow twisted into another "evidence" for evolution. This is another evidence that evolution isn't truly scientific.

Nope. God designed a set of animals capable of adaptation within their kind. This is biblically expressed. Your contention is completely without merit.

Nothing except He didn't. The only difference here is that you believe these things showed up by blind chance. I believe they were designed into the animal for a purpose.

We don't actually know very much at all about the changes during the line of descent in whales. Every supposed land dwelling ancestor proposed by evolutionists has been very poorly supported... not to mention highly imaginative with the scant evidence available.

Whales might have once dwelt on land... even under a creation model. They also may have used those limbs for locomotion in shallow, ante-deluvian waters or even just used it for balance or to facilitate breeding or a thousand other things other than walking on dry land. The only thing you have here is something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless.

Except, of course, for when we do. (See how easy it is to make an unsupported assertion?) If you'd like to support your assertion, or counter the evidence against that assertion, there's a [quiet thread on the Science board] where you can do so.</font>[/QUOTE] Point to a case where a species has been observed through the process of accepting a new mutation that results in a more complex genome with greater variability... and a new useful system- not simply the adaptation of an old one.

If all you have is a creative evolutionist's explanation of something that exists, I have seen those things before and am wholly unimpressed. Possible explanations aren't facts except when they are.

UTEOW (sp?) posted a bunch of non-sense like that before. Even as a layman, it was easy to discern that the functional part of the supposed proof was conjecture, not observation.

Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).

That is an assumption. Not a fact.

The theory as I understand it suggests that bacteria separated from the tree that led to more complex animals early on.

I read something awhile back (though I doubt I will be able to find the reference so just take it for what you think its worth) that bacteria were recently found preserved inside of something that should have been millions of years old. As I remember, one of the surprises was that they varied so little from modern species.

God's declaration of man's uniqueness is first made with the claim that He created the first man, in a day, from the dust of the earth... it neither says, implies, nor even allows for billions of years of evolution from amoeba to man.

Not true. God said He formed man's body.

Man has unique physiology that enables him to think and function in ways that even the most capable animals cannot. Further, man has a unique brain design that allows for a "mind" to reside there.

If you are interested, Stroebel's "Case for a Creator" has a section that deals with the scientific evidence for and study of the fact that the mind exists separate from the brain. These studies again aren't the contrivance of whacked out creationists but rather are being conducted by large, secular universities. Fortunately, evolutionists haven't noticed the danger to their dogams and attempted to defund this important research.

If the mind is proven to be a separate entity from the brain as the evidence suggest, it means that the immaterial and unmeasurable is just as real as the material... Which completely destroys the premise of evolution.

 

Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).</font>[/QUOTE]Mercury speaks the truth. Evolution is not about "lower" to "higher" lifeforms.

 

But we're not talking about something that wears out. We're talking about a gene that has been broken in certain animals due to mutations. This is like a car manufactured with tires that don't hold air. The parts are all there, but they don't work.

I think I've been quite consistent. Your argument only works by oversimplifying the details to a ridiculous level of being "something" that is alternately possible and not possible. The trouble is that the "something" I said is possible is different from the "something" I said is improbable. It is possible for mutations in separate organisms to cause the same effect. For instance, different mutations in apes and guinea pigs both broke the gene responsible for ascorbic acid production. It is not likely that independent mutations, even when breaking the same gene, would be identical. And, in fact, we find that the mutations that caused this gene to not function are different between apes and guinea pigs. However, the mutations overlap when we compare organisms that are presumed to be closely related, such as chimpanzees and humans.

You have not yet explained how a common designer hypothesis would explain this similarity in how the gene is broken if it isn't due to heredity.

What do you mean by "parallel but independent mutations"? If you mean different mutations (affecting different bits of the genome in a different way) that cause the same effect (such as breaking a gene) then of course this is possible and I certainly have no problem with creationists acknowledging this. If you mean the exact same mutation occurring independently, then this is extremely unlikely and not at all what I've been suggesting.

I'm making a prediction right now. Sharks won't be found with mammalian hind limbs like what has been found on some whales. (Instead, more types of whales and dolphins may be found with atavistic hind limbs.) Also, neither whales nor sharks will be found with avian style wings. These are real predictions that can be falsified. If the variety in creatures is due to a designer tinkering with different combinations of the same parts, then there's no reason to believe that such creatures do not exist, or that genetic defects couldn't cause an abnormal offspring with such characteristics.

According to common descent, when an atavism shows up in a creature, it must be something that was present in its ancestors. That is an extremely limiting claim. It means tails on humans are possible (and indeed [documented cases exist]), but a single feather on a human would falsify our current understanding of common descent. It also means that feathers on even one bat would be problematic, while fur on a bird (even on a type of bird whose feathers do not look like fur) would be easily explained.

Are you suggesting that some whales were allowed to develop hind limbs in order to adapt within their kind? Or, are you agreeing that whales came from land-based mammals that adapted to a water environment?

The line of descent has become more clear lately, especially due to genetic analysis, but even without it, we have the clear evidence of the genetic material necessary for growing legs within modern whales. Without this genetic material, a mutation could not cause whales to be born with hind limbs.

If you applied your same standards to the Bible that you apply to whale ancestry, you could not trust that the Bible is accurate because we can't trace the surviving manuscripts back to a specific original.

I think your fellow young-earth creationists may have a problem with the idea that whales and land mammals could be part of the same "kind". (I wonder, would this hypothetical kind have been on the ark or not? They have "the breath of life" and yet cross the earth/sea division.) Also, what we have is more than something that looks like a leg. It is something with a femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal -- the bones of a quadruped hind limb ([click here] to refresh your memory). Not only is it thought of as useless, but in some whales found with legs, they were completely encased in the whale's blubber, making it an unlikely method of locomotion no matter how shallow the water. And, of course, most whales don't have these hind limbs at all (except during fetal development).

Also, the creationist explanation does not address how these hind limbs have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales and sperm whales, and yet not in a single shark. Why do you think they are only found in those sea creatures that are thought to have once lived on land?

You need to define what you mean by lower and higher forms. Cell count? Intelligence? Size? By any of those criteria, it is true that evolution states that more came from less, but that is not a rule of evolution, and there are also cases where less came from more. Evolution is about variation and adaptation, not progress. Progress is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

No, they're still part of the tree, but the tree has branched in many directions. The branch that bacteria are on continues to evolve along with all the other still-living branches.

I'm going to skip your information claims, since I have no interest in getting into that discussion, and there're other threads about genetic information just waiting for someone like you to pick up the gauntlet.

I've given some reasons why I believe [Genesis 1 is not intended as a historical account] in another thread. Feel free to respond to that there, if you like.

I don't need scientific evidence to believe that the immaterial and unmeasurable is just as real as the material. I already believe that, and it in no way conflicts with evolution. What it does conflict with is ontological naturalism, which no theistic evolutionist accepts. Further, things that are immaterial and unmeasurable are by definition outside the scope of natural science, so it is peculiar to count on science to support these things.

[ June 21, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

I made a mistake here. This should read, "It also means that feathers on even one bat would be problematic, while scales on a bird (even on a type of bird that does not normally have scales) would be easily explained."

 

" And that is exactly what my analogy was addressing within acknowledged limits of parallel.

Two or more designed machines can share some characteristics such as tires. Tires wear out. The only thing that proves is that a common solution was applied to different design projects.

Same with creation. The only thing these shared mutations prove is that there was a common design characteristic in the creatures- whether that characteristic came from a common ancestor or common designer."

Shared design flaws, that's an interesting concept.

The reason your analogy fails is because of the lack of heritability with regard to tires. In the case of the tires, since each is obviously a separate creation, we can go down to the factory and watch, it definately indicates a common designer or designers.

But in the case of vitamin C, you cannot go back and look at the original DNA sequence and see how it got to be there, you can only see what you observe now. And what do we observe? Well, most obviously, we see a mistake shared across what YEers would tell us are multiple different "kinds." Less obvious, the damaged gene has accumulated other random mutations since the disabling mutation. The pattern of these mutations fits the expectation from the fossil record.

Those two bits of information are hard to understand if the various "kinds" involved were the product of separate, intelligent creations. Especially since it is a design flaw that is being passed on. It is an insult for you to assert that all powerful God would spread a design error across different "kinds" in this manner.

" You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim something is not only possible be reality when it benefits your argument. On the other hand, you deny that it is possible when it supports ID."

I cannot make sense of this statement.

"Just be honest enough to say that if evolution can claim parallel but independent mutations then the same claim is valid when used by creationists."

You miss the key point. The mutation in the guinea pigs is a different mutation. Same result, different cause.

" Nope. God designed a set of animals capable of adaptation within their kind. This is biblically expressed. Your contention is completely without merit."

Again you miss the key point. Atavisms are ONLY found in a manner consistent with evolution. Your explanation is arbitray and without merit since it supposes that our all powerful God gave organisms in His creation the genetic ability to make useless body parts and in addition these body parts can only be made in a manner consistent with evolution. Your explanation would hold water only if you could show atavisms that do not make sense in light of evolution, as requested. As is, your explanation is arbitrary and capricious.

And what goes for atavisms also goes for other, similar lines of evidence such as shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts, ontogeny, molecular parahomology, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges and anatomical parahomology.

" Nothing except He didn't. The only difference here is that you believe these things showed up by blind chance."

Then you fail to understand the power of selective forces if you maintain your appeal to "blind chance" as the driving force of evolution.

"We don't actually know very much at all about the changes during the line of descent in whales. Every supposed land dwelling ancestor proposed by evolutionists has been very poorly supported... not to mention highly imaginative with the scant evidence available."

I gave you a partial list of fossil transitional whales (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus). Which of these are "poorly supported" and why?

"Whales might have once dwelt on land... even under a creation model. They also may have used those limbs for locomotion in shallow, ante-deluvian waters or even just used it for balance or to facilitate breeding or a thousand other things other than walking on dry land. The only thing you have here is something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless."

Uhhhh....No.

I gave you quite a few things about whales other than "something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless." You may need to reread my post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2988/9.html#000132

So, a question for you. Are all cetaceans one "kind?" That is did all toothed whales, baleen whales and porpoises come from the same original "kind" that you seem to think might have been a land dwelling animal? You mean to tell us that a land dwelling animal can change into a sea going mammal and then can diversify into quite different cetaceans (toothed, baleen, porpoise) and then many species in a few hundred to maybe a thousand years and you are willing to call this mere microevolution?!? For that matter, drop the idea of a land dwelling ancestor. You would call the diversification of the cetaceans from some uber-whale in such a short period of time mere microevolution? Or, conversely, are you telling us that maybe there were multiple original whlae "kinds" who all had legs and who then changed into marine mammals?

Any of that would be simply amazing!

" Point to a case where a species has been observed through the process of accepting a new mutation that results in a more complex genome with greater variability... and a new useful system- not simply the adaptation of an old one."

Ohhhh...We have a thread for this one too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?