Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Observationalist

All these journals may prove that Evolution works

Don't fall for their go-fish game. None of those experiments exhibit an organism changing into another organism (evolution).

It doesn't even happen in a lab operated by intelligent humans, and therefore is even less probable to occur without intelligent intervention.

I would say don't fall for your BS for which you have never posted a credible citation much less explained an experiment which showed that evolution is not a valid interpretation of life on this planet.

BTW, there are many experiments which have demonstrated speciation. You just ignore the citations when they're posted and make believe they don't exist. Your bogus "science" hit the wall a long time ago.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I would say don't fall for your BS for which you have never posted a credible citation much less explained an experiment which showed that evolution is not a valid interpretation of life on this planet.

You want me to prove a negative? that's not how it works in the science world. The countless generations of fruit flies and mice that never change into another organism do insist on the negative though: evolution does not happen.

BTW, there are many experiments which have demonstrated speciation. You just ignore the citations when they're posted and make believe they don't exist. Your bogus "science" hit the wall a long time ago.

You are hiding behind semantics. An organism has not changed into another organism. Finches remain finches, bacteria remain bacteria, nematodes remain nematodes, humans remain humans. That is what the experiments persistently demonstrate, despite how much scientists have tried to show otherwise.

a reply to: cooperton

Believe what you want. But you have no evidence. Science does.

originally posted by: cooperton

You are hiding behind semantics. An organism has not changed into another organism. Finches remain finches, bacteria remain bacteria, nematodes remain nematodes, humans remain humans. That is what the experiments persistently demonstrate, despite how much scientists have tried to show otherwise.

You're right -- there was never one organism that gave birth to another organism of a different species. That didn't happen, and Evolution does not make the claim that it happens.

Evolution tells us that there is no such thing as the first example of any species. That's not the way it works. It may seem counterintuitive, but every generation is the same species as its parents, and every generation is the same species as its children. There was no such thing as "the first human" that was born from non-human parents.

That is, even though a direct ancestor to Homo sapiens is Homo erectus, two Homo erectus parents never created an offspring that was suddenly Homo sapiens. It happened slowly. Each offspring is a transitional example that might have a slightly different genetic makeup as the combination of its two parents, but not different enough to be a different species (not even close to being different enough to be a different species).

However, and over time, tiny incremental changes generation after generation eventually can give rise to something that is not the same species as its more distant ancestors, even if it was the same species as its parents, and its parents were the same species as their parents, etc.:

a reply to: cooperton

Your lack of knowledge is outrageous. I don't know why you're even interested in the subject. You never respond to a credible citation - because you can't. You repeat the same trash ad infinitum with zero evidence. It must get very boring.

Just to clarify, dinosaurs and birds are a prime example of speciation. This is a post I made in another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a lot of complexity to speciation. To understand how it works, you need to read the real science, how theories are developed, tested and results interpreted. This is a good place to start:

en.wikipedia.org...

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages.[1][2][3] Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book The Origin of Species.[4]

He also identified sexual selection as a likely mechanism, but found it problematic. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments.

Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion. Rapid sympatric speciation can take place through polyploidy, such as by doubling of chromosome number; the result is progeny which are immediately reproductively isolated from the parent population. New species can also be created through hybridisation followed, if the hybrid is favoured by natural selection, by reproductive isolation.

At the bottom of that page are 92 references where you can find the research around the topic. There's also an extensive bibliography.

You can't expect to understand something without studying the subject. I don't know how you've formulated your opinion, but the real science of evolution is documented in hundreds of research articles which go into great detail about the experiments.

An excellent example of speciation is dinosaurs evolving into birds. The research is extensive and well documented. Read the article below - it's a great learning tool.

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds


Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible. www.quantamagazine.org...

Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds — giants compared to most modern birds — and they had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears.

A velociraptor, for example, had a skull like a coyote’s and a brain roughly the size of a pigeon’s. For decades, paleontologists’ only fossil link between birds and dinosaurs was archaeopteryx, a hybrid creature with feathered wings but with the teeth and long bony tail of a dinosaur. These animals appeared to have acquired their birdlike features — feathers, wings and flight — in just 10 million years, a mere flash in evolutionary time. “Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,” said Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England. To explain this miraculous metamorphosis, scientists evoked a theory often referred to as “hopeful monsters.” According to this idea, major evolutionary leaps require large-scale genetic changes that are qualitatively different from the routine modifications within a species.

Only such substantial alterations on a short timescale, the story went, could account for the sudden transformation from a 300-pound theropod to the sparrow-size prehistoric bird Iberomesornis.

a reply to: Phantom423

Your external quote ended at an unfortunate point. The article continues:

But it has become increasingly clear that the story of how dinosaurs begat birds is much more subtle. Discoveries have shown that bird-specific features like feathers began to emerge long before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds simply adapted a number of pre-existing features to a new use.

a reply to: Phage

Speciation is determined through molecular genetics. No doubt it's a complex process, but comparative analysis clearly shows the gene flow from dinosaurs and other reptiles to birds.

Gene discovery may reveal how scaly dinosaurs became feathery birds

A study shows that tweaking the genes of alligators can produce feather-like structures – we could be on our way to understanding how birds became birds

Clearly there is some way to go, but the identification of only a few genes, still present in modern crocodilians such as alligators, that can be changed quite easily into rather simple feather-like filaments is most intriguing. There is a huge diversity in the feathers seen in the dinosaurs on the run-up to birds, as well as those in other dinosaur lineages and their relatives the flying pterosaurs, and this shows the possibilities when it comes to filaments. A few more tweaks to these genes might show us the complete pathways from scale to feather – and then the real question of how birds became birds and first grew their feathers can, perhaps, be answered.

www.theguardian.com...

A research paper with more detail:


The origin of the bird's beak: new insights from dinosaur incubation periods

royalsocietypublishing.org...

Abstract

The toothless beak of modern birds was considered as an adaption for feeding ecology; however, several recent studies suggested that developmental factors are also responsible for the toothless beak. Neontological and palaeontological studies have progressively uncovered how birds evolved toothless beaks and suggested that the multiple occurrences of complete edentulism in non-avian dinosaurs were the result of selection for specialized diets. Although developmental biology and ecological factors are not mutually exclusive, the conventional hypothesis that ecological factors account for the toothless beak appears insufficient.

A recent study on dinosaur incubation period using embryonic teeth posited that tooth formation rate limits developmental speed, constraining toothed dinosaur incubation to slow reptilian rates. We suggest that selection for tooth loss was a side effect of selection for fast embryo growth and thus shorter incubation. This observation would also explain the multiple occurrences of tooth loss and beaks in non-avian dinosaur taxa crownward of Tyrannosaurus. Whereas our hypothesis is an observation without any experimental supports, more studies of gene regulation of tooth formation in embryos would allow testing for the trade-off between incubation period and tooth development.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Just to clarify, dinosaurs and birds are a prime example of speciation. This is a post I made in another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just imagination. Humans saw dinosaurs on every continent throughout history. Evolution is debunked.

Dinosaurs lived with humans

There's nothing to refute in your sources because it is all speculation. The post I did above is all empirical historical evidence that is based in reality, not fantasy.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Just to clarify, dinosaurs and birds are a prime example of speciation. This is a post I made in another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just imagination. Humans saw dinosaurs on every continent throughout history. Evolution is debunked.

Dinosaurs lived with humans

There's nothing to refute in your sources because it is all speculation. The post I did above is all empirical historical evidence that is based in reality, not fantasy.

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.
You're wasting your time.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.
You're wasting your time.

The difference between you and I, is that I have pioneered your religion. I was a strict and zealous adherent for almost a decade, and I remember ignoring all evidence that was contrary to evolution. Once I emerged from this dead-end hopeless state I began to see clearly. So I know your perspective. Your stubbornness prevents you from real knowledge.

You on the other hand cannot see the other perspective. Your religious material-reductionist dogma prevents you from seeing the deeper common denominator of reality.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.
You're wasting your time.

The difference between you and I, is that I have pioneered your religion. I was a strict and zealous adherent for almost a decade, and I remember ignoring all evidence that was contrary to evolution. Once I emerged from this dead-end hopeless state I began to see clearly. So I know your perspective. Your stubbornness prevents you from real knowledge.

You on the other hand cannot see the other perspective. Your religious material-reductionist dogma prevents you from seeing the deeper common denominator of reality.

I have no "religious material". That's another thing you don't understand: RELIGION. You're not religious, much less a Christian. You're a cultist living in some dream world:

cultist - a member of an unorthodox cult who generally lives outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. cult - followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I have no "religious material". That's another thing you don't understand: RELIGION. You're not religious, much less a Christian. You're a cultist living in some dream world:

cultist - a member of an unorthodox cult who generally lives outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. cult - followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

I live happily among friends and family, openly speaking my mind and learning and growing through productive conversations from all sorts of perspectives. I can speak with the muses of the Hindus, Buddhists, and even Muslims. I can speak science, I know the difference between empirical evidence and faith in the theoretical. You let the one ruin the other: your faith in evolution blinds you from considering empirical evidence that disproves your religion.

You are viewing life myopically. Go outside a little and explore other perspectives without elitist chauvinism.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

You're right -- there was never one organism that gave birth to another organism of a different species. That didn't happen, and Evolution does not make the claim that it happens.

Evolution tells us that there is no such thing as the first example of any species. That's not the way it works. It may seem counterintuitive, but every generation is the same species as its parents, and every generation is the same species as its children. There was no such thing as "the first human" that was born from non-human parents.

Then we would see many transition species, but we do not. If what you say is true, then there would be plenty of living examples of transitional species. But Dogs are dogs, mice are mice, fruit flies are fruit flies, there are no lucid transition animals that we can see. Look up the supposed evidence of tiktaalik, it was deemed a transition fossil yet there is only one fossil found, and it is missing most of its anatomy. It shows how desperately the evolutionary theorists are grasping for transition fossils. Notice that most of the pictures of tiktaalik are artist's renditions, attempting to fulfill their own fairy tale, despite the lack of anatomical evidence present in the actual fossil.There are no lucid examples of transition fossils, so they use their imagination!

I understand you are going through a progression of understanding science and material reductionism is a common intermediary step. But evolution is inevitably a dead-end, and the empirical evidence is not sufficient by any means to demonstrate its validity. There are countless aspects that clearly demonstrate evolution and the historical timeline did not happen the way we were all taught in school.

for example: Dinosaurs were younger and lived contemporaneously with humans

a reply to: cooperton

There is no such thing as a transition species. You seem to think that this is some quantized situation. Every generation of a species is a transition to the next. Thus you don't see "transition species".

Thats a nice strawman you tried, but the wind of logics a bit much for it.

a reply to: cooperton

How about the humble sea slug, originally an animal yet it has feasted on so much algae that it has managed to steal the genes which create the chlorophyll and now can synthesis its own chlorophyll and is now considered part animal part plant

isn't this evidence of evolution

or is it just an adaptation ?

in any case the sea slug is no longer the same species it used to be !

Green Sea Slug makes Chlorophyll like a plant

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

How about the humble sea slug, originally an animal yet it has feasted on so much algae that it has managed to steal the genes which create the chlorophyll and now can synthesis its own chlorophyll and is now considered part animal part plant

One of the main reasons that the misconception of evolutionary theory continues is because its proponents view all data from the lens that it must be absolutely true. So when they observed the sea slug, as always, it was deemed to be a product of evolution. But genomic analysis shows there was no horizontal gene transfer from the algae to the slug.

No horizontal gene transfer for photosynthetic slug

"Here, we generated significant genome data from the E. chlorotica germ line (egg DNA) and from V. litorea to test the horizontal gene transfer hypothesis. Our comprehensive analyses fail to provide evidence for alga-derived horizontal gene transfer into the germ line of the sea slug."

Also be careful of pop-science blogs, they improperly attribute all sorts of things to evolution without due process. Generally after thorough analysis the researchers are befuddled regarding the mechanism of how traits could have came to be, because it seems thoroughly impossible through theorized evolutionary mechanisms.

a reply to: cooperton

Again you speak as if you know any of us. We view all data as something which is open to be reviewed.


Creationists such as yourself, assume its always wrong. You never do the leg work

originally posted by: Noinden
You never do the leg work

I just posted a source from a scientific journal that supports the point I was making. You just assume anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, which is the worst kind of chauvinism.

Notice how you didn't debate the article, you just accuse me of being lazy, even after I post a relevant article.

a reply to: cooperton

Its not chauvinism neighbor. Tell you what, post a convincing narrative of papers, like there is for evolution, and we will talk. However single papers don't count, until such time as they are part of a continued trend.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

Life or the precursory materials may have happened elsewhere and just found its way to earth through panspermia it may not have even happened on earth , these required protein chains may have existed first elesewhere millions of years before earth even existed and through panspermia have found their way here via comet

With “may have happened”, aren't you referring to the emergence of life or the precursory materials by chance and natural processes alone? An event that according to you “may have happened elsewhere”. Cause the switch to “existed” is a little confusing and distracting. After all, the discussion was about the cause of the emergence of life or the precursory materials (or proteins to be more exact concerning what you were responding to). Anyway, your desire for this event to be a possibility (“may have”) isn't very compelling. It sounds so far-fetched to me, that even if you had provided at least 1 reason for others to believe/think that any of your suggested possibilities are actually possible, it would probably still sound like wishful thinking and fiction to me. Without any such reason provided in that comment, it definitely sounds like wishful thinking and fiction to me.

Anyway, it also reminds me of something someone in the 70's once wrote (my initial reason for responding):

Evolutionists also have the knack of quickly dismissing crucial problems with their airy speculations. Without proof, amazing transformations of one complex form of life into another are referred to as fact, in the style of the writer of fairy tales.

With the wave of a wand, the evolutionist makes a scale become a feather, or a hair. A fin becomes a leg, which somehow vanishes in a snake, but then turns into a wing on a bird, a hoof on a horse, a claw on a cat, a hand on a man. Such “explanations” are science fiction at its fictionest.

Nitrogenous wastes, once eliminated as ammonia by fish, are eliminated as urea in amphibians, but then changed to uric acid in reptiles, then back to urea in mammals. Mammals supposedly modified their sweat glands into becoming breasts that produced milk, and bore live young that by another chance coincidence developed, at the very same time, the instinctive wisdom to suck at the breasts!

At times, I felt that such explanations were not given in all seriousness. They must be joking, I thought. But they are serious! They are not joking! They accept science fiction as true science.

It is little wonder that their books are filled with ‘could-have-beens,’ ‘might-have-beens,’ ‘may-have-beens,’ which, after a while and after much repetition, become ‘must-have-beens.’ Possibilities become probabilities, which then become certainties. Assumptions evolve into dogmas. Speculations become conclusions. High-sounding language evolves into “evidence.”

All of this is traitorous to the true scientific method. But by means of this brainwashing, blind faith in evolution evolves. With it evolves the arrogant authoritarianism required to sustain what they cannot prove. Sweeping proclamations are used as a club against unbelievers, perhaps even reassuring the evolution priesthood, those who are its promoters.

With “referred to as fact” and “become certainties” he was referring to statements such as the ones he mentioned earlier:

. . . But now I specifically examined recent writings of prominent evolutionists.

In doing so I was struck by the type of “browbeating” or “brainwashing” they used. This is typified by the following brief summary from twelve books by eleven different evolutionists:

‘Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge. It is recognized by all responsible scientists. All reputable biologists agree that it is an established fact. No informed mind today denies that man descended from the fish. It is no longer a matter of doubt.

‘The evidence is overwhelming. No further proof is required by anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices.’

That is the consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect. It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.

But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?

True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.