The 2 Creatures That Could Deny Evolution !

originally posted by: TerraLiga
A stronger tail evolves that allows small mammal to stand on hind legs to spot danger earlier for longer.

Even inherited muscle strength is epigenetic. As a refresher, epigenetic inheritance is not evolution because epigenetics are reversible, and evolution relies on hard-wired genetic changes. 'muscle memory' is actually an epigenetic trait:

epigenetic muscle memory

Epigenetic traits are also inheritable. Meaning this scenario you are speculating about does not require evolution, because epigenetics works from what is already present in the genome, and simply increases or decreases certain genes depending on the needs of the organism. These changes cannot go outside the bounds of the genetic code, meaning it does not support evolution. If anything, it supports Lamarckism, which is antithetical to evolutionary theory.

Longer rear legs evolve to stand taller and spot danger further away. Bigger eyes evolve and, so on

Do you have evidence that bigger eyes evolved? Do you have evidence that longer rear legs evolved? All you have is speculation. You just assume evolution is true, and speculate how traits would have came to be without any scientific evidence. That's not how science works, but that's how the imaginary world of evolutionary theory runs.

To clarify, the creature I described was entirely fictitious. Its evolutionary journey was purely illustrative.

That aside, however, you have linked a report that says in the first sentence in its opening paragraph the following:

It is unknown if adult human skeletal muscle has an epigenetic memory of earlier encounters with growth.

So to claim it as fact is reaching on your part, unless you count ‘unknown’ as ‘fact’, like you attribute ‘I don’t know’ to ‘god did it’.

Also, the study length was also only 22 weeks long:

Finally, genes; GRIK2, TRAF1, BICC1, STAG1 were epigenetically sensitive to acute exercise demonstrating hypomethylation after a single bout of resistance exercise that was maintained 22 weeks later with the largest increase in gene expression and muscle mass after reloading.

Even a god-fearing creationist nerd like you will know that is not nearly enough time for evolutionary traits to reveal themselves in a mammal.

This was just from the Abstract, which proves it is an entirely inappropriate source for this topic. You must do better with your Google searches.

Can you enlighten me by stating your understanding of evolution please? I’ve asked before but you have chosen to ignore it. I’ve also asked you for your alternative to evolution by natural selection and you’ve ignored that too. Are you too shy or embarrassed to explain your theories?

Come on little fella, what can your bible studies bring to the table that science can’t?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
That aside, however, you have linked a report that says in the first sentence in its opening paragraph the following:
"It is unknown if adult human skeletal muscle has an epigenetic memory of earlier encounters with growth"

So to claim it as fact is reaching on your part, unless you count ‘unknown’ as ‘fact’.

if you would have read the next sentence, it shows they were using that sentence as a prelude to their discovery:

"We report, for the first time in humans, genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression (epigenetic) analysis after muscle hypertrophy (loading), return of muscle mass to baseline (unloading), followed by later hypertrophy (reloading)"

Even a god-fearing creationist nerd

The world needs less bullies, chill out. Does it make you feel better about your self calling other people nerds anonymously online?

I’ve also asked you for your alternative to evolution by natural selection and you’ve ignored that too.

I've answered this multiple times. Disproving a theory doesn't require an alternative. If a theory is not viable, you shouldn't keep it for the sake of no other alternative. You're trying to defend your theory by ridiculing others? It shows the lack of evidence supporting your ideas.

You didn’t address the 22-week limited study though, did you. Your paper supplied as evidence is invalid. Go find another one.

I like the word nerd. I freely admit I’m one. There’s no condescension on my part, and I would be very happy to meet you face-to-face and call you a nerd, and you can call me one.

So, if you’re spending so much time disproving theories which, by the way, have almost universal support from all branches of science and the general public (outside of America and the Middle East, where over 40% of citizens still believe in the literal word of the bible), what are you proposing instead, or are you just anti-evolution?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
You didn’t address the 22-week limited study though, did you. Your paper supplied as evidence is invalid. Go find another one.

That's how quickly epigenetics work though. That is why antibiotic resistance is so quickly reversible in microbes. It works within genetic bounds which can change expression rather easily given various environmental cues. This disproves evolutionary theory because adaptation mechanisms are produced by these epigenetic effects that are confined to a pre-existent genetic code.

by the way, have almost universal support from all branches of science and the general public

Truth is not measured in mass appeal. Science can't prove it, because it doesn't happen. organisms adapt to various environmental pressures, and then return to baseline when the environmental pressure is removed - so says the data.

But you are choosing data from studies to fit your argument. You’ve been caught out many times now, so choose a long-term multi-generational study that monitors or induces a significant environmental change.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
But you are choosing data from studies to fit your argument.

You want me to choose data from studies that don't fit my argument? I can't, there are no studies that prove the validity of evolution

You’ve been caught out many times now, so choose a long-term multi-generational study that monitors or induces a significant environmental change.

Show me a long-term multi-generational study that proves evolution - a permanent change of an organism into another organism.

I want you to be a good an honest man. Be truthful to yourself as well as your god. Your religion is discredited more with every word you type.

There are hundreds of studies over a couple hundred years that you could choose to find if you were honest with yourself. You could also follow the evolution, adaptation and even speciation of several flora and fauna over millennia from the fossil record to the present day if you tried.

But I know that you won’t try. I know that you won’t believe, nor even understand, because you are not an honest person.

If I were you - trying to preserve my dying faith in creation - I would accept evolution by natural selection, I would accept environmental adaptation and I would accept speciation through evolution. There is plenty of evidence for all of this, so arguing against it just makes you look like a backward hillbilly and extremely ignorant. What I would concentrate on is the birth of life itself - abiogenesis. Nobody knows anything for sure so this is your best chance to win over some converts and earn those utopian bonus points or extra virgins or whatever reward you’re gunning for when you transcend - and I know you are living for that moment.

Be a man. Be a good man. Be honest.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I want you to be a good an honest man. Be truthful to yourself as well as your god. Your religion is discredited more with every word you type.

There are hundreds of studies over a couple hundred years that you could choose to find if you were honest with yourself. You could also follow the evolution, adaptation and even speciation of several flora and fauna over millennia from the fossil record to the present day if you tried.

But I know that you won’t try. I know that you won’t believe, nor even understand, because you are not an honest person.

If I were you - trying to preserve my dying faith in creation - I would accept evolution by natural selection, I would accept environmental adaptation and I would accept speciation through evolution. There is plenty of evidence for all of this, so arguing against it just makes you look like a backward hillbilly and extremely ignorant. What I would concentrate on is the birth of life itself - abiogenesis. Nobody knows anything for sure so this is your best chance to win over some converts and earn those utopian bonus points or extra virgins or whatever reward you’re gunning for when you transcend - and I know you are living for that moment.

Be a man. Be a good man. Be honest.

Mind-blowing how you can be so zealous about believing that you are descended from mutant apes. The fact is, you can't find one paper that shows an organism changing into another organism. You are left with faith.

I hope the best for ya dude.

Weekend begins now, I won't be around for a bit

originally posted by: cooperton
... You are left with faith.

The irony of that sentence is both beautiful and facile.

I don’t think the descendant apes were mutants, they were pretty standard apes as far as I know. But you are right; it is mind-blowing isn’t it?

Have a great weekend. Look around you and wonder at the beauty of nature. Just think how much more amazing and beautiful everything you see is by knowing that it made itself, and from virtually nothing. Isn’t that mind-blowing?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
First I give to you the crocodile having existed in it's same form for 200 million years through the entire dinosaur period and beyond.
It survived an extinction level event that wiped out all it's uncles and cousins within that family and it continues to this day unchanged.

Second the fish called a Sturgeon, again unchanged in 200 million years, it looks like a swimming dinosaur. If you know anything about this fish they are really tough they can survive out of water longer than just about any fish and they live a long time.

My assertion is they were created exactly as they are at around that time and started like that and never changed, they never evolved, they were perfect for all the changing environments on this earth and they survived down to this day, living modern dinosaurs.

Zero Evolution in 200 million years, maybe a little adaptation, that's it.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what you think your point is, but that's probably just because your "point" is so incredibly dumb and uninformed. You have to be completely ignorant of how evolution actually works in order to think this somehow "denies" evolution.

You basically just countered your own argument/explained your own issue. You iust said that sturgeons are incredibly tough and can survive outside of water for a significant time. That is precisely why they didnt evolve. They didnt have to. The traits they already had served them well and made them survivable. They didnt need to evolve. Just like sharks. They were already very well-equipped for survival. Hence, there is no need to evolve. A handful of animals not evolving because they didnt have to due to their inherent survival advantages doesnt come even remotely close to disproving evolution in any way. I cant even grasp how someone could come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Animals evolve in order to adapt and survive. Their has to be a need to adapt in order for a soecies to evolve. These species had zero need to adapt. Hence, they havent changed. It shouldnt be hard to understand.