Question for sjt18

[IPorange]

Actually, your avatar bares a slight resemblance to some of them.

 

[MWR]

Actually, your avatar bares a slight resemblance to some of them.

Of course, that ole ICOrange III

 

[sjt18]

I've heard this creationist argument before, and doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that the skulls of these fossils are not that different from modern man? One look from even a casual observer can see that clearly they are not the same at all.

I am saying two things. The brain cavities lie within the range of modern humans. There is variation within sub-populations today so I would full well expect them in the past in equal or greater numbers.

Modern human brain size varies widely, and the extreme lower end does overlap with Homo erectus and other early hominids-- but this doesn't mean that their skulls are "normal."

Yeah. It pretty much means they fall within the normal range if they fall within the normal range.

The physiology of the skulls are vastly different in terms of brain casing, which is what we are really talking about here. The small side of the scale of modern human brains are small because the head/person was/is small. It's purely a matter of proportion. Hominid skulls actually have a proportionally smaller brain case.

And once again that simply does not support the contention that they were less than human or more than ape in any meaningful way.

It's really a strange argument. Because 95 % of a particular hominid population's brain size overlap with less than 1 % of modern humans' brain size, they're the same? Please.

Who said anything about "same"? Isolated African tribes of 200 years ago were not the "same" as civilized Europe.... but they were human. Recognizing wider or different types of variance in previous populations DOES NOT by necessity mean that there is an ancestral relationship between them and modern humans.

Homo habilis was not a man by modern standards, yet he clearly wasn't an ape in terms of his brain physiology. What were you saying about there being no transitional fossils again?

So basically being an extinct ape or perhaps branch of humankind necessarily makes this being an ancestor of humans by that magical and yet undefined process by which genetic information and complexity is added to genomes, right?

Exactly how many fossils comprise the real evidence used to supposedly reconstruct homo habilis?

Maybe this will help? Homo “the Tool Man” Habilis

Are you aware of any finds that include the feet or even a significant part of a hip?

Once again, the "evidence" for homo habilis' appearance and body structure is made up far more of conjecture (because the story line needs this entry) than hard proof.

Every fossil is a "transitional" fossil on some scale of reference, including our own skeletons.

Possibly... if you are talking about devolution. Population genetics suggest that all genomes are headed toward extinction. I am not at all surprised when past creatures are extinct... nor do I find any reason to place them in our family tree. Similarities do not justify that.

 

[sjt18]

Actually, your avatar bares a slight resemblance to some of them.

The fact that you would say this is very, very telling as to how deeply indoctrinated you are without even knowing it.

What specific hard evidence demonstrates that they were hairy or looked like a werewolf?

 

[sjt18]

Yup, totally all modern humans here.

evolution+human.jpg (image)

You do realize that most if not all of those supposed human ancestors were constructed without even one fully skeleton, right? You do realize that most of every one of those depictions is a creative artists rendition of what the creature would look like if evolution is assumed to be true, right?

If you want to believe that stuff then by all means do but don't act like there is anything like conclusive "proof" for any of those images... except modern man.

 

[sjt18]

I like and respect you IPO but you are just doing more of what made me skeptical of evolutionists to start with. You assume that evolution is true, interpret the facts so that they agree with evolution being true, then declare evolution true to the exclusion of any other interpretation of the data.

 

[IPorange]

The fact that you would say this is very, very telling as to how deeply indoctrinated you are without even knowing it.

What specific hard evidence demonstrates that they were hairy or looked like a werewolf?

I was merely comparing two images. How does that show I'm indoctrinated? Please elaborate.

 

[sjt18]

I was merely comparing two images. How does that show I'm indoctrinated? Please elaborate.

Because you declared there was a comparision apparently because of the hair. There is scant evidence for all of these supposed human ancestors. Unless it is a recent find... none of them included hair or soft tissue. Yet you are so sure that this being was hairy that you made a positive comparison... you thought you "knew" something that NO ONE has any way of knowing.

 

[MWR]

Actually, your avatar bares a slight resemblance to some of them.

I was merely comparing two images. How does that show I'm indoctrinated? Please elaborate.

I now have to consider that you may be a young'en.

If so, then you are excused for not knowing my avatar is from Paul McCartney's Coming Up video from the late 70's.

And if you already knew that, nevermind. Carry on.

 

[sjt18]

I didn't even notice that and I remember the video.

 

[IPorange]

You do realize that most if not all of those supposed human ancestors were constructed without even one fully skeleton, right? You do realize that most of every one of those depictions is a creative artists rendition of what the creature would look like if evolution is assumed to be true, right?

If you want to believe that stuff then by all means do but don't act like there is anything like conclusive "proof" for any of those images... except modern man.

Why would one expect to find full skeletons of million year old hominids lying around everywhere? If that were true, we'd be crawling over heaps of bones of various creatures by now don't you think?

You said new genetic information can't be added. Every time a bacteria strain becomes immune to a new antibiotic, it does so because of new genetic material from a mutant who randomly happens to be immune due to a mutation, and thus is able to successfully flourish. This is known because bacteria have very simple genetically, and don't have much old junk DNA. Some types have been completely genetically sequenced, and the new DNA from a population gaining immunity has been found afterwards.

Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not to mention the many genetic diseases in humans that show that added complexity CAN occur-- albeit rarely in a positive sense. Although sickle-cell anemia appears to be a beneficial adaptation against malaria.


Keep using words like "indoctrinated" as a way to try to marginalize my view. It's ironic.

 

[sjt18]

BTW, if heavy body hair... even to the extent of some of those drawings... means someone isn't human... I have a cousin who isn't.

 

[IPorange]

Because you declared there was a comparision apparently because of the hair. There is scant evidence for all of these supposed human ancestors. Unless it is a recent find... none of them included hair or soft tissue. Yet you are so sure that this being was hairy that you made a positive comparison... you thought you "knew" something that NO ONE has any way of knowing.

I looked at two pictures and made a lame joke. You're really reaching here.

 

[sjt18]

Why would one expect to find full skeletons of million year old hominids lying around everywhere? If that were true, we'd be crawling over heaps of bones of various creatures by now don't you think?

Why then are you presenting pictures of supposed human ancestors as true and the only acceptable interpretation on such scant evidence? Why are you now trying to deflect from that main point? I know the evidence is scant. One guy said it would fit in a coffin for all the supposed human ancestors. The fossils are almost never found whole or even in significant portions. In the past, new supposed ancestors have been constructed from parts that were later found to come from different animals to inlcude pigs.

You said new genetic information can't be added. Every time a bacteria strain becomes immune to a new antibiotic, it does so because of new genetic material from a mutant who randomly happens to be immune due to a mutation, and thus is able to successfully flourish.

The information that allows this was already in the genome. This is NOT an example of the introduction of new information. In fact, this is most often a case where the gene is broken which just happens to disallow the point of access for the antibiotic.

This is known because bacteria have very simple genetically, and don't have much old junk DNA.

No new information is added. It is simply normal mutation and variation within the population.

And... there is no such thing a "junk DNA". Not all that recently it was discovered that the non-coding regions do effect expression.

Some types have been completely genetically sequenced, and the new DNA from a population gaining immunity has been found afterwards.

Is it still a bacteria? Can you now demonstrate that the "new dna" is something NOT a product of normal genetic function?

Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not to mention the many genetic diseases in humans that show that added complexity CAN occur-- albeit rarely in a positive sense. Although sickle-cell anemia appears to be a beneficial adaptation against malaria.

A mutation that ultimately makes the population weaker... just like I suggested.

Keep using words like "indoctrinated" as a way to try to marginalize my view. It's ironic.

You are. You have shut your mind down to alternatives that you do not want to consider for reasons other than reason and proof.

I know your side of the story. I know its strengths and its terrible weaknesses. My philosophical presupposition doesn't even preclude me from believing it... I did for years. You refuse to even learn about the creationists' interpretations of the data because you have made an a priori determination that they cannot be true. You presume naturalism and will not or maybe even cannot consider anything that does not fit within those limits. By definition- indoctrinated.

 

[IPorange]

Can you link me to where you get your knowledge on genetics? It is very different from what I encounter... everywhere else.

 

[IPorange]

I'm willing to take a quiz on creationists' interpretation on the data. I'm sure I'd do just fine.

 

[sjt18]

How do creationists account for the time disparity in cosmology while fundamentally agreeing with the essential elements of big bang cosomology?

How do creationists account for species? That one should be a gimme since I already corrected a misconception you had.

Now a trick one. How old do creationists say the world is?

Where does the 6000 year number come from and is there any real dispute among even conservative Bible scholars about the method?

Do creationists believe that tigers, lions, and house cats were separate creations?

Just a start.

 

[IPorange]

How do creationists account for the time disparity in cosmology while fundamentally agreeing with the essential elements of big bang cosomology?
I've heard two basic things:
1. Time dilation, where essentially the expansion of space during creation created the time dilation, and that is why light from distant objects are able to reach a young Earth. I think there are a few other claimed mechanisms for time dilation besides that one, though
2. That the speed of light is not actually constant, or at least used to be different.
How do creationists account for species? That one should be a gimme since I already corrected a misconception you had.
A perceived misconception I was perceived to have.

I'm not sure what you are asking. God made creatures, which could change to a small degree (micro evolution). Fossils are animals that died during the flood or went extinct at some other time. If you are looking for something else, you are going to have to rephrase the question.
Now a trick one. How old do creationists say the world is?
Depends on the creationist. Some say about 6000 years old, some say more like 10,000, others go the "billions" route. There are a few different schools of thought on the age of the Earth among creationists.
Where does the 6000 year number come from and is there any real dispute among even conservative Bible scholars about the method?
Young Earth creationists use the genealogies of the Bible from Adam and Eve on down the line to create a "time line" of the Earth. Opinions on whether the genealogies are complete or abbreviated lead to the 6,000 vs 10,000 differences.
Do creationists believe that tigers, lions, and house cats were separate creations?
Again, depends on the creationist. Some believe that they were each their own separate creation, others leave room for speciation through "micro evolution," as they are all "still cats."
Just a start.

See bold.

 

[fl0at]

Can you link me to where you get your knowledge on genetics? It is very different from what I encounter... everywhere else.

Based on the post above yours, I'd say he gets his information from Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution."

Both, apparently, do not believe in "insertions."

 

[sjt18]

So basically IPO your objection is not ultimately scientific but religious?

Actually one of the most interesting theories I've seen on time is that the expansion of the universe was not uniformly spherical. It would be more like blowing up a hot air balloon than and kid's balloon. Ultimately there would be huge depression of highly concentrated gravity that would distort time and light.

FWIW, isn't it pretty much an established fact that the speed of light is not a constant?

 

[sjt18]

Based on the post above yours, I'd say he gets his information from Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution."

Both, apparently, do not believe in "insertions."

Insertions like retroviruses do not provide the structure or information needed by evolution. IIRC, there was great excitement over them for awhile but their promise has failed to match the hype.

For evolution to work, you need massive amounts of information to spontaneously appear in genomes. You most certainly need more beneficial than harmful mutations and deletions. You need to believe that somehow the rules of natural selection are suspended at times so that various biological systems can develop incrementally. None of these things match what we see or fit easily with the information we have from the field or lab.

OTOH, we can literally watch the process by which healthier, more robust parents bear offspring with 10's or 100's of new detrimental mutations that continue to accummulate until prevalent and reinforced within a genome to the point of causing genetic problems. We can also make it happen through breeding... take for example the poor health and survival rate of teacup chihauhuas.

Fundamentally, you can look at it two ways.

One, you can say against the overwhelming majority of the evidence that natural processes are yielding healthier creatures that are more genetically robust than their ancestors. Their accummulated genetic variability has produced and continues to produce new species and even orders of animals. Under this view, multiple species should arise for every one that is lost. Genomes should be getting stronger and more adaptable as populations.

Two, you can agree with the overwhelming majority of the evidence that animals with much more robust and pristine genetics fostered generations of offspring that speciated by natural selection, adaptation, mutation, and deletion. We observe this happening. We can make this happen by experiment. And, it fits the evidence we have for natural history.

 

[fl0at]

Insertions like retroviruses do not provide the structure or information needed by evolution. IIRC, there was great excitement over them for awhile but their promise has failed to match the hype.

Huh? A retrovirus is a RNA based virus. RNA being single stranded ribonucleic acid. What does this have to do with insertion?

An insertion into DNA can be a single nucleotide (of deoxyribonucleic acid), a segment of nucleotides, an entire chromosome, or other; it is not relegated to any one specific type.

It is a fundamental addition of information to the strand, which means that, yes, information was added, and that no, the original information was not present.

It can fundamentally alter the organism's GENOME, single protein translation or have no effect.

For evolution to work, you need massive amounts of information to spontaneously appear in genomes.

Really? Well, don't tell that to people with sickle cell, who have a single amino acid modification

You most certainly need more beneficial than harmful mutations and deletions. You need to believe that somehow the rules of natural selection are suspended at times so that various biological systems can develop incrementally. None of these things match what we see or fit easily with the information we have from the field or lab.

You don't need more "beneficial" than harmful mutations. If you have single cell in your body that is turned on by a foreign carcinogen, and that cell mutates in such a way that is HARMFUL to the cell, that mutation in fact then turns on the immunological aspect of the body and clears that cell. You have just stalled the growth of cancer by beneficially clearing a HARMFUL mutation.

I don't understand what you mean by "you need to suspend natural selection." What do you mean? As far as incremental development. What do you mean here, as well?

OTOH, we can literally watch the process by which healthier, more robust parents bear offspring with 10's or 100's of new detrimental mutations that continue to accummulate until prevalent and reinforced within a genome to the point of causing genetic problems. We can also make it happen through breeding... take for example the poor health and survival rate of teacup chihauhuas.

Ok. Your point here?

Fundamentally, you can look at it two ways.

One, you can say against the overwhelming majority of the evidence that natural processes are yielding healthier creatures that are more genetically robust than their ancestors. Their accummulated genetic variability has produced and continues to produce new species and even orders of animals. Under this view, multiple species should arise for every one that is lost. Genomes should be getting stronger and more adaptable as populations.

Two, you can agree with the overwhelming majority of the evidence that animals with much more robust and pristine genetics fostered generations of offspring that speciated by natural selection, adaptation, mutation, and deletion. We observe this happening. We can make this happen by experiment. And, it fits the evidence we have for natural history.

Huh? Natural selection is not predictive and as such, nor is evolution. In many, many, MANY, MANNNNNNNY cases of natural selection and evolution, over time, have produced genetically inferior species and have led to extinction.

Current examples are the cheetah and the panda. They aren't extinct yet, but they are heading down that path. Natural selection and evolution do not benefit from a predictive power. The specie adapts to its current environment, and selection upon that individual occurs to produce future offspring similar to the first.

Selection will continue to occur whether the trait is beneficial to the individual or not, because evolution is POPULATIONS changing over time, not individuals.

It is not, NOT, noooot predictive, and it does not guarantee that any individual, population or genome will be "stronger," "better," "well-received," "robust," "pristine" or any variation of that theme.

 

[sjt18]

Huh? A retrovirus is a RNA based virus. RNA being single stranded ribonucleic acid. What does this have to do with insertion?

You weren't talking about retroviral inserts? If not, I apologize.

An insertion into DNA can be a single nucleotide (of deoxyribonucleic acid), a segment of nucleotides, an entire chromosome, or other; it is not relegated to any one specific type.

It is a fundamental addition of information to the strand, which means that, yes, information was added, and that no, the original information was not present.

Can you provide an example so I know what you are talking about? It sounds like you are talking about nothing more than a genetic mutation... a copying error which will about 99.99 % of the time be detrimental.

It can fundamentally alter the organism's GENOME, single protein translation or have no effect.

That still sounds like you are talking about a mutation.

Really? Well, don't tell that to people with sickle cell, who have a single amino acid modification

SCA IS an example of a major mutation or combination of mutations being passed down.

You don't need more "beneficial" than harmful mutations. If you have single cell in your body that is turned on by a foreign carcinogen, and that cell mutates in such a way that is HARMFUL to the cell, that mutation in fact then turns on the immunological aspect of the body and clears that cell. You have just stalled the growth of cancer by beneficially clearing a HARMFUL mutation.

This has NOTHING to do with macroevolution.

I don't understand what you mean by "you need to suspend natural selection." What do you mean? As far as incremental development. What do you mean here, as well?

You would have to have many positive mutations in series to accomplish the complex systems we see in creatures. I will start with something fairly general but it gets even worse as you work deeper into the sub-systems.

Which came first?- sperm, eggs, the means for getting them together, milk production so the new born could survive, the uterus, the umbilical, the pelvic changes,...

According to evolution these were all the product of many mutations acted on over long periods of time by natural selection. But none of these provide an advantage without the other... and would be selected out of the population. Further, most populations will naturally reject mutants.

There is just way too much "wishful thinking" in that progression for me to believe.

Huh? Natural selection is not predictive and as such, nor is evolution. In many, many, MANY, MANNNNNNNY cases of natural selection and evolution, over time, have produced genetically inferior species and have led to extinction.

Current examples are the cheetah and the panda. They aren't extinct yet, but they are heading down that path. Natural selection and evolution do not benefit from a predictive power. The specie adapts to its current environment, and selection upon that individual occurs to produce future offspring similar to the first.

Selection will continue to occur whether the trait is beneficial to the individual or not, because evolution is POPULATIONS changing over time, not individuals.

It is not, NOT, noooot predictive, and it does not guarantee that any individual, population or genome will be "stronger," "better," "well-received," "robust," "pristine" or any variation of that theme.

That is precisely my point. For evolution to work, you need species to become stronger and more fit. The mutations should be working to create new biological systems and, not just species but, orders of animals. That is not happening because the effects on populations of detrimental mutations is roughly 1000 times greater than "beneficial" mutations. And that is generous since we do not know what is lost with those beneficial mutations.

I am talking about populations. Selection occurs when there is an advantage somehow... even a short term one. Some insects with mutations survive pesticides. Did they become stronger or "evolve" as a population? No. They devolved and it just happened to allow them to survive.

Bottom line is that evolutionists need to show a mechanism that works for amoeba to man evolution to occur. ToE needs a means for accumulating the amount of information and function that makes you different from a single cell organism. Just saying it must have happened is NOT good enough.

Like I said, as a creationist I start from the premise that God provided the information for all descendant species in the original "kinds" of animals. Those original forms, possibly including man, had much more variability than the animals we see today. The variety we see today is a direct result of processes that we can observe and repeat- mutation, deletion, adaptation, selection.

 

[sjt18]

Ok. Your point here?

That the processes we see at work in nature and can reproduce through operational sciences like husbandry are working in exactly the OPPOSITE direction than that required by macroevolution.

Mutations and deletions along with selection which are the means by which we can observe and make changes in populations are not adding the amount or kinds of information needed to produce higher forms of animals. To the contrary, they are working progressively to move animals toward less adaptability and extinction.

Population genetics provides a pretty good amount of ammo for critics or evolution.

 

[fl0at]

You weren't talking about retroviral inserts? If not, I apologize.

Can you provide an example so I know what you are talking about? It sounds like you are talking about nothing more than a genetic mutation... a copying error which will about 99.99 % of the time be detrimental.

That still sounds like you are talking about a mutation.

Insertions are mutations.

SCA IS an example of a major mutation or combination of mutations being passed down.

This has NOTHING to do with macroevolution.

Sickle cell is a single mutation that is heritable. Which acts as an excellent and fundamental example of selection.

You would have to have many positive mutations in series to accomplish the complex systems we see in creatures. I will start with something fairly general but it gets even worse as you work deeper into the sub-systems.

Which came first?- sperm, eggs, the means for getting them together, milk production so the new born could survive, the uterus, the umbilical, the pelvic changes,...

Positive for which? If the organism was quite content as a single cell, and it was driven to multicellular, that isn't necessarily a "positive." A stimulus that is positive for a single cell can be quite negative for the host.

As to which came first... that would be the means to get them together (a water based environment) followed by the organism that had "both," and was able to self-reproduce, or self-fertilize. To put it as simply as possible.

According to evolution these were all the product of many mutations acted on over long periods of time by natural selection.

Long periods of time to get from point A to Q, but not to point B. There is no requirement that speciation takes a long time to occur, or even an accumulation of many mutations. A rather clear cut example would be the Finches of the Galapogas Islands, as told in the popular book The Beak of the Finch.

But none of these provide an advantage without the other... and would be selected out of the population. Further, most populations will naturally reject mutants.

Without the other what? Why would populations naturally reject mutants? Natural selection acting on individuals causes populations to change. If the mutation is beneficial and heritable, then the individual will be positively selected for (meaning it will reproduce more) and its offspring will accumulate. The population dynamic has now changed. Not only has the population NOT rejected the mutant, the population in fact had no say in the aspect whatsoever.

If you take a group of 100 males and every single one are identical, except that 1 individual has a mutation that allows him to mate with and produce even 10 more offspring than the others, and all his children inheret that trait, it is simple math to see that that one single mutation can affect the entire population dynamic.

99 children from the other 99 males, and 10 children from the 1 alternate. You now have a 99:10 ratio. Well, the next generation, you get 9910+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10). Imagine just (3) generations. The population has not only changed, but the entire gene pool is now altered.

There is just way too much "wishful thinking" in that progression for me to believe.

I fail to see "wishful thinking" in simple ratios.

That is precisely my point. For evolution to work, you need species to become stronger and more fit.

No, for evolution to work, you only need fitness and selection. Not strength. The fitness of the above example is rather high, however, what if every single one of the children of the first individual die right after their next generation is born? You have not altered "strength," and have in fact made the overall population less stable and less "strong," but fitness is still high.

The mutations should be working to create new biological systems and, not just species but, orders of animals. That is not happening because the effects on populations of detrimental mutations is roughly 1000 times greater than "beneficial" mutations. And that is generous since we do not know what is lost with those beneficial mutations.

Mutations do not work to create new biological systems, or species, or orders of animals. Mutations are just mutations. The outcome is determined later. Mutations that lead to issues (such as cancer) are the most common mutations, but they are not the only mutations. This is why it can take a long time (but not always) for a mutation to be passed on to future generations such that a new specie is formed.

There is a lot that goes into it, and the combination must provide a reproductive advantage (fitness) and be heritable (able to pass along to future offspring).

However, even that doesn't guarantee speciation, and nor is it required.

I am talking about populations. Selection occurs when there is an advantage somehow... even a short term one. Some insects with mutations survive pesticides. Did they become stronger or "evolve" as a population? No. They devolved and it just happened to allow them to survive.

What? If they survived the pesticide, and the others didn't, then they were able to reproduce more than the dead ones, right? An alive insect can produce more kids than a dead one, yea? Thus, the one that lived passed on its genes in a higher percentage than the other, and if the mutation to pesticide was heritable, then its offspring inherited the gene, or not, doesn't matter. The population has then evolved. Simple as that. There is now a higher percentage of one insect with gene X to the old population of gene Y (the population has changed... and it occurred over time; definition of evolution. )

Bottom line is that evolutionists need to show a mechanism that works for amoeba to man evolution to occur. ToE needs a means for accumulating the amount of information and function that makes you different from a single cell organism. Just saying it must have happened is NOT good enough.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Science deals in probability. The fact that it isn't "good enough" for the average person is irrelevant.

Making that statement would be like me saying the Church needs to prove God exists today, simply saying we have this book and these scrolls is not good enough. Not only is it a ridiculous statement, it is rather counter to the main concept of "faith."

Like I said, as a creationist I start from the premise that God provided the information for all descendant species in the original "kinds" of animals. Those original forms, possibly including man, had much more variability than the animals we see today. The variety we see today is a direct result of processes that we can observe and repeat- mutation, deletion, adaptation, selection.

Deletion is a mutation. Can you back up the statement that the "original" forms had more variability?

No, well, then just saying it isn't quite "good enough" is it?

But, I don't see why you would need to even get hung up on that issue, the last statement does a great job of hitting at the fundamentals of evolution.