Complete fossil sponges from the Cretaceous, 83.5 – 71.3 million years ago

WD400 says, I don’t know what “polycentrism” means with regards with human orgins, but polygenism is not the same as the multiregional hyptothesis I say check it out check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphyletic_evolution_theories_of_human_races You said, Under multi-regionalism there would still be a mtEve I say, check it out from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans quote: The analysis suggested that this reflected the worldwide expansion of modern humans as a new species, replacing, rather than mixing with, local archaic humans outside of Africa. Such a recent replacement scenario is not compatible with the Multiregional hypothesis and the mtDNA results led to increased popularity for the alternative single replacement theory According to Wolpoff and colleagues: end quote: you ask Falsified?----Or brushed aside as tentative and not capable of being absolutely known? I say. Apparently and tentatively falsified. As you pointed out before that is all science can ever hope to do "with anything". That is why "science" while it is useful and cool it's not special revelation and can never be the last word about anything. peace fifthmonarchyman

No fifth, I don't know what "polycentrism" means with regards with human orgins, but polygenism is not the same as the multiregional hyptothesis, which help that all of humanity shared a common ancestor. Under multi-regionalism there would still be a mtEve (and indeed, the multi-regionalists didn't pack up after Cann and Wilson).

If a human population was found on a isolated island with mitochondrial DNA that was closer to other hominids than to the human mtEve then the scriptural claim that all humans are related would appear to be falsified.

Falsified? Like the historic population size falsified the scriptural story? Or brushed aside as tentative and not capable of being absolutely known? wd400

Wd400 says. So, you take the barest similarity to the scriptural story (that we are all related, a finding that has never been in doubt by science) as evidence for congruence between science and scripture. I say. What??? Before mtEve was established a Polycentric theory of human origins was a very much a live option it's what I was taught in school. It's still around at the fringes check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans you said At the same time you dismiss any differences as “tentative” conclusion, even when those conclusions are drawn from the same methods as you claim support the scriptural story. I say, All scientific conclusions are tentative. That much is not at issue. My observation is that modern scientific conclusions on the whole have tended to fall on the side of the scriptural narrative. you said At some future point mtEve will be someone who lived after 1200 AD, that doesn’t meant all future humans won’t be related to people alive before then I say, You don't understand my point. If a human population was found on a isolated island with mitochondrial DNA that was closer to other hominids than to the human mtEve then the scriptural claim that all humans are related would appear to be falsified. peace fifthmonarchyman

So, you take the barest similarity to the scriptural story (that we are all related, a finding that has never been in doubt by science) as evidence for congruence between science and scripture. At the same time you dismiss any differences as "tentative" conclusion, even when those conclusions are drawn from the same methods as you claim support the scriptural story. Finally, this is just wrong. If mtEve did not live until 1200 AD then the Bible would have been shown to be in error. At some future point mtEve will be someone who lived after 1200 AD, that doesn't meant all future humans won't be related to people alive before then. wd400

WD400 says, I don’t know what you meant by saying mtEve “existed before this millennium”. I say. I mean she existed before Paul made the claim that all humanity was related back in the first century AD. Thus confirming the scriptural narrative. This is not rocket science. If mtEve did not live until 1200 AD then the Bible would have been shown to be in error. That is not what happened. peace fifthmonarchyman

WD400 says, human population size has been much greater than 1 000 for hundreds of thousands of years, for instance I say. 1)Are you ready to take a definitive stand on what qualifies as "human"? 2) Are you ready to say that this claim will not be modified as more evidence comes in? If not then all we can say is that the evidence is tentative but overall has tended to fall in the direction of the scriptural narrative at least over the last several decades. peace fifthmonarchyman

I don't know what you meant by saying mtEve "existed before this millennium". You mean she wasn't around in 1999? mtEve lived > 100 000 years ago. wd400

1) Given what you said in 47, that no empirical claim can be known without the possibility of error, then your post in 45 adds up to very little. 2) In addition, I don't think it's true that genetics supports the scriptural narrative, no matter how "broadly" you make a comparison. The existence of a mitochondrial eve can't be support for any narrative, since the existence of such a person is inevitable in a finite population. Most other factors don't line up with scripture at all (human population size has been much greater than 1 000 for hundreds of thousands of years, for instance). wd400

WD400 says, even ignoring the fact there is nothing in genetics supports a “scriptural narrative” I say. what?? The fact that humans share a recent common ancestor is surely a genetic finding that supports the “scriptural narrative”. This was not the consensus of science even a few decades ago as diverse geographic origins for homo sapiens was still a live option until the mid to late twentieth century you say, (that there is a mitochondrial eve, for instance, is inevitable so can’t be support for anything). I say, Yes but surely that she existed before this millennium tends to support the biblical contention that we were all related before the first century Don't you agree? peace fifthmonarchyman

Darwin's Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem - developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLl6wrqd1e0&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=8

Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough, body plans are not even reducible to DNA in the first place as is presupposed in Neo-Darwinism:

Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)

supplemental notes: The anatomy of chimps and humans differ far more than Neo-Darwinists have led people to believe,,,

The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution - August 9, 2014 Excerpt: The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-keith-blanchard-really-doesnt-understand-evolution/

Moreover, Neo- Darwinists have no demonstrated examples of speciation in the lab,,,

Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

In fact, laboratory evolution experiments going back four decades reveal that unguided Darwinian processes are far more likely to break things than ever build things up. Thus, any inheritance of beneficial, information bulding, mutations, as is presupposed in neo-Darwinism, is a purely a figment of imagination with no basis in experimental science:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Verse and Music:

Matthew 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. Mandisa - Esther - Born For This - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo

bornagain77

On top of the evidence presented in post 41, The genetic evidence for human-chimp common ancestry is far less robust for the neo-Darwinian position than wd400 pretends. Firstly, the similarity between humans and chimps has been vastly overplayed by Neo-Darwinists:

The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video https://vimeo.com/95287522 Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

Secondly, widely divergent species are found to be far more similar to humans than would be presupposed on a Darwinian framework:

Podcast – Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,“We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,” http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118

Thirdly, where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest,,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, ,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. <b<“The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms - (Nov. 6, 2012) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

,,,where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest is the place where changes to the genome are least likely to be tolerated.

A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

bornagain77

Your post in #45 is very nearly meaningless, even ignoring the fact there is nothing in genetics supports a "scriptural narrative" (that there is a mitochondrial eve, for instance, is inevitable so can't be support for anything). wd400

Wd400 says, Can anyone make an such claim about anything? I say, Absent special revelation I would say no. That is the point after all peace fifthmonarchyman

Can you tell me a foolproof way to know infallibility right now what part of the claims you make about mtEve are without possible error

Can anyone make an such claim about anything? wd400

Wd400 says, If you want to claim mtEve then you need to claim all of the science that is used to find her. I say, I am happy to claim all the science that is used to find mtEve. Can you tell me a foolproof way to know infallibility right now what part of the claims you make about mtEve are without possible error and what parts are subject to modification and correction as more evidence comes in? If not then I will continue to view the genetic evidence as tentative but tending to support the broad outline of the scriptural narrative. Do you find anything objectionable in that stand? peace fifthmonarchyman

PPolish, Science reveals both humans and chimps diverged from a shared common ancestor, rather fromthan a chimp. Wether you believe the science on this count is really up to you. But you can't just pick and choose the findings of science that you (mistakenly) think you support your position. The same methods that allowed science to "designate" mtEve have shown she was part of a population around 10,000, that there are many shared ancestors of humanity who lived before her, that someone else will become eve in the future and indeed that for some genes the equivalent of mtEve lived before the human-chimp split. If you want to claim mtEve then you need to claim all of the science that is used to find her. wd400

Sapien did not diverge from chimp WD. Your imagination is running wild. Sapien emerged in a geological instant. In a Gregorian instant. In a spark in a womb instant. Not a darkness slowing turning into daytime - but an instant of sunrise. Your spark, your "dot", your creation, your emergence, began there. Chimps sparked, dotted, emerged, were created separately. There own sunrise. ppolish

Wd400 says Science has also shown many people were alive at the same time as Mitochondrial eve, I say Mitochondrial eve is a scientific construct not a particular person discussed in the pages of Genesis. So no big deal However the concept of Mitochondrial eve does support the broad narrative found in scripture. quote: And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Act 17:26) end quote: That all people are of the same family and come from the same place was definitely not the consensus of science even just few decades ago. While we are at it the idea that the universe came into existence a finite time in the past was not the consensus of science just a few decades in the past. Science does not "show" anything, Science is a process. It ebbs and flows it's conclusions are always subject to modification and update as more evidence comes in. To paraphrase a quote about another process the arc of science is long, but it bends toward Truth (John 14:6) peace fifthmonarchyman

wd400 correction,, Science has Unfounded assumptions of population genetics models have also shown many people were alive at the same time as Mitochondrial eve,,, There all better,,, :) The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand; The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) – 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ THE NON-MYTHICAL ADAM AND EVE by (Dr. Robert Carter) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB516g_TgPc bornagain77

Science has also shown many people were alive at the same time as Mitochondrial eve, in the future someone else will be mitochondrial eve (and she will have had a mother), many common ancestors for humanity are older than mitochondrial eve and, for some genes, our most recent common ancestor pre-dated the divergence of humans and chimps. wd400

Science had designated a mitochondrial Eve. Not mitochondrial Eve's mom or grandma or great grandma or great great. Look, you can talk about your mom. And your 4 grandparents and your 8 great grandparents. Go to ancestry.com and maybe discover your 64 great great great great grandparents. But don't bother with your 500 million greatX30 grandparents. They do not exist. Little wiggly worm mom is imaginary too. Where on earth did you get your imagination Segenenre? Yes I know, "from a dot" lol. Btw, my Yorkie is the result of Artificial Design, not Natural Design. Darwin was so close:) ppolish

@ppolish It is not a thought experiment. It happened. The first dot is my birth, the second dot is the birth of my mother, the third dot is the birth of her mother. What is silly about that? Seqenenre

Your "51 million dots" thought experiment is silly Segenenre. Like "what is North of the North Pole". Sure, follow the dots of a designer gene to a Petri dish in New Jersey, my dog back to Huddersfield Ben, and my dots back to mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosomal Adam. Put blinders on and follow those dots fun. Yes, yes, we are all God's creatures and are all the result of one Awesome Creation. Yes, yes, preach to the choir Segenenre:) ppolish

Seqenenre, It's not my fault you don't like, and refuse to accept, the answer I gave. i.e. "I don’t believe in universal common descent. The evidence simply is not there" Moreover, could you please elaborate a bit on the 'naturalistic' explanation for how the 'miracle' of embryo-genesis occurs? i.e As to how a billion trillion protein molecules are coordinated to 'know' how to form a human being? It would be good to at least have the very first step, in your 500 million imaginary chain, clarified would it not?

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 One Body - animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Psalms 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling . . . and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)" ,,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

bornagain77

BA I take it you are not going to give an answer to my original question. Do I have to conclude that Intelligent Design does not have an answer to this question? Seqenenre

Seqenenre says, Species is an artificial, human concept; to make communication a bit easier. I say, WOW, What ever gave you that idea? The boundary between circles and ovals is hard to pin down does that mean that geometry is "an artificial, human concept; to make communication a bit easier". preposterous If a bright young thinker named Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of Geometric Shapes and in it he argued that shapes were actually an "artificial, human concept; to make communication a bit easier". What would you think? What makes otherwise intelligent people abandon logic like this? You say, Where do you say the printing turned red? I say, We might have difficulty distinguishing color at the edges but would that ever lead us to conclude that.... "color is an artificial, human concept; to make communication a bit easier" use your head man Peace fifthmonarchyman

Seqenenre you state:

Apples fall down from trees. Saying you don’t believe in gravity does not alter the fact that apples fall down.

Who said I don't believe in Gravity? Gravity is no less miraculous than the fact you are able to freely raise your hand whenever you choose to do so.

Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) – (27:32 minute mark) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ajqH4y8G0MI#t=1652 "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Goldman - Letters to Solovine p 131. A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - 2012 talk University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski http://veritas.org/talks/professors-journey-out-nihilism-why-i-am-not-atheist/?view=presenters&speaker_id=2231

Also of note: The atheistic/materialistic denial of free will is logically self-refuting

Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of 'academics', a ‘miracle’ by freely raising his hand,,

The Intersection of Science and Religion - Craig Hazen, PhD - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s

And indeed, the 'miracle' of free will is found to be axiomatic to quantum theory:

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will

In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that present conscious choices are, in fact, effecting past material states:

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition! bornagain77

BA Imagine a line of 51 million dots, each dot representing a single birth and the next dot representing the birth of the mother of the previous dot: the first dot is my birth, the last dot is also a mother giving birth to a daughter, only 510 million years ago. This is a physical reality. It happened (my mother played an important role in the first two!). Otherwise I would not be writing this sentence. I am a bit at loss why you begin about common descent. Apples fall down from trees. Saying you don't believe in gravity does not alter the fact that apples fall down. @wd400(25) I agree. Species is an artificial, human concept; to make communication a bit easier. I like your night-day metaphore. I remember one about the Bible: start printing in blue (the first letter is one 100% blue, the next has just a very, very tiny bit of red inkt) and the last letter is 100% red. Where do you say the printing turned red? Seqenenre

So do you accept that there is a continuous, genetically traceable lineage, from mother to daughter over time? rvb8

define accept 7. to regard as true or sound; believe: define deny 1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deny Better go correct the people at dictionary dot com, they don't seem to have gotten your memo where neo-Darwinists are allowed to redefine words at their whim just so as to make pointless claims and chase their tails in a circle all day long. Good luck with all that. I will respond to your inanity no more. bornagain77

"Every mother is similar to her daughter" & "just add 200 million years". Seriously, that is truly bogus. How can people believe that that crud explains Nature. ppolish

Aaaah BA, you are missing the point, once again, it seems to be an error common here. "Seqenenre, I don't believe in universal common descent." There is so much to work with here. First, the word 'believe'. Very problematic as we are dealing with physical knowns, that is heritable material along the maternal line. This requires no 'belief', it is a fact even you might be aware of. 'Belief' in, or not in, this fact is moot and pointless. You, 'accept' this fact or you 'deny' this fact. 'Belief' and 'faith' are perfectly useless here BA. fifthmonarchyman, you say because the boundary between species is blurred we cannot say when one species evolved clearly from another; correct? Scientists today are hard pressed to acknowledge a clear boundary between species; correct? Therefore evolution is incorrect as it is not observable in species to species change; possibly correct? I hope I got the gist of this extremely tired canard right, as this is a powerful argument for common descent, IF, you accept vast periods of time. You see, I use 'accept', rather than BA's and your tired fatuous 'belief' and 'faith' nonsense.You see, if we add 100s of millions of years to your tedious spiel, all becomes clear. rvb8

wd400 says, This is like complaning that night can’t follow day because every moment from dawn to midnight is very alike the one prior to it I say, I can at any moment tell you the time at my location. The more precise my measurement device the more clear the demarcation is and the more confident I can be. You and I might disagree about whether 2 hours before the dawn is early morning or the middle of the night but we can rely on modern atomic clocks and GMT to give the exact time down to the second. Physicists believe that the experience of time is realitve to the observer but most don't claim that time itself is an illusion. In fact time is considered to be a dimension like length and with the 2nd law the flow of time is considered to be fundamental property of the universe It's not like this at all with evolutionary biology. With Evolutionary Biology the better we can measure the properties of an organism the less sure we can be of exactly what species it belongs to. The most celebrated experts in the field talk as if the whole concept of species is an illusion Doesn't this give you a little pause? peace fifthmonarchyman

Seqenenre, I don't believe in universal common descent. The evidence simply is not there

"Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (“stasis is data” in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later." - Prothero http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature

And unless you are privy to some blockbuster evidence that no one else seems to have access to, then I firmly believe your belief in common descent is based more on imagination rather than any hard substantiating evidence: But here is a simple question for you Seqenenre. Do you actually believe that unguided Darwinian processes, which have never been observed to create even a single gene/protein in the lab, created your brain?

Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994 As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/14/4/2418.abstract

Seqenenre, if you truly believe that all that is just an accident of time and chance you have far more blind faith than any Jihadist who believes 70 virgins await him in heaven for killing people by his own suicide. It would take some pretty spectacular evidence for me to believe as such, and yet, as pointed out previously, not even a single gene/protein of evidence arises in support for Darwinian claims. And seeing as how much care and craftsmanship went into fashioning your very own brain, are you not the least bit interested in meeting the One who put your brain together? Quote, Verse and Music:

"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." Near Death Experience Testimony Acts 26:13-15 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Thrive - Casting Crowns lyric: "It’s time for us to more than just survive We were made to thrive" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ71RWJhS_M

bornagain77

Seqenenre,

As every mother is of the same species as her daughter, how then do we have a pikaia (or some similar species) at one end of my family tree and me, a human being, at the other end?

Every mother is similar to her daughter, but where you draw the line from one species to the next in a single evolving lineage (rather than divergent lineages) is pretty arbitrary. This is like complaning that night can't follow day because every moment from dawn to midnight is very alike the one prior to it wd400

PPolish, Are you joking? How does ID deal with this devastating flaw in evolutionary biology? wd400

"How do we have a pikaia at one end of my family tree and me at the other end?" Yes, Seqenenre, that is a tough one. Here is another tough one: You have 2 Parents, 4 Grandparents, 8 Great grandparents, 16 Great Great grandparents etc. Go back 30 or so generations and your relatives outnumber the total human population. ppolish

I may have phrased my question the wrong way. I'll try again: First, three assumptions: An average generation time of 10 years. Every living being has at least one parent (let's call her mother). Every daughter (well, almost every daughter) is of the same species as her mother. Three questions: Do you agree with me that my own personal great, great, great (repeat 10 million times) grandmother who lived 100 million years ago certainly was not a human being? Do you agree with me that my own personal great, great, great (repeat 30 million times) grandmother who lived 300 million years ago certainly was not a mammal? And do you agree with me that my own personal great, great, great (repeat 51 million times) grandmother who lived 510 million years ago might have been an individual pikaia? (Imagine a line of 51 million dots, each dot representing a single birth and the next dot representing the birth of the mother of the previous dot: the first dot is my birth, the last dot is a pikaia mother giving birth to a daughter.) The problem: As every mother is of the same species as her daughter, how then do we have a pikaia (or some similar species) at one end of my family tree and me, a human being, at the other end? Seqenenre

Rvb8, you forget the other authority BA appeals to: Scientists. If he thinks they support his bizarre views then they are smart cookies and deserve his admiration. Of course, the very same scientists can be complete morons if it turns out, for example, that they are "Darwinists". hrun0815

Seqenenre, BA is incapable of answering a question without both ridiculing authority (of researchers and scientists) and then appealing to authority; BA, Luskin, really? I also note his 'authority' is North American based, largely DI based, and with a noticeable absence of people concerned with evolutionary biology. Appealing to ICR, Discovery, Luskin, and youtube, does not a convincing scientific argument make. Perhaps organizations outside the US actively researching ID predictions and observations, may serve your argument with more credibility than, little to none? rvb8

Moreover, the supposed genetic evidence for Human evolution is far less robust than many people believe,,,

Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/ The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/95287522

bornagain77

Seqenenre, your question presupposes Universal Common Descent. Yet, the fossil record, despite what you may believe, does not support Universal Common Descent. Thus your question is asking ID to explain a non-existent fact of the fossil record. Neo-Darwinism, since it is not a hard science, is much more suited to explaining non-existent and imaginary facts than ID is. (although ID is not incompatible with Universal Common Descent if that would have been the pattern found in the fossil record) Moreover, contrary to the 'march of man' cartoon drawings you may have been taught in grade school,,

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

,,there is no nice, neat, progession of fossils from ape to man:

Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)

In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, speaking at a recent Science and Human Origins conference, discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursors.

2014 - podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-2/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-3/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-4/ Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481

bornagain77

That is all very interesting, but does not answer my question: So we start with a human and 510 million years earlier we have a tiny worm-fish like creature. Yet each daughter being born in this long line of maternal descent is of the same species as her mother. What is the explanation offered by Intelligent Design for this? Seqenenre

Seqenenre, What is the Darwinian explanation for this?

What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.

The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark - upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html

Moreover, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

bornagain77

Everyone has his/her own line of maternal descent into the prehistoric past, unless ofcourse you think the earth is only 6000 years old. One hundred million years ago your personal ancestor certainly was not a human. Three hundred million years ago your ancestor was not even a mammal. Five hundred million years ago your personal ancestor probably was not even a fish. A possible personal ancestor 510 million years ago could have been an individual pikaia. So we start with a human and 510 million years earlier we have a tiny worm-fish like creature. Yet each daughter being born in this long line of maternal descent is of the same species as her mother. What is the explanation offered by Intelligent Design for this? Seqenenre

I must be missing something. rvb8: If someone quotes from a primary source shouldn’t they make that primary source freely accessible? Mung: No. rvb8: No. Mung

No mung, just the title,author, and perhaps page number. i really can use the net I just need BA and yourself to tell me the actual situation and origins of the quote; not second hand, or via a cousin's brother, who had a friend. rvb8

rvb8:

If someone quotes from a primary source shouldn’t they make that primary source freely accessible?

No. I have an extensive library of primary source material. I paid for these books so that I could quote from the primary source material. You want me to give them to you for free? Sorry, not going to happen. Mung

Says the Darwinian troll afraid to look up the quote just two clicks away,,, and then sit back and sneer about us being afraid to challenge our theory. ,,, Yes do lecture us on being open minded, throw in a few ad hominems and praise the Darwinian sewer sites you visit as being cutting edge science rather than the atheistic garbage dumps they really are. Other than that, may you and yours have a very Merry Christmas! :) bornagain77

If someone quotes from a primary source shouldn't they make that primary source freely accessible? No, I'm not going to chase down any of BAs quotes simply because he chooses to generally make them wildly abstruse and confines his comments to this echo chamber. I post at Pandas sometimes, at Coyne's site sometimes, at Phyrangula, at the SkepticalZone sometimes, and at the unbelievably dense Townhall upon occasion, and here sometimes. Of these six the first four are easily accessible the fifth makes you jump through hoops. I was banned here in 2005 after some Dover observations, it may have been by Dembsky (the non-witness, witness) himself. Why is it that conservative sites are so afraid of comment and information? Part of this fear is embodied in the near delusional desire to appear a font of reasonable researched wisdom. To be this actually requires Primary research, at a recognised university, research facility, or corporation. It is not achieved by the dropping of secondary quotes on to a sounding board of like minded souls, to hear them congratulate you upon your erudite research and interpretation. Go beyond your borders gentlemen, I know it's scary and that you will be mocked, however isn't that how all great ideas have been forged? rvb8

rvb8 2 "Of course now that humans are causing huge alterations in ocean acidity, salinity, and temperature, who knows?" Ocean alkalinity (not acidity, that's below 7.0 pH) has changed only slightly the last 250 years, from 8.2 (mildly alkaline) to 8.1 (mildly alkaline). Even that is shaky, because the error bar in measuring pH was greater than 0.1 250 years ago. So there has been no huge alteration in ocean acidity, much less one caused by human activity. anthropic

Indeed, rvb8 appears incapable of following a simple succession of links. Therefore, BA77 must have quote-mined Prothero. Pathetic. Laughable. Exactly the sort of thing I asked Santa to bring me for Christmas! Mung

Look up the piece yourself. You made a claim and it is wrong. i.e. Do your own homework! bornagain77

Your bit quote from Prothero is one you bit quote from 'Uncommon' 2012. I won't play your quote mining games, and I won't go searching for the entire context of the quote or the complete quote. You do that. Connect me to the entire speech, or piece, or I will simply conclude you are following your usual tactic of mis-quoting, ill-quoting, cherry picking, deliberate deception. Please try to give context, Uncommondescent, and Denyse are poor at this, you are downright disingenuous. rvb8

and yet,,, In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. The fossil record Is not your friend. Go figure, I guess that makes you a fossil record denier? bornagain77

"There are lots of people out there who accept science when it's convenient; but there's a lot of things science tells us they don't want to hear and so then they reject those so-called inconvenient truths. And so this sort of weird, little way of doing things is not only true of creationists, it's true of climate deniers, it's true of AIDS deniers, anti-vaccers, a whole bunch of various kinds of alternative medicines---it's a very common thread." Do you mean this D. Prothero 'born'? Two of your other directs go to 'evolutionnews' a trusted source. the Smithsonian link needs context which you habitually and willfully never provide. However I do know 'energy efficiency' could be one of many selective pressures, another might be that getting to a place faster than a bi-pedal chimp could, could save your life, regardless of energy expenditure. Time to introduce biblical quotes? rvb8

Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— Donald Prothero - American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/donald-prothero-in-evolution-stasis-was-the-general-pattern-gradualism-was-rare-and-that-is-still-the-consensus-40-years-later/ Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed - David Klinghoffer - February 21, 2013 Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old. A team of researchers led by USC's Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place ("Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y."). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html As well, about half way down in the following article, Casey Luskin reveals that many supposed human ancestors are found in wooded areas, which questions the 'savanna hypothesis' from yet another angle. For Neil Tyson and Cosmos, Serious Scientific Controversies Are All a Thing of the Past - Casey Luskin May 6, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/for_neil_tyson_085291.html Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012 Excerpt: To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/09/energy-efficiency-doesnt-explain-human-walking/ bornagain77

"It will be interesting to see if their internal anatomy is different from today's sponges. Bet not." You implicitly imply that they should evolve today to be a more advanced walking, talking, spiritual, sponge? Why should they? Unlike primates their environment (polar to temperate, to tropical clear oceans) has not changed. Therefore environmental pressure to develop new body plans is next to non-existent. I point you to the shark, which although evolving minor new characteristics (size, colour, temperature tolerance) has no need to evolve radically as its environment over the last 200 million years has remained remarkably stable. Of course now that humans are causing huge alterations in ocean acidity, salinity, and temperature, who knows? rvb8

here are the links: Complete Fossil Sponges - 83.5 - 71.3 million years ago - pictures A very rare occurrence can be found in a unique Cretaceous fossil deposit in North Central Germany. A variety of highly unusual SEA SPONGE FOSSILS dating from a Campanian Era sea of the Cretaceous were preserved in FULL THREE DIMENSIONAL PRESERVATION retaining delicate anatomy seldom seen in prehistoric sponge fossils.,,, Sponges belong to the scientific group called PORIFERA. These creatures have an origin that dates back to over 500 million years ago. http://www.paleodirect.com/imgset3/spngrf1.jpg http://www.paleodirect.com/pgset2/sp004.htm Ancient sponge fossil http://www.paleodirect.com/imgset3/sp004gh.jpg Modern sponge http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_fSwq5if0Fs/UIhOSKgwFyI/AAAAAAAAADk/YuYAcBkVb9Q/s320/57c.jpg Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - The Significance of Sponge Embryos - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs bornagain77