Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[Retrobyter]

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's ask an informed creationist about that...

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the
various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise  Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Sounds like cherry-picking to me. You've pulled this from a paper written in 1995 by Dr. Kurt P. Wise entitled as above, but you failed to mention his closing words:

CONCLUSION

Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.

So, not only is this old news (28 years old), but you've failed to see if there has been any updates in what he has proposed.

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sounds like another creationist hoax.   Show us checkable sources.

Yeah, I'm talking about the brontosaurus/apatosaurus "Bone Wars," Yale's O.C. Marsh vs. Edward Drinker Cope of Philadelphia, back in 1877.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

So, not only is this old news (28 years old), but you've failed to see if there has been any updates in what he has proposed.

I have.   Nothing whatever.   He continues to believe that there might someday be an adequate creationist explanation for the facts.   More recently, another creationist (also familiar with the evidence) had dealt with it in a different way:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

...

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Here's another YE creationist (Dr. Gerald Aardsma) attempt to honestly deal with the evidence...

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago.

...

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

And of course, there's the old Henry Morris "appearance of age" invention.  But that one implies an appalling dishonesty on the part of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

28 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Yeah, I'm talking about the brontosaurus/apatosaurus "Bone Wars," Yale's O.C. Marsh vs. Edward Drinker Cope of Philadelphia, back in 1877.

No.  I think you've confused two stories.   The first one had to do with putting a head on the wrong end of a spine.   The second was a creationist hoax as mentioned above.

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  I think you've confused two stories.   The first one had to do with putting a head on the wrong end of a spine.   The second was a creationist hoax as mentioned above.

No, that's not right, either. The Bone Wars was about the wrong head put on a spine!

The bones found were a partial skeleton, but no skull. So,

"Marsh himself was not infallible; he put the skull of a Brachiosaurus on a skeleton of Brontosaurus."

1.  D'Emic, Michael D.; Carrano, Matthew T. (2020). "Redescription of Brachiosaurid Sauropod Dinosaur Material From the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, Colorado, USA". The Anatomical Record. 303 (4): 732–758. doi:10.1002/ar.24198. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 31254331. S2CID 195765189.

 See Bone Wars in wikipedia.org for more.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, @The Barbarian.

Now, before we continue, have you read the book in question, Evolution's Achilles' Heels, yet?

I was able to purchase an e-book through Amazon Kindle for $9.99 (actually less through Prime).

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I have.   Nothing whatever.   He continues to believe that there might someday be an adequate creationist explanation for the facts.   More recently, another creationist (also familiar with the evidence) had dealt with it in a different way:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

...

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Here's another YE creationist (Dr. Gerald Aardsma) attempt to honestly deal with the evidence...

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago.

...

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

And of course, there's the old Henry Morris "appearance of age" invention.  But that one implies an appalling dishonesty on the part of God.

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

You keep dredging up these obscure passages from allegedly "prominent" YE creationists, but how do you do with a strong proponent of creationism?

You're into genetics and the workings of the cell. Have you ever listened to Dr. Georgia Purdom?

Dr. Georgia Purdom is the Vice President of Educational Content and actively speaks and writes for Answers in Genesis. Here's her bio:

'Dr. Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology. Dr. Purdom’s graduate work focused on genetic regulation of factors important for bone remodeling. She served as an associate professor of biology for six years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio before coming to AiG.

'She has published papers in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. She is a member of the Creation Research Society and Creation Biology Society. 

'Dr. Purdom serves as a peer reviewer for Answers Research Journal and Creation Research Science Quarterly. Dr. Purdom, along with Dr. Joseph Francis of The Master’s College, are co-founders of the Microbe Forum. This forum sponsored research, collaboration, and conferences in the field of creation microbiology.

'Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world. She has presented her research in this field at two Microbe Forum conferences and the 2008 International Conference on Creationism. Dr. Purdom also has published papers on this topic in the 2008 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism and Answers Research Journal. In addition, she has numerous lay-friendly and semi-technical articles in Answers magazine and on the AiG website.

'Dr. Purdom’s expertise in natural selection was crucial in her design of the “Natural Selection Is Not Evolution” exhibit at the Creation Museum. She also has research interests in speciation of animals after Noah’s Flood and design features in DNA.'

For more, see answers in genesis.

[BeyondET]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Correct.  Neither evolved from the other.   They both evolved from a primate that was neither human nor chimpanzee.

They have such a close relatedness in DNA because they share a last common ancestor much more recently than we had a common ancestor with a mouse or a banana.

I think all the fossils ever found wouldn't even add up to .5% of the 99% of animals, primates included that are extinct. Finding common ancestors is a needle in a haystack.

Alot of photos are missing correct links. Some of them have hypothesis animals depicted included in known animals.

RNA and stem cells don't stick around as long like DNA and those are the building block coders.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's part of embryology.   Different genes get switched on and off in different tissues.

Development

2020 Jul 17;147(14)

Mechanisms of human embryo development: from cell fate to tissue shape and back

Marta N Shahbazi

Here, I discuss the evidence that supports a role for the crosstalk between cell fate and tissue shape during early human embryogenesis. This is a critical developmental period, when the body plan is laid out and many pregnancies fail. Dissecting the basic mechanisms that coordinate cell fate and tissue shape will generate an integrated understanding of early embryogenesis and new strategies for therapeutic intervention in early pregnancy loss.

Yes humans have stem cells that turn on and off. Some that don't ever turn on millions of them or maybe they did somewhere in the past.

What causes those cells to turn on at the right time is unknown. Its mostly observations of coders in action. The biological written libraries have past down since the beginning of life on earth. To where we are now through RNA DNA stem cells and array of messagers and coders. Nothing happened by chance that's for sure.

I even think metamorphosis had a bigger rule of species as whole in the beginning. Then reduced to mostly the insect world and some amphibians. Fruit flys and humans have things in common mentality.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been misled about that. 

But while people also believe we share 99% of our DNA with lettuce, that's a misconception, just like with bananas; in actuality, we share between 30-40% with lettuce.

https://www.yourtango.com/self/do-humans-and-bananas-share-same-dna

The sea coral number you put up is wrong, too.   The scale should be most like a mouse (which like humans, are eutherian mammals), then like coral (which are, like humans, animals), then plants(which are, like humans, eukaryotes).   One of the remarkable things about DNA analysis is that it gives almost identical relationships to those done on anatomical and fossil data.

Turns out, it's extraordinarily good.   That's why, for example, we can find how humans are related to each other. 

 

The author didn’t give any references. I'd take it with a grain of salt. She studies relationships and astrology and few other things not much science in her credentials.

DNA is needed to pass on information but that information can change over time without a trace because of RNA which makes the DNA meaningful.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BeyondET

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I think all the fossils ever found wouldn't even add up to .5% of the 99% of animals, primates included that are extinct. Finding common ancestors is a needle in a haystack.

Sure.   It would be incredibly lucky if we were to find the very specimen that gave rise to a new species.   Best we can do is find the transitional forms that show how it happened.  

9 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Alot of photos are missing correct links. Some of them have hypothesis animals depicted included in known animals.

Can you think of any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, for which no transitional exists?    When I started in biology, there were quite a few, but this is the golden age of paleontology, and such transitionals are abundant now.

Which two groups?

9 hours ago, BeyondET said:

RNA and stem cells don't stick around as long like DNA and those are the building block coders.

Other than RNA viruses and ribosomes.   mRNA doesn't last so long, since it's degraded as it is "played" on the ribosome, like a VHS tape.   tRNAs last a little longer.