Blue eye gene

[The Lorax]

The fact that we humans have developed the ability to speak and understand complex language while the other animals cannot have nothing to do with evolution?

Language has much to do with evolution. If the hyoid bone had not dropped we would not be able to make most of the sounds that we can.

[Fraught]

FresnoJoe

Oh The Wounds We Bare Showing You Our Beliefs

You Are Forgiven

Rascal

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean all artsylady's beliefs were hypocritical, I just meant I find it weird that she and other creationists demand more and more proof of evolution despite the mountain already presented when she is willing to accept her 'assertion' on the basis of a hunch. The same goes for Giaour's guess that "we got different skin colors and eye colors when God scattered mankind all over the earth." What is this based on? I can guarantee that it is based on less than evolution, yet here their hypotheses stand, accepted.

i guess it depends on whether you think that common sense is 'less' than evolution. if common sense is too simple a concept for you, substitute inductive or deductive reasoning.

I find common sense arguments weak. Our 'common sense' is built upon our life experiences as we interact with medium sized objects, moving at medium speeds, and it therefore falls apart when dealing with very small objects (quantum mechanics) or very high speeds (relativity).

AHA !! You are helping me solidify a suspicion i have begun to have. namely, that people are losing trust in themselves. they must look to 'experts' to tell them what opinions to hold. whether this is a result of media, or education, or child-rearing methods, i don't yet know. i do know that it saddens me. i also know more about what Jesus meant by 'proclaiming liberty to the captives'. a phrase that just keep revealing layers upon layers of meaning.

[nebula]

Cache -

I don't understand how you think it can make sense for mutations to take place creating regions in the brain to speak and to interpret what has been spoken as well as all the neural connections required for the brain regions to communicate with each other without there being words to speak. That poor person with the first such mutation must have felt rather weird.

[The Lorax]

I don't understand how you think it can make sense for mutations to take place creating regions in the brain to speak and to interpret what has been spoken as well as all the neural connections required for the brain regions to communicate with each other without there being words to speak.

Hominids didn't go from non-communication to suddenly using words; before words there were other sounds and gestures. For instance, some monkeys have distinct alarm cries for snakes and different, distinct cries for eagles. When a monkey makes the snake alarm, they all climb up into the trees. When they hear the eagle alarm, they all jump onto the ground. It's debatable whether or not these are words, but you can see how they could expand their repertoire of sounds to serve different purposes. Language is obviously very beneficial, and when it begins developing, language-enabling mutations in the brain would be highly selected for.

[Fraught]

I don't understand how you think it can make sense for mutations to take place creating regions in the brain to speak and to interpret what has been spoken as well as all the neural connections required for the brain regions to communicate with each other without there being words to speak.

Hominids didn't go from non-communication to suddenly using words; before words there were other sounds and gestures. For instance, some monkeys have distinct alarm cries for snakes and different, distinct cries for eagles. When a monkey makes the snake alarm, they all climb up into the trees. When they hear the eagle alarm, they all jump onto the ground. It's debatable whether or not these are words, but you can see how they could expand their repertoire of sounds to serve different purposes. Language is obviously very beneficial, and when it begins developing, language-enabling mutations in the brain would be highly selected for.

relating to your statement, this is the one part of evolutionary theory that does not make sense. it is a law of nature that the one that is different in the herd is singled out and either killed or left for prey. the one animal making weird noises is likely to be abandoned by the group. difference is not celebrated in the animal kingdom.

[The Lorax]

Relating to your statement, this is the one part of evolutionary theory that does not make sense. it is a law of nature that the one that is different in the herd is singled out and either killed or left for prey. the one animal making weird noises is likely to be abandoned by the group. difference is not celebrated in the animal kingdom.

You raise a good point, that change is often bad, but it's silly to say it is a rule that all change is bad. There are scenarios where the sort of difference we've been talking about could be beneficial. The first one that comes to mind is mating rituals. In most species, mating rituals are intentionally complex. The female will be wooed by the intricacy of the male's mating call or song. So if the male has enhanced vocal/lingual ability, that allows for a more complex song, and that is a big plus. The animal making weird (or, to word it better: a broader range of) noises might very well be the animal making more babies.

[artsylady]

ust like evolution of language. Given the fact that out of 30 feral children ever found, none could ever learn to speak or communicate as adults. They missed the boat. Which means that language had to have been around right from the get-go. It fits.

Makes no sense whatsoever. Does not fit. If feral children were unable to speak or communicate as adults my guess is that they were not around language at particular points in their development when the brain was particularly receptive to learning language and there fore it was much more difficult for them to learn as an adult---their brains missed the chance to be wired in the right way.

And do you have a cite to this claim?

You've answered my question for me. Thank you. If feral children were unable to speak or communicate as adults my guess is that they were not around language at particular points in their development when the brain was particularly receptive to learning language and there fore it was much more difficult for them to learn as an adult---their brains missed the chance to be wired in the right way.

That is right. If children are not TAUGHT to speak or communicate, they can't learn it, or so the evidence thus far shows. So, it's a chicken egg scenario that fits very nicely with the creation model. The evolution model can't answer it at all.

There are many site's on feral children. I'm sorry, I don't have time to look them all up.

[artsylady]

We need powerful brains for language, but why would we have evolved powerful brains if evolution didn't have language in mind?

The point seems rather silly when rephrased thusly, doesn't it? Obviously our big brains would have other benefits than just language, like problem solving and tool construction. Luckily for linguistics, the same brainpower that created pointy sticks also created Shakespeare.

So what happened to these feral children, who had been born of people who had the ability to speak, yet never had the ability once they were discovered? If you're saying that we evolved to have speech (and saying it on pure speculation, like most evolutionary theories) then what happened in every single case of feral children discovered. Even in the case of two sisters abandoned in the wild together, did not even have a form of sign language together - zero communication! It is obvious but you will ignore this and cast it aside, instead of putting it on the balance. You argue it with speculation rather than going with what the evidence favors! Okay, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but this is how I think you will react to this.

[artsylady]

Just like there are cave drawings of dinosaurs from ancient men. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model? Citation?

Well this is what happens when you decide to come onto Christian message boards to learn things instead of relying on a formal education I suppose. I am kind of surprised you'd never heard of this, but here is it. There are a few examples here, and you can further research them to see if they are true or not. As well, there are countless descriptions from all over the world of 'dragons, sea monsters and flying dinosaurs. Look up dragon legends on wikipedia. There are too many to provide citations for each one. But they happened all over the globe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp

http://floydsancientwonders.blogspot.com/2...-artifacts.html

QUOTE

artsylady

Just like there are creation stories similar to the creation story all around the world. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Well of course, all the ancient religions must have at some point asked 'why are we here' and you can't expect them to come up with evolution, so instead they make stories. It fits with evolution too.

How does this fit with evolution? Please tell me.

And how is it that the creation stories are so remarkably similar. Does this also fit with evolution somehow?

QUOTE

artsylady

Just like mtdna tells us we all came from one woman. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Haha. I would say that fits with evolution quite nicely.

It fits better with creation, as we know from creation that all of humankind began with one owman.

QUOTE

artsylady

The anomalies DO fit better with creation than evolution, otherwise they would not be anamolies. I'll answer that one for you.

What anomalies?

Well I'm certainly glad you are here because it's about time you became aware of the thousands of anomalies that do not fit with evolution.

Here are just a few examples.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-arch.htm

If you are really seeking truth, you will give all of this some serious consideration.

QUOTE

artsylady

I keep asking 'where does the new data that is input into the genetic code come from and how does the data find it's way into the dna"? But you haven't answered yet. Your answer is the same thing over and over - that it happens because microevolution happens, which is just a shuffling of the genes ALREADY THERE. I don't think you're understanding this.

No, actually I think I've posted where the new data comes from about four times already (on this and other threads where we're having the same discussion).

Here it is again for you:

Random data + selection process = non-random data

And I posted where the random data comes from in another thread.

Maybe in your mind, you've solved the problem but you have just come up with a very simple mathematical equation that serves no purpose whatsoever and makes little sense.

Random data as you put it, it's not completely random - it's information in the dna molecule.

And yes there is a selection process from this data that is already there.

Your problem remains the same, as it has with evolution for over a hundred years.

QUOTE

artsylady

I'll give you another example of the difference between micro and macro.

Micro.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually four aces turn up! Yippee!

This is still microevolution. You're still dealing with the SAME deck. The SAME cards (ie, the SAME information)

Now, macroevolution is different.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually three aces plus a UNO card from a UNO deck gets turned up! Yippee! You now have macroevolution. But the question is, how on earth did the UNO card get into the deck?

Now, what you seem to be saying over and over again, that given enough time, and given enough random shufflings, OF COURSE a uno card will be thrown out onto the table. How could it not?

I say "How on earth could it get into the deck?"

Do you see what I'm talking about yet?

Another common sense example. You've made this point many times and I've understood it. You need to read my answers. I've told you where the new information comes from.

Here it is again for you:

Random data + selection process = non-random data

And I posted where the random data comes from in another thread.

Well where does it come from if it's not already in the deck, or the gene pool? You keep posting this equation as if it proves something or that it is some kind of proven mathematical equation but it has no application to what we are talking about at all.

I could come up with a mathematical equation that actually makes sense.

Here you go.

random data + selection process = selected data from the random data.

QUOTE

artsylady

Science is not about coming up with a hypotheses and then "unless someone can prove it WRONG, we'll keep it and accept it". Science is about coming up with a hypotheses and then proving that it is true.

The onus of proof is on the evolutionists to prove how macro evolution happened.

Not, for the creationists to prove it did not. That's ridiculous because you know you cannot prove a negative.

So, where is the proof?

No, you are misrepresenting my contention. My hypothesis has been accepted, we all accept that evolution happens. Then you've come along and said "hey wait, theres two kinds of evolution, micro and macro, and micro happens but macro doesn't". Now the onus of proof is on you to show why this is the case (and of course to accurately define these terms first).

Yes, there ARE two kinds of evolution.

1 kind is the kind that is merely a shuffling of the information in the genetic information to pool out the most helpful information. Proven, yes.

the second kind is that beyond a shuffling of the information already in the genetic data, somehow, new helpful information becomes part of the code. How does it enter?

Again.

I'll give you my deck scenario in more detail once again because I don't think you understand what the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is yet.

I don't think you are really reading it and understanding the difference yet, otherwise you wouldn't keep asking me the same questions over and over and providing the same answers over and over.

Micro.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Sometimes, two aces turn up, sometimes one ace, Eventually four aces turn up! Yippee!

This is still microevolution. You're still dealing with the SAME deck. The SAME cards (ie, the SAME information) - this is what has been proven to have happened in species.

Now, macroevolution is different.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually three aces plus a UNO card from a UNO deck gets turned up! Yippee! You now have macroevolution. But the question is, how on earth did the UNO card get into the deck?

Now, what you seem to be saying over and over again, that given enough time, and given enough random shufflings, OF COURSE a uno card will be thrown out onto the table. How could it not?

I say "How on earth could it get into the deck?"

Do you see what I'm talking about yet?

Do you understand that while microevolution happens and the pooling of information from the genetic code is observed and is scientific?

Do you understand that microevolution involves new information? It's unknown how it happens? It's not scientific until there's a reasonable theory as to how it happens and it is not yet observed.

[artsylady]

QUOTE

artsylady

What do you mean?

I mean that if the length of "junk DNA" varies from generation to generation, new random data must come and go.

But the junk dna only can vary from generation to generation by heredity. The only dna a new being can inherit can come only from the father or mother. And the father and the mother can only HAVE an offspring if they are of the same species and the same species have similar dna. Example, two human parents may have information for variation of eye colour, hair colour, tall, short, etc, but the human dna code does not have the information to grow feathers, or wings, or scales, or to shoot poison, or to grow fins. In the entire history of evolution, there has not been a single human being found with any of these traits. Billions of generations and no significant changes to outside of the species norm.

In fact, the genetic mutations that HAVE been observed have been dwarfism and downsydrome and others that are not helpful at all.

THe data LEAVING the dna is not a problem, just like going back to the card deck scenario. You may lose an ace, that is not a problem. And in studing evolution we have OBSERVED this, leaving of the dna - as in sightless bats who live in dark caves, the information, over generations has been deleted.

Then if you add a selection process to that, you have new specific data. (Whether this selection process happens or not in the case of junk DNA is irrelevant, it's just an example of the addition of data)

I agree with the selection process - it's also been proven. but not to the extent that evolution says it has been proven where creatures take on new traits not really available to them in the dna codes.

QUOTE

artsylady

Here's the problem. Darwin 'predicted' that there would be many many transitionals found, and if they weren't found, he was wrong. (I don't have exact quotes,but) So, they weren't found. PE was a desperate attempt to continue the theory of evolution going when they knew not only that the evidence was lacking, but with this new theory, evidence wasn't even necessary!! Aint that convenient!

Once again I'll ask, what is your problem with punctuated equilibrium? It simply means that the evolutionary rate fluctuates. My point is that it isn't blind luck that it fluctuates and gets much faster to get through transition stages. Instead we define transitionals as fossils that are rare, so of course we don't have many. To illustrate my point, I made a quick ms paint drawing: The lack of transitionals.

Do you see my point? Due to the way we look at the fossil record, we only see species in the ancestral line that happened to exist when the rate was slow. We then call these non-transitionals and ask where all the transitionals are when in actuality, they are all transitional.

The problem with a hypotheses in science is that it requires proof before it's real science. PE requires no proof.

That to evolutionists, is not a problem, but it also doesn't make it 'scientific' because science should rely on proof, not just hypotheses.

QUOTE

artsylady

You're calling the scientific method "nonsensical" now?

No, of course not. Look at my quote. I said that the four axioms proposed in this article are nonsense. I said this because while discussing the scientific method in relation to evolution you directed me to the 'evolution is not science' thread and that directed me to that article, so I thought your point was that this was what evolution was based on. Then I said the axioms it was actually based on, namely reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.

Evolution can base it's theory on whatever it wants, and does, but until it can be proven through the scientific method, it's pure speculation and that is what evolution is to this day.

The four components of the scientifc method include observation and experimentation, and these two are what evolution seriously lacks.

QUOTE

artsylady

It's all micro and creation scientists would not disagree as you know.

So you say, but you have yet to post evidence of this mystical distinction between micro and macro or even give an accurate definition!

It's not mystical. It makes sense. Werent you the one who started the thread about microevolution in the first place? I thought you understood the difference.

Here's another article that should explain it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

QUOTE

artsylady

Okay, I'll reword that. If the earth and everything in it is actually young, K-AR is completely useless as a dating method to date anything. true or false?

It's probably true I guess but I haven't looked into it because it is irrelevant. K-Ar dating is never used on really old stuff anyway, so why on earth does it matter? If you could prove to me that the same thing is true of Pb-U dating (which IS used on really old stuff) then I would be interested. So far your point amounts to "12 inch rulers are inaccurate at measuring the circumference of the earth, so therefore all our measurements are inaccurate".

No, my point is that if the earth and everything in it is actually young, K-AR dating is completely useless, which we both know, as well as all scientists know.

My point doesn't compare to 12 inch rules being inaccurate to measure the circumference of the earth. They could be pretty close to accurate, albeit not the best method as well as time consuming.

If the earth is young and everything in it is young, K-AR is VERY inaccurate.