Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
WorldnetDaily ^ | 07/29/2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 07/29/2011 9:24:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature..

The proposal to reclassify the specimen Archaeopteryx, which has been presented since its discovery in 1861 as a key transitional link, highlights the shifting sands on which much of evolutionary theory is based, according to one expert in the field.

David Menton of Answers in Genesis has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University, taught anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, lectured in anatomy, was a consulting editor for "Stedman's Medical Dictionary" and has been profiled in "American Men and Women of Science – a Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences."

He told WND the developments reported by Nature directly undercut the assumptions of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

"Just how many papers have we had talking about this being a bird?" he asked.

A summary of the scientific paper in naturenews explains that Xing Xu, a paleontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, is suggesting Archaeopteryx is "not a bird at all."

David Menton

The report says the latest discovery suggests the assumption that Archaeopteryx is "the evolutionary link between the two [birds and dinosaurs]" may need reconsideration.

The discovery, called Xiaotingia zhengi, was found in western Liaoning, China, in rocks dating to the Jurassic time frame, an assumed 161 million to 145 million years ago.

This one, like others, the report said, has feather impressions in the rock, but it also has claws on its forelimbs and sharp teeth.

"Xu reports that it also has extremely long middle and last finger bones and a wishbone with an L-shaped cross-section at one end.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: History; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; missinglink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 07/29/2011 9:24:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There seems to be many mistakes and outright fraud in the theories of evolution. Nebraska man comes to mind. Peking man has been missing for along time. Neanderthal man theories are as common as global warming theories.
2 posted on 07/29/2011 9:28:44 AM PDT by mountainlion (AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Captain Obvious, please pick up the white courtesy phone in the lobby, thank you.


3 posted on 07/29/2011 9:29:21 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

embarrassing


4 posted on 07/29/2011 9:30:23 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It was A transitional form between dinosaurs and birds - a feathered flying dinosaur.

It may not have been THE transitional form that eventually evolved into birds, but rather an offshoot that went extinct.

So how does a feathered flying dinosaur disprove evolution through natural selection of genetic variation again?

It doesn’t.

It is the same “look science changes what it believes based upon evidence, while we still believe the same thing despite all evidence.” creationist canard.


5 posted on 07/29/2011 9:34:34 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

What evidence is there of any connection between birds and dinosaurs at all?

When did this crossover occur?

We simply do not know, and there is zero proof of the connection between birds and dinosaurs.

Scientific theories need to be based on empiricism, not one fanciful wishful thinking like Kiplings, “how the rino got his horns”.


6 posted on 07/29/2011 9:42:03 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Denton was right in 1986.

. . . ."a theory in crisis" indeed.

7 posted on 07/29/2011 9:51:44 AM PDT by skeptoid (>!O!<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
There is evidence in morphology, increasingly we are finding that many of what we considered “dinosaurs” were actually flightless birds - we found this out because they had feathers and the same hip placement adaptation (IIRC) as birds.

Previously the hip thing was just thought to be a shared trait or an independently derived trait - but the feathers clinched that they belonged to the “bird” clade based upon shared ancestry explaining a derived trait.

There is also protein sequence evidence. The closest sequence to the collagen discovered from a T-rex bone was that of a chicken.

It has long been known that dinosaurs were closer related to birds than to reptiles.

Science doesn't do “proof” it does evidence.

You can ignore the evidence if you want - but it is still there.

The evidence indicates that once there were lots and lots of dinosaurs but no birds. Then there were feathered flying dinosaurs. Then there were birds, including lots of flightless birds that were, without evidence of feathers, thought to be dinosaurs.

Science it keeps changing. Being a creationist means never having to change your opinion based upon evidence. Being a scientist means you must.

8 posted on 07/29/2011 9:52:23 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Hey Allmendream......

Long time since you’ve laid an ad hominem on me.

There are many issues with the whole dinosaur/bird thing.... here’s a big problem that evolutionists never address:

There are real bird fossils that have been found in much older strata than Archaeopteryx. How could he have been transitional between dinos and birds if birds already existed? Simple question that deserves an explanation.... perhaps you have one Allmendream?


9 posted on 07/29/2011 10:07:33 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So how does a feathered flying dinosaur disprove evolution through natural selection of genetic variation again?
No, the question is how does it prove it.
10 posted on 07/29/2011 10:11:31 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Evolution isn’t falsifiable. That’s the problem.

Yes, science requires proof. If someone give me an electrical engineering problem, I can solve it through the application of Kirchoff’s Laws, or I can build the circuits. If the numbers do not match, then I have made an error along the way.

Evolution doesn’t work that way. We simple don’t have the means to test evolutionary theory in an empirical fashion.

Until then, there is no difference between Kipling and Darwin.


11 posted on 07/29/2011 10:12:39 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Where is the evidence for actual bird fossils older than Archeopteryx? Hard to address an issue when I don't know what you are talking about. Please provide a link for the evidence you wish to discuss.

And if Archeopteryx is a dead end with derived traits from a transitional between dinosaurs and birds - the existence of more fully formed actual “birds” slightly (as these things go) before it evolved would hardly be surprising.

Kind of like the existence of Neanderthal at the same time as modern man. Or the existence of Australopithecus Robustus at the same time as Australopithecus Afarensis.

The fact that reality doesn't comport well with a creationists simplistic misunderstanding of what evolution actually is isn't a problem with the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

12 posted on 07/29/2011 10:14:43 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
. . . . . .Science it keeps changing. Being a creationist means never having to change your opinion based upon evidence. Being a scientist means you must.

"Science" doesn't change - new evidences are discovered which force Darwinists to rewright their texts.

Empiricism Forever!!

13 posted on 07/29/2011 10:15:50 AM PDT by skeptoid (>!O!<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Science doesn’t DO “proof” it does “evidence”.

How do you explain the evidence? Science has an explanation for the evidence. Yes, the explanation changes as new evidence comes in. What is your explanation?


14 posted on 07/29/2011 10:16:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Never understood why Evolution and Religion are mutually exclusive....I believe evolution is simply the way God works.


15 posted on 07/29/2011 10:16:57 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Answers in Genesis “

In depth lecture series on evolution, creation, archeology, and many many topics. The information is there for anyone who wants to be informed. Christian Scientists (not the religious sect), but actual scientists, go as deep as you can handle. Not for the sound bite crowd. That is if you actually want to know the TRUTH.

for starters.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://creationmuseum.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/daily-articles


16 posted on 07/29/2011 10:18:32 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

They aren’t mutually exclusive. Science and evolution are.


17 posted on 07/29/2011 10:21:58 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Evolution is testable and reproducible and falsifiable. So is the common descent of species.

What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?

I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.

What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.

Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.

The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.

Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don't accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.

So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?

What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?

What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?

Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don't need one?

18 posted on 07/29/2011 10:25:11 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I don’t believe I have ever heard the idea that creationism denies micro-evolution. The issue is macro-evolution, by which I mean the change of one form of life into another, including the leap from one phylum to another.

Selecting the survival of arganisms by the introduction of stimuli hasn’t been disputed for some time, to my knowledge. Heck, even Pavlov proved the adaptability of living beings (although not on a genetic level).


19 posted on 07/29/2011 10:42:47 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Outstanding!

The last paragraph was GOLD, sir.


20 posted on 07/29/2011 10:43:08 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You can start by googling Protoavis.

This one is from an article on archaeopteryx that can be found on creation.com:

A bird which is unquestionabiy a true bird has been found which dates (by the evolutionists’ own methods) at some 60 million years older than Archaeopteryx. This was announced in Science-News 112:198, Sep. 1977) The find was assessed as above by Dr. James Jensen of Brigham Young University. The article also quotes Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:

‘… we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’

An attack on creation.com won’t help you here..... they are not the original source.


21 posted on 07/29/2011 10:52:16 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“Evolution is testable and reproducible and falsifiable. So is the common descent of species.”

How is it reproductible? Can we take a monkey in a lab and change a monkey into a person? Have we ever directly observed a monkey becoming a man?

No, it’s not falsifiable. Evolution makes no testable claims.

“What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?”

The part which concerns speciation. Differentiation has been observed and was recorded by Darwin. Genetics, as Mendel found is also falsifiable and is based on science.

Evolution? Not so.

“I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.”

Indeed. This is differentiation as observed by Darwin. Can you make the bacteria spontaneously form?

“What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.”

True, but all scientific theories are falsifiable.

The argument that species are themselves immutable, is at present a conjecture. Plus there’s Lamarck. Darwin’s not the only game in town.

“Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.”

Similarities in composition does not necessarily imply similarities in origin. There are other explanations.

“The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.”

Unfortunately, direct proof of such is not to be had. Circumstantial evidence, yes. Proof on the level of say general relativity? No. All scientific theories make falsifiable claims. Darwinism does not.

“Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don’t accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.”

Again, there are more theories then just this one.

“So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?”

Different from the theory that argues that every species that needed preservation from the flood is the same as every species in existence?

“What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?”

The same that is used by cattle breeders. Differentiation.

What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?

Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don’t need one?


22 posted on 07/29/2011 10:52:26 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Creationist deny “micro” evolution all the time when they insist that all mutational changes are maladaptive or only diminish the amount of genetic variability already present in the organism. All the talk about ‘after the Fall’ and how human beings are less long lived than the Malthusian ages given in the Bible being due to genetic degradation.

So what is going to stop adaptive “micro” changes within a population such that two separate branches will accumulate a 2% genetic difference, as is the amount of difference between humans and chimpanzees?

23 posted on 07/29/2011 11:24:44 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Do you know what “Proto” means?

Apply the meaning to “Protoavis”.

If the structures on the one known fossil of Protoavis are in fact quill knobs, it pushes the origin of feathers back a long ways before Archeopteryx.

But Archeopteryx need not be the originator of feathers (and chances are it was most certainly NOT) for it to be a species that combines traits of dinosaurs and birds such that it was a feathered flying dinosaur instead of a feathered flying dinosaur that was going to give rise to modern birds.

24 posted on 07/29/2011 11:29:56 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I described how evolution is reproducible. But you are now talking about how common descent of species is reproducible, way to move the goalposts - or are you unaware that they are two separate phenomena?

Evolution makes many testable claims. Claims such as that changes in the natural environment will lead to differential reproductive outcomes within a population such that some genetic variations will predominate in subsequent generations. That has been shown time and time again.

How do you define the mechanism of “differentiation” such that novel antibiotic resistance variations arise within a population after the invention of a new antibiotic?

Saying a word is not defining a mechanism.

What mechanism do you propose?

Apparently you don't think you need to.

Probably because the only known mechanism for this “differentiation” is natural selection of genetic variation.

25 posted on 07/29/2011 11:36:27 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]



26 posted on 07/29/2011 12:01:25 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: allmendream; BenKenobi

I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.

Yes, that’s 100% true. But, your bacteria is going to be just that - bacteria. It’s not going to get up off the slide, open the lab door and walk down the street. It starts off as bacteria, and ends up as bacteria.

I believe that yes, there are changes based on influences such as environmental changes, infections, genetic mutations and abnormalities. These changes do not beget speciation. I do not believe these influences can change a dinosaur into a bird, or a cat into a dog, or monkey into man.


27 posted on 07/29/2011 12:24:13 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder (I sure hope there is a New Morning in America soon. All this hope and change is leaving me depressed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

First, unless you supply a link to a claim made directly from a creationist stating that all mutational changes are maladaptive, this is a strawman. You state it is so, but I have not seen any such claim - and I periodically check in on these debates.

Second, what evidence can you proffer that micro changes have actually accummulated to the point of a chimp turning human, or a human chimp? Stating that it is theoretically possible is a far cry from stating it has occurred.


28 posted on 07/29/2011 12:26:08 PM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder
There are changes based upon influences such as environmental changes, infections, abnormalities, etc - these changes are themselves genetic in nature - originally through mutation.

Once we have established that the environment selects genetic variations such that adaptive changes can and will happen, what is going to STOP the accumulation of change between two separate species such that they become some 2% genetically different, as humans and chimps are 2% genetically different?

What is going to stop “micro” changes form accumulating into “macro” differences?

Do you find it difficult to believe that mice and rats share a common ancestor?

29 posted on 07/29/2011 12:28:35 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577

Here is a source a former FReeper “GodGunsGuts” used to post.

So you admit it is theoretically possible? What is going to stop mutational changes of some 2% genetic difference over some six to seven million years?

As far as evidence of the common ancestry of humans and chimps we have, not only the genetic similarity, but also the presence of ERV sequences that show common descent.

Do you need an explanation of what ERV sequences are and how they show common descent?

30 posted on 07/29/2011 12:37:02 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

What follows is another Creationist disavowing that mutations can lead to advantageous adaptations.

It is not at all an uncommon belief among Creationists.

Please note how they link mutation to sin entering the world, thus all change from the “original Creation” that was “perfect” cannot be said to be adaptive; not if the original configuration was “perfect”.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html

Mutations only corrupt the information already present. Leaving the organism with less genetic information, and a lower chance of survival.

This is in line with Biblical Creation, and the laws of Thermodynamics. The original Creation was perfect, and now because of sin it is starting to decay. The world and everything in it will continue to “unwind” and fall apart until the time when Christ comes.


31 posted on 07/29/2011 12:56:30 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Do you find it difficult to believe that mice and rats share a common ancestor?

No, because mice and rats are both in the family. However, mice, rats, moles do not have a common ancestor as a mountain lion, cougar, panther, or short-hair tabby.

If you tear apart 3 cars down to base mechanical structures, a Ford F150, a Chevy 1500, and a Dodge Ram 1500, they’ll look the same; sure. But they are completely different. They have the same parts, but they are put together a little different.

We’re the ‘same’ as a lot of animals on this planet, because of all the planets that exist, this one supports life - we know that for a fact. The raw materials for life are going to be similar, just like the engines, transmission, etc. for the trucks. But they’re going to be different.


32 posted on 07/29/2011 12:57:23 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder (I sure hope there is a New Morning in America soon. All this hope and change is leaving me depressed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

you can wave your hands and scream your ‘just so’ stories all you want, and call it common descent, i, and most thinking people, recognize common design...as God designed it.....simple.


33 posted on 07/29/2011 1:00:27 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder
Mice and rats are more genetically distinct from the other than humans and chimps are from each other.

Just because you look at a mouse and a rat and see that they are “both in the family” but fail to recognize that humans and chimps are “both in the same family” doesn't make one axiomatic and the other an impossibility.

Zoologists classify humans as a primate, because we are. Among the primates, the two that are closest related are humans and chimps.

I suppose you have no problem looking at a chimp and a gorilla and seeing that they are “both in the family”. But by what criteria do you include two species that are further apart in DNA as part of the same family, but fail to include the two members that are the most similar in DNA?

34 posted on 07/29/2011 1:01:38 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan
ERV is not a “just so” story nor does it involve me screaming or waving my hands.

If you don't understand what ERV’s are, just say so.

But it doesn't seem to matter, if you had any interest at all in learning the subject you would already know it.

Being a Creationist means never having to let evidence change your view.

Best if you don't look too closely at the evidence then, as it will be a waste of my time and yours.

35 posted on 07/29/2011 1:04:37 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

:) Thanks!


36 posted on 07/29/2011 3:31:15 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“I described how evolution is reproducible. But you are now talking about how common descent of species is reproducible, way to move the goalposts”

Uh, considering how you stated common descent is essential to evolution, your objection has no merit.

“are you unaware that they are two separate phenomena?”

Give that I’m arguing that the phenomena you describe is ‘differentiation’ (which btw is hte term used by Darwin), I would presume this wasn’t the case.

“Evolution makes many testable claims. Claims such as that changes in the natural environment will lead to differential reproductive outcomes within a population”

Which isn’t falsifiable because evolution never makes claims as to how the animals will change to adapt to their environment. It doesn’t make an empirical claim that mutation x will arise in animal y in a time period z. All it says is that animals change with their environment. Which gets us back to the just so stories.

“such that some genetic variations will predominate in subsequent generations. That has been shown time and time again.”

Indeed, however a scientific theory can’t just say that large objects attract one another. It has to say that the force between the objects is governed by an inverse square of the distance between them. One is falsifialbe, the other is not.

“How do you define the mechanism of “differentiation” such that novel antibiotic resistance variations arise within a population after the invention of a new antibiotic?”

“because the only known mechanism for this “differentiation” is natural selection of genetic variation”

Indeed. Now is your argument simply, “common descent is a mere conjecture?”


37 posted on 07/29/2011 4:36:49 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

I didn’t state that common descent is essential to evolution. That would be incorrect. Evolution IS essential to common descent - but it doesn’t work both ways. Do you understand why?

One doesn’t need to know the EXACT mutation to know that adaptive mutations will arise and be selected for and thus lead to a differential reproductive outcome.

A physicist doesn’t know WHICH atom will undergo radioactive decay - but they know the rate at which it will happen. But maybe radioactive decay isn’t falsifiable under your ludicrous system because they don’t know exactly WHICH atom will decay! Maybe to you Physics is a “just so” story. LOL!

So the mechanism of “differentiation” you accept is the same one proposed by Darwin, absent anything coherent you put forth one must suppose so. So as long as nobody calls it a theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation you are OK - they just need to call the exact same mechanism “differentiation” through natural selection of genetic variation - and that makes it all copacetic?

So your only explanation for the difference between human populations, novel antibiotic resistance, environmental adaptations of a population, etc - is natural selection of genetic variation! Wow. You must really admire Darwin for coming up with a theory that has SUCH AMAZING explanatory powers.

Absent Darwin you HAVE no explanation!

Let that sink in for a second.......


38 posted on 07/30/2011 6:49:40 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Speaking of common descent being a theory subject to falsification - what is the theme of this article again?

Oh yes, that in light of the most current data and the most current model, the idea that this particular fossil was a predecessor of birds is probably not correct. Falsification.

Your criteria seems to be that unless we can push two continents together and see the resulting mountain - the geological model that Continental upthrusting is the mechanism will be unsound.

You have confused in your mind evolution and common descent of species and what I find to be essential to either, to the point of misquoting me.

To clear up any confusion try this analogy....

Erosion can cause valley formation. Valley formation can be seen as a result of erosion forces.

Similarly....

Evolution can cause common descent of separate species. Common descent of species can be seen to be the result of evolution.

So it seems you have no problem at all with the theory of evolution Darwin described being the mechanism of evolution - so long as I call it differentiation.

Your problem seems to be just how much difference can be accumulated?

How about a 2% genetic difference?

What would stop a 2% genetic difference from accumulating between two separate species, considering that mutation IS going to happen?

39 posted on 07/30/2011 7:47:39 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

the fact that by definition, species cannot interbreed with one another?


40 posted on 07/30/2011 8:46:03 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: schaef21

You really shouldn’t argue with a religious fanatic.


41 posted on 07/30/2011 8:48:52 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Hey, I saw evidence of evolution on the cover of a Detroit area phone book during the 1970s. It showed how automobiles changed, or "evolved" over the years. It started out with the early "Model Ts" and such through the various evolutionary changes like automatic transmissions and cruise control.

The crazy thing is there are mouth breathing half wits who actually believe automobiles have "creators" or "designers." After all, you see more evidence of transitionary fossils at your local junk yard than in any rock sample!

What rubes!

42 posted on 07/30/2011 8:57:16 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The fact is that it was the link between dinosaurs and birds. Then it was shown that this was not so.

The relationships are based on conjecture. Conjecture isn’t a scientific basis.


43 posted on 07/30/2011 10:47:04 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
No. The “fact” that species cannot interbreed with one another is NOT any sort of reason why a 2% genetic difference would not accumulate between two separate populations of (what once was) the same species.

It would, in fact, ENFORCE that there was no genetic merging of the lines, if there were genetic problems with interbreeding.

So you are completely wrong about that and have, once again, no mechanism to explain what would stop a 2% genetic difference from accumulating, and apparently neither are you intelligent enough to understand that your proposed mechanism would in fact increase the likelihood of what I propose rather than making it impossible.

Would you like to try again?

What is going to stop a 2% genetic difference from accumulating over time in two separate populations of what once was the same species?

44 posted on 08/01/2011 6:29:38 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So your argument is that the small changes accumulate over time, a long time until the species “hops over the edge”, and becomes a new species?

By that logic, it would happen in one generation that two creatures would suddenly stop being able to breed with each other, and then diverge and become another species.

Now, here’s a question for you. Has this ever been observed? How does this square with the catastrophists who admit that evolution cannot be a slow mechanical process. Becaues there’s simply not enough time for these changes to result in what you would see.

So here’s my question, given a guaranteed mutation in one base pair, how long would it take to cross the gap between a man and a chimpanzee? That’s 150k base pairs.

You would be looking at 150k successive changes in one direction. Assuming equal drift between men and monkeys, and a population of men around 500 million people, that would mean 2 ^ 150000 / 8k (births a year).

That makes it a 1/8x10^18 power chance of it occurring over 2 million year. Assuming 5 billion instead of 500 million, gives us a 1/8x10^17 power chance of this occurring.


45 posted on 08/01/2011 7:34:56 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

No. There is no edge. The edge is only in your mind. When walking from a forest into a swamp there is no “line” where forest becomes swamp.

Yes, it has been observed that two separate populations accumulate differences. It is an inevitable consequence of mutation and you haven’t yet come up with any mechanism that is going to prevent these differences from accumulating.

A 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps, and a 6-10% difference over the entire genome - would take some six million years.

The known mutation rate is more than sufficient to explain this change, because many changes are not “fixed” within either population.

So what is going to stop a 2% difference in genetic DNA from accumulating in two separate populations?

You still haven’t proposed a mechanism.

And your only mechanism to explain change in living systems is the one Darwin proposed. You owe a debt to Darwin because his explanation is the only one that you can agree to to account for changes within living systems.

So what is going to stop these changes from accumulating in two separate populations?


46 posted on 08/01/2011 7:44:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Yes, there is an edge. That’s the problem. The edge has never been observed.

By your logic assuming a fixed rate and pure randomness, we should not even expect to see the changes that we do see. That’s another problem. Not enough time has elapsed. So either the theory is wrong, or one of the other assumptions is wrong.

I’m not proposing a ‘different’ method. I’m simply arguing that there’s no evidence for this method actually occurring in nature. My personal belief is that species are immutable.


47 posted on 08/01/2011 9:12:43 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Didn’t I warn you about arguing with religious fanatics?


48 posted on 08/01/2011 9:15:18 AM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Check out “ring species” and then try to tell me with a straight face that the phenomena of increased genetic incompatibility with increased genetic difference has not been observed.

Assuming the observed rate of mutation we should see MORE changes than we see over six to seven million years of separate reproduction. Do you understand why we don’t see even MORE change?

Not enough time has elapsed? You don’t think that there has BEEN six or seven million years of separate reproduction? Well then, you reject almost the entirety of science - astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, etc, etc. It seems your problem is not so much with Darwin, whose mechanism is the only explanation for change in biological systems you accept - but with almost all of the rest of science.

We see that no species is a perfect replicator. DNA polymerase itself has an inherent error rate. How can a species be “immutable” when mutations are the inevitable consequence of reproduction? What mechanism is keeping them “immutable” in the face of an inherent and inescapable mutation rate?


49 posted on 08/01/2011 9:39:13 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
No, it’s not falsifiable. Evolution makes no testable claims.

Finding the fossilized remains of homo sapiens in Jurassic strata would immediately falsify evolution.

50 posted on 08/01/2011 10:01:41 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson