Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

No mention of the coccyx bone was mentioned. I believe he was referring to the following:

http://www.babymed.com/fetal-malformations/vestigial-tail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435

 

There hasn't been a gene, or genes that determine morphology. We don't know what creates form. Some scientists think it might be a morphogenetic field involved, and that idea dates back to a biologist in the early 20th century, and picked up on by Sheldrake. But discovering how genes create form is still on the table, but no one is even close to figuring it out.

 

Yes HE did, and originally we had a tail, had uses for our wisdom teeth, appendix and tonsils and as we can see HE still busy forming us, the really sad part is we have still not learned to fully utilize the best tool he gave us, our brain.

 

Evidence for that contention from peer-reviewed scientific articles?

 

There is the original Darwinism and then we are now using Neo Darwinism. They are a bit different, I think.

 

Of course. All buildings use the same materials, sand, stone, cement, steel, wood, glass, etc. The Designer used the materials available to assemble each creature into it's unique structure.

 

There are numerous transitional fossils. Pretty much most of the fossil record is transitiional fossils. Are the transitions perfect? of course not, but study paleontology for a few years, and you will be convinced.

Information can be added to DNA. There are mutations that do this.

The other thing is, most of the structures of our body have analogues in the rest of the vertebrate world. Our hands have the same basic bones that the lobe-finned fishes (such as the coelacanth) have in their pectoral fins. I can't think of any organ that we have that simpler vertebrates don't also have. How much comparative anatomy have you studied?

 

Someone else then mentioned the tail as a vestigial structure.

- - - Updated - - -

We still have uses for an appendix, tonsils and coccyx bone. You science is from back in the 19th Century.

 

IMHO, most fossils are transitional. How much paleontology have you studied? How many fossils have you looked at? Have you actually looked at the fossil sequences that show the evolution of vertebrates? If not, how in the world can you make a claim that they aren't transitional?

 

Wrong. I don't know who told you there weren't any but they lied to you.

Crap on a crutch man you don't even have to think for yourself all you have to do is use google!

You ever find any sources for the junk you were posting yesterday?

 

Actually evolution says nothing about the beginning of life but the evolution of life.

What do you mean?

But that is not about evolution. You appear mixed up?

In part because you don't seem to understand it.

Evolution is a fact that has been proven.

 

Based on your response, do you not question why a designer that assembles each creature for it to survive it must eat its other designs to survive

 

Not really because you can live without them without having to compensate for them being gone, heck some people are not even born with wisdom teeth. Nice try but they are part of our past developmental stages and should be enough for a rational mind to understand that we have evolved and probably still are.

 

What is it with you guys and "peer review". What is peer review? A few folks that agree beforehand that what the paper they are presented with will confirm their beliefs. Often, the peer doing the reviewing has no training or experience in the area the science he is reviewing.

Dr. Schweitzer's work was presented and one 'peer' reviewing her findings said he agreed the tissue was legitimate but that he didn't believe his own research because it just could not be possible.

Peer review, like giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a war monger.


Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries of soft blood vessels, proteins, various blood cells, and even DNA inside fossilized dinosaur bones have been met with extreme skepticism from the scientific community. It has been well established that such biological structures and molecules should not last beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and could not possibly survive millions of years.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you never need a surgery or your auto fixed with that attitude.

 

We do see transitional life forms. We are transitional life forms. What we are transitioning to, I have no idea, but we are a transitional form.

It hasn't.

It hasn't.

It is ongoing.

Not many. That said, it's irrelevant. There is no evolutionary pressure for ostriches to fly. They more than likely evolved from flying birds.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said anything about any of those. I was just pointing out that the coccyx is not the same as the vestigial tail. You need to read for comprehension, and stop creating strawmen.

 

That is the classic evolutionists' escape hatch.

If evolution has been proved, provide me in your words how it has been proved a scientific fact using the scientific method.

 

References please.

What is evolving today?


It hasn't.


It is ongoing.

Not an answer to my question.
- - - Updated - - -

How is that a 'strawman fallacy' if I am answering a question someone asked?

You sound as if you are getting increasingly desperate to keep up here.

 

That is the standard for debate. You need to have sources for your contentions. It's how educated people argue.

Peer review is how science changes. 100 years ago, the idea of continental drift was thought absurd. Through the scientific method, plate tectonics (of which continental drift is a part of) became the central unifying theory of most of geology. Science changes according to the latest evidence. Peer review is one of the techniques by which it changes. Is peer review perfect? Of course not, it's a human institution, so of course it's going to be corrupt some times, but in the great majority of instances, it works, and it makes science more transparent and correctable.

 

Fine. I will do your research for you then.










Pakicetus is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale which has the nostril on the top of the skull.

This is a transitional fossil showing change from a land animal to a sea animal.

 

I believe An-Cap theory may apply to the extent we are not on the same "page" regarding Time with any Creator; as well as any form of evolution in which our species was lucky enough to win our lottery.

 

What are you talking about?

You've demonstrated a flawed understanding of genetics. Why do you feel qualified to comment on this topic?

Every single life form alive today is a "transitional life form".

- - - Updated - - -

True. But I'm trying to keep it basic for him.

 

Show me yours first.
This is a pretty good reference for the issue of transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Without a doubt, numerous microorganisms. That and we are.

Strawman, in this case, is you attributing to me things that I didn't write.

In this case, the earlier poster mentioned vestigial tails (and a few other things). You jumped on the vestigial tail, calling it a coccyx. (strawman). I showed some articles that are about vestigial tails, which are NOT the same thing as the coccyx. You again, claimed I said something about the coccyx, etc. You are turning my posts into strawmen, which of course can be knocked down.

Vestigial tails do exist (very rarely, 23 cases documented since 1884). They are very different from the coccyx. A vestigial tail would attach to the coccyx, and extend out further from there.


Here is the info about vestigial tails:
http://www.babymed.com/fetal-malform...vestigial-tail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435

Here is info about the coccyx:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

The two are not the same thing.

 

How does our current level of biological technology have any impact on whether evolution is true or not?

Ah, I see. You are confusing theories of how life began with evolution.

They are not the same thing. Evolution discusses what happens AFTER life begins. It makes no comment on how life began.

Which is why people are always saying that God and evolution are compatible. You can believe God created life, and still understand that evolution drives changes in species. Because evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began.

 

Described by someone's opinion but not proved scientifically. You do know the first animal is a land animal, right? (Since you are a scientist and not a Googler)

Show the skulls from the first animal with the nostril openings 1" back, 3" back then 6" back from the front. What each of these look like are three different animals. Nothing transitional about that, only someone's opinion they are/were the same critter.

 

I am going to make an educated guess you never read your own evolution biased web links, based on what I read of your links and what you have been claiming. Correct?

Just posting more links without stating you understanding of the information is lazy.

23 cases of the billions of people born is not evidence of anything other than an anomaly.

- - - Updated - - -

How convenient.