DEBATE, phicomingatya vs AronRa

[phi tran]

Ok, here it is from your videos series of Foundational falsehood of creationism

1. Evolution = atheism
2. Scriptures are God's word
3. Notion of absolute truth
4. Belief = knowledge
5. Evolution = religion
6. Many people don't know what evolution is
Evolution = change over time
Context of science, evolution is a biological process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations leading to usually subtle changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which compiled over successive generations, can increase biodiversity when contiuing variation between geneticly isolated groups eventually lead to one ore more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. It's how lifeforms diversify being descent with modification.
7. Everything must have an intelligently-designed purpose, or it must be random accidents
8. Mutations are just variation
9. Creationists insist transitional species found, do not exist
10. Cladistic phylogenetics is compelling evidence of evolution
11. We've never observed the evolution of new species
12. Involves creation science
13. Every "evolutionist hoax" ever alleged was either fabricated or misrepresented to such a degree that each contributes to a growing list of creationist frauds.
14. Creationists' claims of having evidence, when all they really have are baseless assertions and assumed conclusions supported only by frauds and fallacies
15. Hypothesis, fact, law, and theory

Evolution is not atheism, scriptures are God's word in certain religeous worldviews, absolute truth exists mainly in philosphical contexts, both belief and knowledge should be tested, many people do know what evolution is, purpose of events is philosophical, mutations happen, every species is transitional assuming evolution but what is it without assumption, cladistic phylogenetics is a way of ordering species, new species observed are mainly micro-organisms and plants or breeds of animals which are not new species, no comment on creation science, some evideces are fabricated hoaxes while others are not, not all evidence points to evolution, you consider and assume only one hypothesis of evolution and make it a theory and fact.

Evolutionists are full of error

1. Creationism = religion
2. Evolution is true because 95% of all scientists believe it is true
3. Scientific peer review is infallible
4. Transitional fossils prove evolution
5. Natural explanation = truth
6. Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time
7. Everything must come from a common ancestor
8. Accumulation of mutations can produce all of biodiversity
9. Transitional fossils prove evolution
10. Tree of common descent prove evolution
11. A new breed of cats prove all animal life came from one common ancestor
12. Man did not come from apes, man came from a common ancestor of human and apes
13. Reconstructing bones that produces species fitting the phylogenetic tree, proves evolution
14. Evolutionists have evidence, creationists have none
15. Evolution is a proven fact
16. Long terminal repeats can only have viral origin
17. Retroviruses insert themselves randomly in DNA. They can do so at 3 billion places. We found 98 thousand traces of insertions and with insertions found at less than 0.0033 % of all possible insertion sites, we have enough data to say it is random
18. We found 16 ERVs in human and chimps at the same spot, which is very little (although with 98 thousands of insertions, we should have expected hundreds)
19. We have very good understanding of DNA, though we don't know what 90% of it does, we know exactly what ERVs do and where they come from
20. Creation cannot explain why higher up in food chain, there's less species, while lower in food chain there's more variety of smaller species, which can be lined up as if they were cousins.
21. Finding a horse with wings would prove evolution wrong, but with flying mammals known as bats, we just add a branch, and with swimming mammals known as whales, we just add a branch, and with egg laying mammals known as monotrenes, we just add another branch.
22. Chromosome comparison shows we have a fused chromosome, so we can just say at some point a chromosome fused and there was no trouble with producing fertile offspring, because it happened in two individuals at the same time, or there was no problem mating with others without fused chromosomes, and then just continue to inbreed in a small groups, which of course we know, give healthy offspring, and we seen in nature certain horse species and in other species interbreeding and producing offspring.
23. Extra chromosomes can just arise as loose DNA clinches together and then at some point have vital information on it, so that leaving it out, would be lethal to an individual, or a chromosome pair could just split into two pairs and form another centromer on the spot and telomers on breaking points, although we see this is not happening anywhere in any species or in any lab, we may very well assume it does, to explain the variety of different chromosome structures.
24. Yes, if we want to walk a thousand miles, we do it one step at a time. Which proves that if we mutate genes on DNA long enough, the chromosome structure will eventually break apart too and reform new chromosomes to increase the number of chromosome pairs. Yeah, and if you train your muscles and keep jumping higher and higher, you will eventually be able to jump from the earth to the moon, and if you let a radioactive uranium decay long enough, it will eventually become hydrogen atoms. There is no barrier in evolution through mutation and natural selection
25. If you prove mutation happens, you've proven evolution and mammals came from synapsids
26. If you've proven natural selection, you've proven evolution
27. Limbs and feathers have evolved in same steps as they develop in embryo's/eggs. Because we don't know any better
28. Human eye is inefficient, and constant jiggling of it, actually helps against the blind spot
29. We can just say it is as evolution predicted that a descendant branch of synapsid changed skull, braincase, secondary palate, teeth and differentiation of teeth and placement of teeth and roots of teeth and jaw and lower jaw and ear bone and nares and occipital condyle and cervical ribs and ribs in lumber region and diaphram and limp position and scapula and pelvis and vertebrae and toe bones and body temperature and sweat glands and mammal glands, all alien characteristics to other reptiles, while none of all other reptiles has been found to have a single change in teeth or body temperature or skin, or ears that is not common to the rest of the reptiles for all of 300 years of their mutation and evolution and branching into over eight thousands of distinct species.
30. We know where to find intermediate species between land mammals and whales. It's not like it was just a nice river being a nice environment for species who could dwell on land as well as in water.

Sure, you have better knowledge of paleontology, that's true. But your evidence and logic fail. It's not that hard to see, you know.
At least your definition of evolution is more accurate than most other evolutionists.

 

[AronRa]

OK, so you talked a lotta noise, but what you're telling me now is,you got nuthin'. </COLOR>

scriptures are God's word in certain religeous worldviews,

But cannot factually be so, even by the admission of leading theological scholars.

absolute truth exists mainly in philosphical contexts,

But not in science, which is what we're talking about now.

every species is transitional assuming evolution but what is it without assumption,

You really need to pay more attention. In the 9th FFoC, I provided a more restrictive definition of transitional species, one that both scientists and creationists agree on,without anyone having to assume anything:

"What is a transitional fossil? "A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...""

The quote above was taken from a young-earth creationist's website, WasDarwinRight.com.

new species observed are mainly micro-organisms and plants or breeds of animals which are not new species

Sorry. New Species = New Species. You don't get to say that new species are not new species.

no comment on creation science,

But you already did. First you said that "I do no use creationist websites, because they post creation as an alternative theory". Then you said, "for you to exclude all other theories, you have to rule out a god who is able to be consistent in creation" and "Your strength depends on how weak you think creation is as theory." Contradicting yourself much? Then you said, "You cannot expect with opponents who bring faith into the debate, to have a meaningful debate. It's a joke!"

Well, you've certainly proved your point there!

some evideces are fabricated hoaxes while others are not,

Well, I challenged you to produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence that was actually indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other actual science. You implied that you had a list of some twenty different things that were each substantive, verifiable, and positively indicative of divine conjuration. Well? Where are they?

not all evidence points to evolution,

All relevant evidence does.

you consider and assume only one hypothesis of evolution and make it a theory and fact.

It is a fact because it can be directly observed and proven to happen, and can be verified many other ways too. It is a theory because it meets all the criteria required to be one. Of course we have both already established that there was never even one aspect of creationism that is scientific or meets any of those criteria. But before we started this, I said you would need that before there could even be a debate.

Evolutionists are full of error

1. Creationism = religion

Wrong. As I explained in the 1st FFoC,

"Creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence. These people rely instead on blind faith in the assumed authority of their favored fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally poofed out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else,despite all indications to the contrary."<i></i>

I then went on to distinguish creationism as a sort of lunatic fringe within the larger collective category of religion and religious believers, the majority of which [at least among Christians] are not creationists.

2. Evolution is true because 95% of all scientists believe it is true

Wrong. 99.86% of biologists & geologists believe evolution is true because they can all prove it to be so.

3. Scientific peer review is infallible

Wrong. But humans are fallable, especially under the influence of thier preferred beliefs. Scientific methodologies like peer review therefore necessarily exist to minimize biases and eliminate the uncertain assertions of faith.

4. Transitional fossils prove evolution

In some cases, yes, they do. There are no pegasi, no vertebrate hexopods, no mammals with feathers such as only a god could create. But there are, -as I have already shown you- a succession of many intermediates between what you declared to be distinctly separate 'kinds'. You even specified that these would disprove your position, but of course you wouldn't admit your error after I showed them to you.

5. Natural explanation = truth

According to you. Were you telling the truth when you said that it happens all the time?

6. Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time

Incomplete, but effectively true.

7. Everything must come from a common ancestor

That is the only explanation according to every field of biology, yes.

8. Accumulation of mutations can produce all of biodiversity

Evidently.

9. Transitional fossils prove evolution

You're repeating yourself now. it's not necessary. Science doesn't need mantras.

10. Tree of common descent prove evolution

Yes it does. If there was any other possibility, then you wouldn't have consistently refused all your opportunities to show otherwise.

11. A new breed of cats prove all animal life came from one common ancestor

Not at all. You're deliberately misrepresenting my argument again. How dishonest of you.

But if you admit that new breeds of cats do appear, then why not take at least one of my challenges and answer each of the questions below?

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
Are all panthers related to felines, scimitar cats and all other felids?
Are felids related to civets, bearcats, and other viverrids?
Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order, Carnivora?

Creationists simply ignore questions like these, because ya'll shrink like vampires from the light of reason. But scientists would attempt to find the answer to each one systematically, and would likely answer each with something equivalent to a simple yes or no.

Remember, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!

12. Man did not come from apes, man came from a common ancestor of human and apes

No, science has finally realized [what I've been saying all along] that our common ancestor was itself an ape -which is why we too are apes. I offered to prove that to you, but you ignored that challenge too, and even refused to say what you think an 'ape' is.

13. Reconstructing bones that produces species fitting the phylogenetic tree, proves evolution

In lieu of any other option, yes. What other explanation is there?

14. Evolutionists have evidence, creationists have none

That's faith for you; an assertion of stoic and absolute conviction, assuming impossible nonsense regardless of evidence, and promising to defend that pre-determined conclusion against all evidence to the contrary.

15. Evolution is a proven fact

Yes it is. You yourself said so.

16. Long terminal repeats can only have viral origin

Unless otherwise indicated. One must account for all variables.

17. Retroviruses insert themselves randomly in DNA. They can do so at 3 billion places. We found 98 thousand traces of insertions and with insertions found at less than 0.0033 % of all possible insertion sites, we have enough data to say it is random

Are you actually implying instead that it is deliberate?

18. We found 16 ERVs in human and chimps at the same spot, which is very little (although with 98 thousands of insertions, we should have expected hundreds)

I warned you about this one. I told you I had forwarded this argument to a geneticist for a few laughs at your misunderstanding. Here is what she said about it:

[colorful explicative descriptives deleted]
"We do not have '98,000' ERVs. We have 98,000 bits and pieces of ERVs. Most are solo LTRs (retroviral promoters), ~34K used to be protein coding genes (used to be gag/pol/env), and only a handful (~50-60 HERVKs--youngest family of ERVs) are recognizably complete ERVs.

So humans have 50-60 complete HERVKs to compare. That means the 'best' answer to [his] 'question' is 55/98,000. Worse still, chimpanzees have ~20. So now the 'best' answer is 20/98,000, even though that is '100% of complete CERVKs). Well thats not impressive at all!... If youre forehead-deep in TARD and dont know the difference between an ERV, LTR, and ERV protein coding genes.

In the real world, humans have 50-60 almost complete HERVKs, and chimpanzees have ~20 of the same family. Of the chimpanzees 20, most of them are orthologous with humans, and a few inserted after the human/chimpanzee split, making them chimpanzee specific, leaving me to estimate on stage that we shared ~14.

"Oh mah gawd! Thats liek noting, dough!" To pull on another analogy, there are ERVs (and ERV remnants) we have in common with other organisms on this planet. Certainly there are human specific and chimpanzee specific elements, but there are no ERV-rabbits in genomic-Precambrians..

19. We have very good understanding of DNA, though we don't know what 90% of it does, we know exactly what ERVs do and where they come from

Where they come from, yes. But they don't always necessarily 'do' anything.

20. Creation cannot explain why higher up in food chain, there's less species, while lower in food chain there's more variety of smaller species, which can be lined up as if they were cousins.

No, creationism doesn't explain that, nor anything else either.

21. Finding a horse with wings would prove evolution wrong, but with flying mammals known as bats, we just add a branch, and with swimming mammals known as whales, we just add a branch, and with egg laying mammals known as monotrenes, we just add another branch.

We don't need to 'add branches' because we can actually trace the evolution of each of those things. Look at my page on the evolution of whales, and of manatees.

Take a look at this 'partially-evolved' bat.

Compare that to a basal karyotype, the flying colugo.

These are not 'added branches'. The divisions are deep within the tree, not out in the periphery. I explain this on my site.

22. Chromosome comparison shows we have a fused chromosome, so we can just say at some point a chromosome fused and there was no trouble with producing fertile offspring, because it happened in two individuals at the same time,

Wait, who ever said it happened in two individuals at the same time?

or there was no problem mating with others without fused chromosomes, and then just continue to inbreed in a small groups, which of course we know, give healthy offspring,

Why would it necessarily have to be inbred? We're not talking about Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel here. We're not talking about tiny clans like Noah's kids. We're talking about large and even overlapping populations.

and we seen in nature certain horse species and in other species interbreeding and producing offspring.

In fact it is not certain even now whether modern humans can produce a viable hybrid with chimpanzees. But we almost certainly could if there we still had Australopiths.

23. Extra chromosomes can just arise as loose DNA clinches together and then at some point have vital information on it, so that leaving it out, would be lethal to an individual, or a chromosome pair could just split into two pairs and form another centromer on the spot and telomers on breaking points, although we see this is not happening anywhere in any species or in any lab,

Yes it is. There are descriptions of directly-observed speciation events involving chromosomal variance of both number and type via parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis and polyploidy even in animals. The wide and rapid chromosomal variance discovered in Madieran mice are a summary example.

24. Yes, if we want to walk a thousand miles, we do it one step at a time. Which proves that if we mutate genes on DNA long enough, the chromosome structure will eventually break apart too and reform new chromosomes to increase the number of chromosome pairs.

Whoa! Where are you getting this? And are you actually equating complexity with chromosome count?

Yeah, and if you train your muscles and keep jumping higher and higher, you will eventually be able to jump from the earth to the moon,

That's Lamarckian evolution, and it was refuted by Darwinian mechanisms -which you agreed actually do work.

and if you let a radioactive uranium decay long enough, it will eventually become hydrogen atoms.

You mean lead. If you let radioactive Uranium decay long enough, it will eventually become lead.

Is there such a thing as non-radioactive uranium?
Is there any topic you know anything about?

There is no barrier in evolution through mutation and natural selection

Yes there is. As I have already explained, there are strict laws of monophyly which absolutely every living thing adheres to. It has to be that way if we're biologically-related, but only then. If we were all magically-created instead, then there would be no such rules.

25. If you prove mutation happens, you've proven evolution and mammals came from synapsids

Mammals ARE synapsids. You are a mammal, so you are a synapsid. You are also an ape, -in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons- which of course requires that you must first be a synapsid mammal.

26. If you've proven natural selection, you've proven evolution

In a word, yes. If you can show that reproductive populations do diversify, that characteristics change and new traits emerge, and populations eventually divide into distinct subsets and then separated species, and you can prove that this happens according to natural selection, then yes, you have at least proven what Darwin theorized. There's a lot more to it than that, but at least this much is true.

27. Limbs and feathers have evolved in same steps as they develop in embryo's/eggs. Because we don't know any better

Wrong again. What we've shown is a sequence of adult species, each wearing full coats of partially-developed feathers in stages which can now only be traced in embryo.

28. Human eye is inefficient, and constant jiggling of it, actually helps against the blind spot

Apparently. What explanation would you give in place of that one?

29. We can just say it is as evolution predicted that a descendant branch of synapsid changed skull, braincase, secondary palate, teeth and differentiation of teeth and placement of teeth and roots of teeth and jaw and lower jaw and ear bone and nares and occipital condyle and cervical ribs and ribs in lumber region and diaphram and limp position and scapula and pelvis and vertebrae and toe bones and body temperature and sweat glands and mammal glands, all alien characteristics to other reptiles, while none of all other reptiles has been found to have a single change in teeth or body temperature or skin, or ears that is not common to the rest of the reptiles for all of 300 years of their mutation and evolution and branching into over eight thousands of distinct species.

You obviously never read the article I linked for you. Neither do you realize that every other 'reptile' of every order has shown myriad changes since then. There is not one species alive today that existed then. The relatively few forms to exist in Paleozoic times have branched into many thousands of distinct species since. Most of them have also died out, but the few remaining lines have branched into another several thousand species again.

You know, its's hard to find people who misunderstand evolution as thoroughly as you do.

30. We know where to find intermediate species between land mammals and whales. It's not like it was just a nice river being a nice environment for species who could dwell on land as well as in water.

The first four-legged whale ever found was discovered in the Sahara desert. I myself have been to the site of a Cretaceous beach where there were hundreds of ammonites washed up on the shore, along with a massive deposit of many other extinct oceanic fauna. That beach was buried under many meters of sediment. These often show where one location later became a tropical forest, then a desert, or scrub. Eventually this particular area was partially eroded by wind, and finally a creek of flowing water cut through the last several layers to reveal what was once obviously a beach at a time not at all like this one. If you move tons of modern earth from that particular site, you can see where the surf broke millions of times on a shoreline that is no shoreline anymore.

Sure, you have better knowledge of paleontology, that's true. But your evidence and logic fail. It's not that hard to see, you know.

<COLOR color="#80FF00">No, I think everyone reading this can see that my logic prevails and yours has failed. You said at the onset that if I had "mastered" evolution, then I'd "know better". But what mastery did you turn out to have? You claimed that you believed evolution once. Did you actually believe that pterosaurs were dinosaurs who were supposed to have turned into birds?!

According to the rules you yourself laid out for this debate, you were to allow me to present my top three 'evidence of evolution'. I opted to show only two, the phylogenetic tree, and the factual functionality of the theory proposed by Darwin et al., both of which you claimed were wrong. I explained them each in detail, and offered many supportive conditions and multiple ways of confirming either one.

What you were to do next was to discuss my arguments for the purposes of clarification, and we've done that too.

What you were supposed to have done now was to prove that both of my claims were "false or incomplete or indecisive or invalid". I clarified that men can never claim a 'complete' knowledge of anything, so that criteria is negated. But that still means that you were supposed to prove to me that the phylogenetic tree was false, indecisive, or invalid. I gave you every possible way to do that already, all of which you have refused.

You ignored all my challenges to indicate any 'created' condition in the phylogenetic tree. You refused to say what would convince you that evolution was essentially true. You also refused to answer my question about what an 'ape' is. You ignored the list of traits in the transitional species FAQ which met the criteria you yourself set for falsifying creation. You also ignored the half-dozen distinctly different divisions of 'true' mammals resulting thereafter, and the fact that half of them are entirely extinct. Likewise, you ignored my citations of genomic research, and of genetic links between [what you said would have to be] uniquely different and unbridgeable "kinds". You ignored the incontrovertible implications of endogenous retroviruses, and how studies of embryological development implied an evolutionary development of feathers, (among other things) which paleontology then confirmed. You ignored all these things, and then said you were still waiting for me to show you some evidence. How very dishonest indeed!

You also ignored all my explanations about why we cannot seriously propose that anything ever happened by magic, and you refused to cite any occasion in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations actually improved our understanding of anything, instead of always turning out to be the wrong answer in every instance.

You promised to "bring data" and test my theory and to prove that "stem reptiles" never developed into mammals. Why didn't you? What you did instead was to present a list of what appears to be naught but your own incredulity. I told you before, you can't just make up excuses to ignore or dismiss the evidence against you; You actually have to produce evidence to support you too! You admitted to literary laziness, and you showed your unfamiliarity with scientific methodology, your impressive ignorance of evolution, and your inability to understand any aspect of it, but none of that counts as evidence against it. That you insist on using all the wrong definitions for your terms didn't help, and neither did your refusal to comprehend the fact that one cannot classify articles of clothing into monophyletically nested categories. To say nothing of the fact that any other person trying to classify life-forms has no choice but to follow the same pattern regardless whether they use morphology, chronology, genetics, etc., where the classification of clothing is completely arbitrary and would be different with almost any new person doing it.

You also failed to refute the theory of biodiversity via natural selection, (being Mendel's and Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of species diversification) as being either false, indecisive, or invalid. Instead you caved on all points immediately.

You couldn't point out one flaw in that theory. Neither could you show how to correct it to make the theory work, or what to replace that theory with. You admitted that you can't explain any aspect of the emergence or mutability of character traits, except by citing exclusively evolutionary mechanisms. You concede that natural selection really does work, and that you can't offer any demonstrable process other than 'descent with inherent modification' to explain either the origin or diversification of species. You even submitted that there is not one explanation for any element of biodiversity,other than evolution; and there are still many thousands of traits which evolution explains very well -and which creationism cannot even pretend to address. So your own failure proves that evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity there is, because it is the only one which actually has evidence or is scientifically valid.

It turns out in the end that the theory of evolution is a lot stronger than you wanted to admit, and that evolution from a common ancestry with other animals still seems to be essentially true, while creationism is still evidently not; So according to your own rules, I win.

I won this debate a week ago. At that point, forfeiting the remainder may have been the most dignified response available to you. You were a fool to keep going. But I have one last question for you: If this is the best you can do, why keep trying?

 

[phi tran]

Realize that a theory is only as strong as its weakest link, with you thinking your one and "overwhelming" evidence of phylogenetic tree of life, which you try to support with reconstructed bones of fossils and traces of ancient viruses and chromosome fusions, I can tell you this, that not a single evoloutionist has ever been able to explain how new chromosome pairs arise in mammal species. Not a single explanation of new chromosomes gradually forming out of thin air or amino acid waste, nor any instantaneous appearance or splitting of existing chromosomes, have ever been seen or produced, not even a theory of how, let alone tested. Without this, you can not link successive mammal species together, while there are descendant species having more chromosome pairs than ancestor species.
While there's a great variation in chromosomes in mammals, parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis and polyploidy are not found or only exceptionally found in mammal species.

I have already indicated that your own phylogenetic tree testifies against you. So answer this one question, with facts or evidence.

Since the appearance of a group of therapsids with one of the first mammal traits, of no longer having scales, but fur and hair, how come the next chain of mutations of mammal traits all just coincidentally happen to be all happening to descendants of this very same species of therapsids, changing heart design in four chambers, blood and body temperature and forming mammary glands, over a period of +/-50 million years (and these were certainly not the only mammal specific traits), while each mutation could have happened to any amniot reptile species, but while they were too mutating into descendant subspecies, they apparently didn't try hard enough to form non-reptilian traits.
And within the next 50 million years, eggs became placenta in species which are again, descendants of mammals who went through all previous mammalian mutations. And apparently, side branches of cousin species who did not have gone through all mammalian mutations (being in different subspecies) has apparently all gone extinct.

Tell me then. Is it impossible for a reptilian species to form some non-reptilian traits by mutation, while one group had formed at least 21 specific non-reptilian traits in it's descendants?
How then, did all amniot reptiles manage to continuously mutate into thousands of subspecies with a "myriad" of changes, without ever crossing the boundary of pure reptilian traits, while one therapsid, previously having reptilian traits of being coldblooded, scale covered, egg laying, etc., crossed ALL of these reptilian boundaries, changing every aspect of body, internal temperature, as well as external skin cover with fur and all other traits, and one sauropsid also changed skin feathers and bone structure to hollow, beak and sex determination chromosomes to have all bird features? And cousin side branches which evolved some of these traits but not all, just all happen to have gone extinct.

It doesn't quite fit any prediction of your theory now, does it? From the life tree, it is obvious that reptiles have always been reptiles, and mammals have always been mammals. It is our human haughtiness, that we reconstruct from fossil bones, theories about intermediate animals with or without glands, with or without warm blood temperature and such things that do not fossilize, based on some holes in bones we found, inspired by the assumption of common ancestry with reptiles.

 

[AronRa]

Impressive!

You wrote this post in less time than I think it should have taken you to read the one you're replying to!

Since you admit that you're a lazy reader, and you keep asking questions I've already answered, then you're obviously not even reading most of what I'm saying. This should settle bets on the forum as to whether you're just a lowly troll.</COLOR>

Realize that a theory is only as strong as its weakest link,

No it isn't, and I already explained why. If you couldn't be bothered to read it then, why repeat it now?

I can tell you this, that not a single evoloutionist has ever been able to explain how new chromosome pairs arise in mammal species.

I've met several who could. They teach genetics. Take a class.

Not a single explanation of new chromosomes gradually forming out of thin air or amino acid waste, nor any instantaneous appearance or splitting of existing chromosomes, have ever been seen or produced, not even a theory of how, let alone tested.

You obviously don't keep up with these events.

Without this, you can not link successive mammal species together, while there are descendant species having more chromosome pairs than ancestor species.

That's genetics for you. More genes doesn't mean more complex. That's why a grain of rice has a bigger genome than you.

While there's a great variation in chromosomes in mammals, parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis and polyploidy are not found or only exceptionally found in mammal species.

Yeah, things seem more special when they're rare.

I have already indicated that your own phylogenetic tree testifies against you.

No you haven't.

So answer this one question, with facts or evidence.

Since the appearance of a group of therapsids with one of the first mammal traits, of no longer having scales, but fur and hair,

They still had scales. Many mammals still have scales. How do you explain that?

how come the next chain of mutations of mammal traits all just coincidentally happen to be all happening to descendants of this very same species of therapsids,

Every new species is a template for all subsequent forms. But it wasn't a "chain" of mutatios, and they didn't just happen in this one group.

changing heart design in four chambers,

That happened in both diapsids and anapsids. Some of them still have cardio-vascular systems that are transitional between the two.

blood and body temperature

They started with the same blood, so they're going to have the same blood -or a derivative thereof. But hemeothermy occurred in multiple lineages too. Dinosaurs and mammals are both warm-blooded.

and forming mammary glands,

That is the one trait unique to mammals.

over a period of +/-50 million years

From when to when?

(and these were certainly not the only mammal specific traits), while each mutation could have happened to any amniot reptile species,

And many did.

but while they were too mutating into descendant subspecies, they apparently didn't try hard enough to form non-reptilian traits.

Except of course for hemeothermy, endurance cardio, a cyclic respiratory system, plumage of various types, and -in the case of pterosaurs- a coating of down or hair-like follicles.

And within the next 50 million years, eggs became placenta in species which are again, descendants of mammals who went through all previous mammalian mutations. And apparently, side branches of cousin species who did not have gone through all mammalian mutations (being in different subspecies) has apparently all gone extinct.

That's right. You see the eggs laid by those few mammals who still lay eggs. The 'shell' is little more than a dried skin on the amnion, and they babies hatch almost immediately. It almost is a live birth already.

The same thing happened in many lineages of diapsids too. Many of them give birth live.

Wait a minute. If a snake gives birth live, does that mean it's not a reptile anymore? Has it crossed one of your alleged 'boundaries' so that it isn't a 'pure' reptile anymore?

Tell me then. Is it impossible for a reptilian species to form some non-reptilian traits by mutation, while one group had formed at least 21 specific non-reptilian traits in it's descendants?

That depends on your definition of 'reptile'. What do you think that word means?

How then, did all amniot reptiles manage to continuously mutate into thousands of subspecies with a "myriad" of changes, without ever crossing the boundary of pure reptilian traits,

What }boundary"? What is a "pure" reptilian trait? What makes it "pure"?

while one therapsid, previously having reptilian traits of being coldblooded, scale covered, egg laying, etc., crossed ALL of these reptilian boundaries, changing every aspect of body, internal temperature, as well as external skin cover with fur and all other traits,

No no no no. First of all, unless otherwise indicated, there don't appear to be any "reptilian boundaries" (whatever that means), but there were MANY therapsids! Some of them had traits that never even made it to us, and not all of them had more than a few of the mammalian traits you're talking about.

and one sauropsid also changed skin feathers and bone structure to hollow, beak and sex determination

No no no. One sauropsid lineage lead to anapsids, once a very diverse group, but only surviving descendants are turtles. Another line lead to diapsids. One of their lines lead to Lepidosaurs, another highly diverse group including ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and many other exotic forms. However the only survivors of that line are lizards and snakes, and tuatuara, and the world's last remaining sphenodon. The other line of diapsids lead to phytosaurs and crocodilians, and a handful of other oddities including the celebrated lineages of pterosaurs and dinosaurs. And of course the dinosaurs divided into many more highly-adapted subsets including birds. And of course continue dividing to this day. There are 4,000 species of finches just in the Carribean islands! How's that for biodiversity?

[chromosomes to have all bird features?

What are the "all bird" features? I'd like to see a list of those. If any bird doesn't have one or more of the traits in your list, would it still be a bird?

And cousin side branches which evolved some of these traits but not all, just all happen to have gone extinct.

Too bad, so sad.

It doesn't quite fit any prediction of your theory now, does it?

What didn't?

From the life tree, it is obvious that reptiles have always been reptiles,

I take it then, that you still consider birds to be reptiles? If 'reptile' = diapsid, then you're right. That's why you need a herpetology license to keep raptors. Birds still have fully reptilian brains, you know. No cerebral cortex.

However if your term is limited to character traits which may be subject to change, well then you're wrong, as what you would call 'reptiles' in that case have obviously spawned at least two otherwise unrelated lineages of warm-blooded and highly active animals.

and mammals have always been mammals.

That at least is true. Tell me, if a lineage of mammals were derived that did not have mammaries, would they still be mammals? Or would you say they had crossed some imaginary boundary to something else?

It is our human haughtiness, that we reconstruct from fossil bones, theories about intermediate animals with or without glands, with or without warm blood temperature and such things that do not fossilize, based on some holes in bones we found, inspired by the assumption of common ancestry with reptiles.

<COLOR color="#80FF00">Again, this was no assumption, and even creationist scientists drew this same inevitable conclusion even before Darwin published his discovery of how that all works.

Now, if you want me to continue educating you, I would be all too happy to, and I will tailor my lessons to single questions for those with short attention spans. But it would be inappropriate to continue that discussion here, because this forum is for active debates, and ours has already ended.

 

[AronRa]

Correction: I just realized that I said that birds had no cerebral cortex. Sorry. What they don't have is the NEOcortex.

 

[phi tran]

Again, this was no assumption, and even creationist scientists drew this same inevitable conclusion even before Darwin published his discovery of how that all works.
My point exactly. You've already decided (even before Darwin) that common descent was a fact, and interpretated all fossils accordingly. Then you go ahead and claim that your reconstructed skeletons confirm common ancestry. Some scientist you are.

Tell me, if a lineage of mammals were derived that did not have mammaries, would they still be mammals? Or would you say they had crossed some imaginary boundary to something else?
Depends on your definition of mammal. In evolution biological context, you could defend a positive answer.

What are the "all bird" features? I'd like to see a list of those. If any bird doesn't have one or more of the traits in your list, would it still be a bird?
Light skeleton with hollow bones
Feathered wings and tails
Flight adjustments (fused collarbone, uncinate processes on the ribs, air sacs beneath lungs), etc.

No no no. One sauropsid lineage lead to anapsids, once a very diverse group, but only surviving descendants are turtles. Another line lead to diapsids. One of their lines lead to Lepidosaurs, another highly diverse group including ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and many other exotic forms. However the only survivors of that line are lizards and snakes, and tuatuara, and the world's last remaining sphenodon. The other line of diapsids lead to phytosaurs and crocodilians, and a handful of other oddities including the celebrated lineages of pterosaurs and dinosaurs. And of course the dinosaurs divided into many more highly-adapted subsets including birds
Ergo, birds are still anapsid reptiles, which over time successively went through all mutations needed to become birds, while all side branches which did not complete the whole process, have gone extinct.

Wait a minute. If a snake gives birth live, does that mean it's not a reptile anymore? Has it crossed one of your alleged 'boundaries' so that it isn't a 'pure' reptile anymore?
Snakes still have eggs. But they can hatch at different times, even inside. No structural change here.

That's right. You see the eggs laid by those few mammals who still lay eggs. The 'shell' is little more than a dried skin on the amnion, and they babies hatch almost immediately. It almost is a live birth already.
You call them mammals, because they have mammary glands, but geneticly, you could ass well regard this in different order, as their sex determination system shows resemblence of those of birds as well as mammals. If you are looking for a "horse with feathered wings", then you have one right here (species crossing clades). But why bother, right? Just shrug and add another branch to your tree of life.

Except of course for hemeothermy, endurance cardio, a cyclic respiratory system, plumage of various types, and -in the case of pterosaurs- a coating of down or hair-like follicles.
Different species have different needs from their cardio and respiratory system.
But land mammals have fur, even if they live in warm jungle and don't need them. They have constant body temperature, even if they don't need to be active, like koalas. They are, after all, mammals.
Birds have many hollow bones and feathers, even those who do not need them to fly. Because they are birds.

From when to when?
About 125 million years ago +/- 30 years or so.

Dinosaurs and mammals are both warm-blooded.
That's what we guess. But we don't know for sure.


You obviously don't keep up with these events.
Those are about RNA. We already have lots of those in our cells. That's not the problem.

More genes doesn't mean more complex. That's why a grain of rice has a bigger genome than you.
You missed the point, that new chromosome pairs still need to come from somewhere. Over 99.9% (if not more) of mammals are diploid and sexually reproducing. How did new chromosome pairs arise in mammal species?

Yeah, things seem more special when they're rare.
That's the best you can do? Saying it is not more complex and it is special?
I'm still waiting for an explanation.


No it isn't, and I already explained why. If you couldn't be bothered to read it then, why repeat it now?
Every argumentation where one depends on the other, is as strong as it's weakest link. Why would we make an exception for your theory of common descent? You have absolutely no proof.
But go ahead and keep comparing genes and bones, for your precious phylogenetic tree.
You've already admitted that you decided common ancestry as a fact, before Darwins era and without phylogenetics. So this what you call honesty; the kind of honesty you claim all creationists lack?

 

[phi tran]

Ergo, birds are still anapsid reptiles ...

I mean a sauropsid reptile, same as which I said originally: one sauropsid species came to be birds (with other sub branches along the way of course) over time. I don't know why were you no-no-no-ing in the first place.

 

[AronRa]

</COLOR>

You've already decided (even before Darwin) that common descent was a fact, and interpretated all fossils accordingly. Then you go ahead and claim that your reconstructed skeletons confirm common ancestry. Some scientist you are.

Wrong again. It was creationists who first decided (in the 1700s) that some sort of common relationship was indicated, but they couldn't explain how.

Another problem was pioneer geologists, most of whom were Christians looking for evidence of "the flood". They didn't find any of course. What they found instead was the geologic column, which -ironically- modern creationists deny even exists. Along with that came the discovery of extinction, that vast groups of unfamiliar animals had all inexplicably vanished at various points in the past. They also discovered that those forms were replaced by new ones at superimposed levels. Thus they also discovered index fossils, noting that trilobites were never present above Permian extinction and dinosaurs never appeared below the Mesozoic, nor above the Cretaceous.

They tried to figure out, how could any of this be? Darwin was the first one who could explain any of that, and he also offered a way to confirm it. He said we should find transitional species, and we certainly have. We've found hundreds of them even according to the strictest definition of that word, bridging every gap that was once thought distinctly different than any other.

But of course that alone wasn't enough. They also needed to be found in the correct levels in the geologic column, and they were. Once we figured out radiometric dating too, then we knew another way to confirm all of that.

Then when we could actually show new species evolving under direct observation in real time, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, that sowed the matter up pretty well.

But even that didn't 'prove' the phylogenetic tree until recent revelations in genetics research, where (among other things) we've traced the lineage of all animals to their most basal forms, according to reverse genomic sequencing.

As if that wasn't enough, we've effectively done the same thing again via evolutionary parallels discovered in developmental stages in embryology, and we did it again by examining ERVs. At this point, what more confirmation could you possibly need?

And why did you refuse to tell me what evidence you would actually accept? I can think of no other explanation than that you're afraid I'll already have it, and you're afraid of the truth.

Tell me, if a lineage of mammals were derived that did not have mammaries, would they still be mammals? Or would you say they had crossed some imaginary boundary to something else?
Depends on your definition of mammal. In evolution biological context, you could defend a positive answer.

Wrong, because the "evolution biological context" is monophyletic. That means anything descended from a member of the Therian clade is a mammal -regardless what transient characters are gained or lost along the way.

What are the "all bird" features? I'd like to see a list of those. If any bird doesn't have one or more of the traits in your list, would it still be a bird?
Light skeleton with hollow bones
Feathered wings and tails
Flight adjustments (fused collarbone, uncinate processes on the ribs, air sacs beneath lungs), etc.

Interesting. So according to you, this is a bird.

But oddly enough, according to you, this is NOT a bird.

And according to you, the transition depicted below is impossible...

...because you think these two nearly identical forms are completely different.

You wanna try to give me a better list of "all bird" features now, Phi?

One sauropsid lineage lead to anapsids, once a very diverse group, but only surviving descendants are turtles. Another line lead to diapsids. One of their lines lead to Lepidosaurs, another highly diverse group including ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and many other exotic forms. However the only survivors of that line are lizards and snakes, and tuatuara, and the world's last remaining sphenodon. The other line of diapsids lead to phytosaurs and crocodilians, and a handful of other oddities including the celebrated lineages of pterosaurs and dinosaurs. And of course the dinosaurs divided into many more highly-adapted subsets including birds
Ergo, birds are still anapsid reptiles, which over time successively went through all mutations needed to become birds, while all side branches which did not complete the whole process, have gone extinct.

I know you meant to say, 'sauropsid'. But what do you mean by, "complete"? I would bet there are many birds -both extant and extinct- who lack one or more of the criteria you think "completes" a bird. Meanwhile, you completely ignored the fact that none of those who "completed" the transition to multituberlucates survived the Eocene, and none of the lepidosaurs ever "completed" the transition to "pure" dragons, since none of them can fly or breath fire.

Do any of your arguments have any substance? Or do they all lie within the categories of irrelevant non-sequitor and just plain wrong?

Wait a minute. If a snake gives birth live, does that mean it's not a reptile anymore? Has it crossed one of your alleged 'boundaries' so that it isn't a 'pure' reptile anymore?
Snakes still have eggs. But they can hatch at different times, even inside. No structural change here.

Mammals still have eggs. But they can hatch at different times, even inside. No structural change here.

You call them mammals, because they have mammary glands, but geneticly, you could ass well regard this in different order,

Wrong and wrong. I call them mammals because they're descended from mammals, and because their genome proves that the only genes we share with birds are those our common ancestor shared with us and birds. Monotremes -representing a basal karyotype- still retain ancient ancestral traits the rest of us lost long ago.

as their sex determination system shows resemblence of those of birds as well as mammals.

Wrong again, because the uterus and vagina are unique to mammals with no homologue in birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish.

If you are looking for a "horse with feathered wings", then you have one right here (species crossing clades). But why bother, right? Just shrug and add another branch to your tree of life.

Not at all. Because only dinosaurs have that kind of egg-shell. Hopefully you understand that "resembling" something is not the same as "being" that thing. Likewise, we may retain ancestral 'reptilian' traits, which of course birds would have also, but there are no exclusively avian traits in the mammalian genome. Your sources have lied to you again.

Different species have different needs from their cardio and respiratory system.
But land mammals have fur, even if they live in warm jungle and don't need them. They have constant body temperature, even if they don't need to be active, like koalas. They are, after all, mammals.
Birds have many hollow bones and feathers, even those who do not need them to fly. Because they are birds.

The point here was that you were wrong when you said diapsids never developed any "non-reptilian" traits. Because the plumage, cardio-vascular & respiratory systems of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are definitely non-reptilian - according to your antiquated character-based definition.

From when to when?
About 125 million years ago +/- 30 years or so.

But you're talking about events that the fossil record shows to have begun over 300 million years ago, and did not "complete" until 30 to 70 million years ago. So how did you come up with your 50 million year estimate?

Dinosaurs and mammals are both warm-blooded.
That's what we guess. But we don't know for sure.

No, that's what we once guessed, and have since proven.

You missed the point, that new chromosome pairs still need to come from somewhere. Over 99.9% (if not more) of mammals are diploid and sexually reproducing. How did new chromosome pairs arise in mammal species?

I don't know. I'm not a geneticist. Ask Ken Miller.

Yeah, things seem more special when they're rare.
That's the best you can do? Saying it is not more complex and it is special?
I'm still waiting for an explanation.

You don't deserve the best that I can do. I'm tired of giving you evidence just to see you pretend that I didn't. Now that the debate is over, I no longer have to -unless I just want to have fun with you. But I am curious; I'm sure my cellular biology instructor still teaches, and (like Ken Miller) she happens to be a Christian geneticist promoting evolution. If I could get her to answer that question for you, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind? I mean, do you really expect anyone to believe that your beliefs are based on, or that you would ever be satisfied with, any scientific reason?

Every argumentation where one depends on the other, is as strong as it's weakest link.
Why would we make an exception for your theory of common descent?

(1) Because it's not an "argumentation", it's an explanation.
(2) Even if it were just an argument, the general concept still couldn't likely be disproved by any triviality.

You have absolutely no proof.

I have all the proof any reasonable person could or would ever need, and everyone reading this knows that you already know that as well as I do. That's why you constantly refuse to test any of your own claims -even when you were foolish enough to set potentially-falsifiable criteria.

But go ahead and keep comparing genes and bones, for your precious phylogenetic tree.
You've already admitted that you decided common ancestry as a fact, before Darwins era and without phylogenetics.

I never admitted any such thing. What I said instead was that I had to learn this, and that studying this subject caused me to have to change my mind.

So this what you call honesty; the kind of honesty you claim all creationists lack?

<COLOR color="#80FF00">You're forgetting that it was creationists who discovered this, and that it is also creationists who deny it -for wholly dishonest reasons. Which prompts me to wonder, how can y'all be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time -for such a long time- and still believe yours is the absolute truth?

 

[phi tran]

Wrong again. It was creationists who first decided (in the 1700s) that some sort of common relationship was indicated, but they couldn't explain how.
So, because some creationists before Darwin agreed with your theory of common ancestor, makes it a fact and no assumption? That's ridiculous.

As if that wasn't enough, we've effectively done the same thing again via evolutionary parallels discovered in developmental stages in embryology, and we did it again by examining ERVs. At this point, what more confirmation could you possibly need?
I'm not arguing against your phylogenetic tree, which shows relationships. I'm saying you've put a lot of your work in confirming that there is a relationship, but you hardly have any evidence that this apparent relationship is caused by common ancetstry. You've gont conclusions of biologists who already assume common descent before they study embryos and genes.

And why did you refuse to tell me what evidence you would actually accept?
Evidence for common ancestry.

Tell me, if a lineage of mammals were derived that did not have mammaries, would they still be mammals? Or would you say they had crossed some imaginary boundary to something else?
Depends on your definition of mammal. In evolution biological context, you could defend a positive answer.
Wrong, because the "evolution biological context" is monophyletic. That means anything descended from a member of the Therian clade is a mammal -regardless what transient characters are gained or lost along the way.
Sorry for causing a misunderstanding here. I meant a positive answer to your first question "would they still be mammals".

But oddly enough, according to you, this is NOT a bird.
Well, if you assume common ancestor, then these creatures had wings before, so people would likely call this a bird without wings.

...because you think these two nearly identical forms are completely different.
I'ts better to look at structure, and genes. Sharks and dolphins look more alike than bats and dolphins. It depends on how you compare.

You wanna try to give me a better list of "all bird" features now, Phi?
What exactly is your point here. Birds have fundementally different systems of sex genes, muscle attachment to the wings, bone structure, which seperates them from bats, f.i..

I know you meant to say, 'sauropsid'. But what do you mean by, "complete"? I would bet there are many birds -both extant and extinct- who lack one or more of the criteria you think "completes" a bird. Meanwhile, you completely ignored the fact that none of those who "completed" the transition to multituberlucates survived the Eocene, and none of the lepidosaurs ever "completed" the transition to "pure" dragons, since none of them can fly or breath fire.
multituberlucates?

Mammals still have eggs. But they can hatch at different times, even inside. No structural change here.
Uhm, with snakes, there's nutricion in the eggs. With mammals, there's a direct cord to supply nutricion. It's a completely different system with a different structure.

Wrong and wrong. I call them mammals because they're descended from mammals, and because their genome proves that the only genes we share with birds are those our common ancestor shared with us and birds. Monotremes -representing a basal karyotype- still retain ancient ancestral traits the rest of us lost long ago.
...
Wrong again, because the uterus and vagina are unique to mammals with no homologue in birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish.
Did you know that the platypus has a completely different sex determination system, involving ten sex chromosomes?

If you are looking for a "horse with feathered wings", then you have one right here (species crossing clades). But why bother, right? Just shrug and add another branch to your tree of life.
Not at all. Because only dinosaurs have that kind of egg-shell. Hopefully you understand that "resembling" something is not the same as "being" that thing. Likewise, we may retain ancestral 'reptilian' traits, which of course birds would have also, but there are no exclusively avian traits in the mammalian genome. Your sources have lied to you again.
I'm not talking about the eggs. I'm talking about the genes. Namely the sex chromosomes.

Different species have different needs from their cardio and respiratory system.
But land mammals have fur, even if they live in warm jungle and don't need them. They have constant body temperature, even if they don't need to be active, like koalas. They are, after all, mammals.
Birds have many hollow bones and feathers, even those who do not need them to fly. Because they are birds.
The point here was that you were wrong when you said diapsids never developed any "non-reptilian" traits. Because the plumage, cardio-vascular & respiratory systems of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are definitely non-reptilian - according to your antiquated character-based definition.
We've got land mammals, marine mammals, flying mammals, egg laying mammals, and we also have land reptiles, water reptiles, flying reptiles, and we have flying birds, swimming birds, running birds.
There's a reason why we can tell them apart. There are huge differences in systems and structures and genes.

But you're talking about events that the fossil record shows to have begun over 300 million years ago, and did not "complete" until 30 to 70 million years ago. So how did you come up with your 50 million year estimate?
The 50 million years was about the placental part.

Dinosaurs and mammals are both warm-blooded.
That's what we guess. But we don't know for sure.
No, that's what we once guessed, and have since proven.
Proven? Lol.

You missed the point, that new chromosome pairs still need to come from somewhere. Over 99.9% (if not more) of mammals are diploid and sexually reproducing. How did new chromosome pairs arise in mammal species?
I don't know. I'm not a geneticist. Ask Ken Miller.
Wow, you've figured it all out how all things are related by common descent, with your phylogenetic tree, but you have no clue what so ever of how this happened in the gnomes. You've proven your ignorance.

That's the best you can do? Saying it is not more complex and it is special?
I'm still waiting for an explanation.
You don't deserve the best that I can do. I'm tired of giving you evidence just to see you pretend that I didn't. Now that the debate is over, I no longer have to -unless I just want to have fun with you. But I am curious; I'm sure my cellular biology instructor still teaches, and (like Ken Miller) she happens to be a Christian geneticist promoting evolution. If I could get her to answer that question for you, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind? I mean, do you really expect anyone to believe that your beliefs are based on, or that you would ever be satisfied with, any scientific reason?
If you have an explanation backed up with empirical evidence that fits the data of chromosomes of mammal species, then you have reason to call this common ancestor guess of yours a theory. Upto now and until then, it's been nothing more than an overrated, hyped up, scientific disgrace.

 

[AronRa]

I really shouldn't waste any more time on you, but you're so easy I can't help myself.

I already explained precisely how there was no assumption on the part of those creationists who realized there were taxonomic relationships, and how many stopped being creationists when all further investigation always pointed to that one and only conclusion every single time, no matter what other methods or tests were applied. So there was no "assumption" necessary at any point. Unlike faith, science doesn't jump to conclusions. Science questions them and tests them indefinitely. How will you test yours?</COLOR>

And why did you refuse to tell me what evidence you would actually accept?
Evidence for common ancestry.

I've already shown you buckets of evidence, but you're playing a game where you close your eyes and brag that you don't see any. So tell me now, exactly what evidence would you accept?

Because according to you, velocoraptors are birds.

How can a velociraptor be a bird? Are velociraptors both birds and dinosaurs at the same time?

Oddly enough, according to you, an emu is NOT a bird. How do you explain that?

Well, if you assume common ancestor, then these creatures had wings before, so people would likely call this a bird without wings.

Let's not make any assumptions at all. How do YOU explain it? Is this a bird even though it doesn't meet all the criteria you said were required to be a bird? If so, then what are the real criteria to be a bird?

How do you explain the fact that emus have arms instead of wings? And that their arms have one finger, and on the end of that finger, there is a claw?

Emus don't have muscle in their arms anymore, and aren't able to move them at all. So why would they have claws? We know evolution explains this very well. Evolution explains pretty much everything. But how would YOU explain either of these things?

Now we know that some dinosaurs have tiny little useless clawed arms like this. So, since you said that this is not a bird, then is it a dinosaur? How could we tell if is? Can it be both a bird and a dinosaur at the same time?

That reminds me, I asked you before, but you never said; What is an ape?

Let me be more specific; If someone were to show you some as-yet unknown species of a vaguely simian description, how would you identify whether that animal is an ape or not? It doesn't matter if it's a living specimen or a collection of fossil bones you dig out yourself. In either case, how would you determine whether it is or isn't an ape?

You wanna try to give me a better list of "all bird" features now, Phi?
What exactly is your point here. Birds have fundementally different systems of sex genes, muscle attachment to the wings, bone structure, which seperates them from bats, f.i..

Be specific, Phi. Can you show me any trait common to all birds that isn't also found in maniraptoran therapod dinosaurs? You say one could not have evolved into the other, so how do we tell them apart?

And according to you, the transition depicted below is impossible...

...because you think these two nearly identical forms are completely different.

Its better to look at structure, and genes. Sharks and dolphins look more alike than bats and dolphins. It depends on how you compare.

That's why I love systematic phylogenetic taxonomy; once you stop running from it and actually look at it, you'll find it provides all the proof you could ever ask for, no matter how much you might wish it didn't.

multituberlucates?

Half of all the largest mammalian groupings were already extinct tens of millions of years before the first people appeared. Multituberculates were among those extinct groups. How do you explain that?

Uhm, with snakes, there's nutricion in the eggs. With mammals, there's a direct cord to supply nutricion. It's a completely different system with a different structure.

Wrong. With snakes there is a direct cord through the amnion to the source of nutrition. It's the same thing with mammals, just without the shell. The only other difference is the time of expulsion, which is radically different in all three surviving mammalian orders.

Did you know that the platypus has a completely different sex determination system, involving ten sex chromosomes?

<COLOR color="#80FF00">They're not 'completely' different. Nothing is 'completely' different. But monotremes are the most primitive of all mammals and the furthest removed. You should see how bizarre echidna sex is!

Likewise, we may retain ancestral 'reptilian' traits, which of course birds would have also, but there are no exclusively avian traits in the mammalian genome. Your sources have lied to you again.
I'm not talking about the eggs. I'm talking about the genes. Namely the sex chromosomes.

I say again, you may have a gene that 'resembles' a gene found in birds, but there are no exclusively avian traits in the mammalian genome.

The point here was that you were wrong when you said diapsids never developed any "non-reptilian" traits. Because the plumage, cardio-vascular & respiratory systems of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are definitely non-reptilian - according to your antiquated character-based definition.
We've got land mammals, marine mammals, flying mammals, egg laying mammals, and we also have land reptiles, water reptiles, flying reptiles, and we have flying birds, swimming birds, running birds.
There's a reason why we can tell them apart. There are huge differences in systems and structures and genes.

The point here was that you were STILL wrong when you said diapsids never developed any "non-reptilian" traits. Because the plumage, cardio-vascular & respiratory systems of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are definitely non-reptilian - according to your antiquated character-based definition.

that's what we once guessed, and have since proven.
Proven? Lol.

Yes, proven! I won't even bother explaining the complicated ways we proved that. I'll keep it appropriately simple, just for you.

Wouldn't it need to be warm-blooded in order to incubate a clutch of eggs? Why else would it nest like a chicken?

Wow, you've figured it all out how all things are related by common descent, with your phylogenetic tree, but you have no clue what so ever of how this happened in the gnomes. You've proven your ignorance.

It's remarkable how you think I have to know EVERYTHING before I can debate a guy who doesn't know ANYTHING.

You were supposed to disprove both the phylogenetic tree and the world's only theory of biodiversity. You failed.

More than that, you were supposed to produce a verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of supernatural creation. Well, where is it?

And I'm still waiting for you to cite even one instance in the entire history of science when assuming supernatural explanations actually improved our understanding of anything -instead of always turning out to be the wrong answer?

I'm sure my cellular biology instructor still teaches, and (like Ken Miller) she happens to be a Christian geneticist promoting evolution. If I could get her to answer that question for you, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind? I mean, do you really expect anyone to believe that your beliefs are based on, or that you would ever be satisfied with, any scientific reason?
If you have an explanation backed up with empirical evidence that fits the data of chromosomes of mammal species, then you have reason to call this common ancestor guess of yours a theory. Upto now and until then, it's been nothing more than an overrated, hyped up, scientific disgrace.

Try this, Phi; Answer the question with a simple yes or no.

While you're at it, do the same thing with the following sets of questions below:

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to African and Indonesian monitors?
Are today's terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
Are all panthers related to felines, scimitar cats and all other felids?
Are felids related to civets, bearcats, and other viverrids?
Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order, Carnivora?

Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?
Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths related to paleognaths?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Enantiornis, or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are early aves related to Microraptor and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

Which of these are related? Which of these are created?

Just answer each of these questions with a simple yes or no. Whenever you say 'yes', I won't argue because of course that is what we can both prove to be indicated morphologically, physiologically, chronologically, and genetically. But as a creationist, there has to be a point in each of these sets where you must say, "No', these were created magically". Because, as I said before, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!

Let me put that another way, if you already know that evolution is true, then you'll refuse to do this. If you already know that creationism is nothing but dishonest assertion and semantic denial, then you'll keep on dodging this like you've been doing from the start. But I'm not going to let you keep keep doing that forever. Because I agree with you; up to now, you have been nothing more than an overrated, hyped up, scientific disgrace. That's why you lost this debate a week ago, and everyone reading this knows that -including you.

Attention Moderators: If -in your own judgement- this auto-fellating troll still ignores ANY of my questions in his next post, then close this thread.

So long, Phi. May you live a long time alone with your cowardice.

 

[phi tran]

How can a velociraptor be a bird? Are velociraptors both birds and dinosaurs at the same time?
Why would you call it a dinosaur?

Emus don't have muscle in their arms anymore, and aren't able to move them at all. So why would they have claws? We know evolution explains this very well. Evolution explains pretty much everything. But how would YOU explain either of these things?
Evolution is good with ad hoc explanations.
What is your problem with claws without muscles?
Why should that be a problem for any theory? You rely so much on an evolutionist falshood that all designed things need to have a purpose. Do you know how many microsoft word features there are that you are not using? Then why did you install those features?
My goodness, if I had a nickle for every time an evolutionist would use this fallacy, I'd be drowning in nikkles right now.

Let me be more specific; If someone were to show you some as-yet unknown species of a vaguely simian description, how would you identify whether that animal is an ape or not? It doesn't matter if it's a living specimen or a collection of fossil bones you dig out yourself. In either case, how would you determine whether it is or isn't an ape?
Compare it with characteristics of the group of species you labeled with ape. And your point is ...?

Be specific, Phi. Can you show me any trait common to all birds that isn't also found in maniraptoran therapod dinosaurs? You say one could not have evolved into the other, so how do we tell them apart?
How about you learn to distinguish necessary traits, and common traits.
Still you have to be careful. Like in numbers, every multiple of ten is necessarily an even number. If it's not an even number, it's not a multiple of ten. With that being settled, you can't say that number 8 shares the necessary condition of being even, so 8 is a multiple of ten. See how that's wrong?
Just because flying birds have feathers, does not mean that every animal with a feather necessarily must be a bird.
And not having wing bones does not mean that it is not a bird.

multituberlucates?[/quote]Half of all the largest mammalian groupings were already extinct tens of millions of years before the first people appeared. Multituberculates were among those extinct groups. How do you explain that?
What exactly do you want me to explain???

Wrong. With snakes there is a direct cord through the amnion to the source of nutrition. It's the same thing with mammals, just without the shell. The only other difference is the time of expulsion, which is radically different in all three surviving mammalian orders.
Ok, I didn't know about the cord in snakes. Thanks for the info.
But even though snakes have come this far with mimicking placental birth, they still maintain their main system of nutrition in a shell, while mammals have one or more eggs, which are full embryos, without nutrition around it, other than what is in the womb.

They're not 'completely' different. Nothing is 'completely' different. But monotremes are the most primitive of all mammals and the furthest removed. You should see how bizarre echidna sex is!
Well in birds and in the platypus, males are homogametic (XX or ZZ) and femails are heterogametic (XY or ZW).
I wonder how evolutionists explain the evolution of ten sex chromosomes and the difference between echidna having homogametic females and platypus having homogametic males. But feel free not to explain this, since you believe the debate is over.

The point here was that you were STILL wrong when you said diapsids never developed any "non-reptilian" traits. Because the plumage, cardio-vascular & respiratory systems of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are definitely non-reptilian - according to your antiquated character-based definition.
Ok, good point. I'm gonna have to be more specific with this argument.

Wouldn't it need to be warm-blooded in order to incubate a clutch of eggs? Why else would it nest like a chicken?
How do you know they nested like a chicken?

You were supposed to disprove both the phylogenetic tree and the world's only theory of biodiversity. You failed.
Uhm, again. The tree, which you call phylogenetic, while most of it contains fossilized species with hardly have any genetic information preserved, can show real and apparent relationships.
Evolutionists interpret this as a common ancestor relationship.

More than that, you were supposed to produce a verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of supernatural creation. Well, where is it?
For one, it is in the chromosome data, which prevents from point-mutations and shifts and such to speciate into species with a different chromosome structure and different chromosome order. But you refused to explain that.

If you have an explanation backed up with empirical evidence that fits the data of chromosomes of mammal species, then you have reason to call this common ancestor guess of yours a theory. Upto now and until then, it's been nothing more than an overrated, hyped up, scientific disgrace.
Try this, Phi; Answer the question with a simple yes or no.
So you want me to accept any ad hoc explanation that does not fit emperical data???
I'm not ignorant as you.

While you're at it, do the same thing with the following sets of questions below:
You are gonna have to specify "related", because it can imply any sort of relationship. Of course you'll say it's a common ancestor relationship, which I've already said, is only an interpretation of the either real or apparent relationship shown in a hierarchical tree.

Because, as I said before, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!
This is one of the major falsehoods of evolutionists, that there must be some sort of flaw in a hierarchical tree. You missed the class where they taught that hierarchical analysis provide consistent order without flaws.
If snakes were to develop placenta's, would you call it a flaw then? It's the same as mammals developing feathers, which you did call a flaw.

What is a tree of life, if you cannot back it up with gnome evolution?
Only genetic evidence you provided in favor, was ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses, fixated viral insertions).
I know enough about it, to see how your theory fails.
From your own geneticist's data, we have 50-60 complete HERVKs.
Evolutionists claim that it is against all odds that two insertions of a retrovirus happen at the exact same loci. So finding a fixed retrovirus insertion, it must be a result of one insertion at a specific loci. Even in small populations, there's only one chromosome infected. There's another chromosome still healthy in the same individual at time of infection, and all other individuals in the population have two healthy chromosomes, without this retrovirus.
Evolutionists also claim that ERVs are not beneficial. So there is no reason to believe that this infection has more chance of spreading and surviving over healthy chromosomes without infection.
So knowing that at times of infection there's a lot more healthy chromosomes, than infected ones, and seeing 50-60 infections have survived, we should expect to find healthy chromosomes that at least don't have all of these 50-60 infections. But hey, here's your favorite evolutionist escape route again. Every human with a chromosome which was not infected by ALL of these 50-60 ERVs, all gone extinct. What caused this? Don't know, Darwin must have done it.

This is why I laught at evolutionists. They have the data. But they have yet to learn how to use them.

 

[Gnug215]

Well, normally we let a debate go on for 20 posts, but this one took a while to get started.

However, it has been suggested a couple of times that it is over, so we will stop it now.

Both participants are now welcome to comment in the debate analysis thread if desired.

Thanks to both parties for the participation.

If any of them, or anyone else, ever wants a debate set up like this, be sure to contact a mod.