The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[The Last Conformist]

Oh, on the subject of embryonal development, remind me, what's the creationist explanation to why human embryos have structures nigh identical to those of fish embryos that grow into gills?

Or the identically broken C-vitamin synthesis genes of humans and chimps?

The presence of the eyeless gene across all of Bilateria, including eyeless species?

The development of ossification centres in the cartilage of the skeletons of old sturgeons?

Whale pelvises? Whales with atavistic legs? The human true tail?

Diatomite formations dozens of metres thick?

Biostratigraphy?

Vertebrate retinas?

Chuck Norris?

 

[Smidlee]

Oh, on the subject of embryonal development, remind me, what's the creationist explanation to why human embryos have structures nigh identical to those of fish embryos that grow into gills?

It's now pretty well known human embryos do not have gills.

Or the identically broken C-vitamin synthesis genes of humans and chimps?

It's a known fact there's always more way of breaking something than to creat/built something. As with the blind cave-fish, No surprise here.

P.S Pseudogenes (as well as identical broken genes) goes againest evolution. For why is it these so called useless genes remain unchanged for millions of years (which is exactly where NS+RM is suppose to do it's job) while serious changes has been made to the brains (for example).

Also human doesn't have true tails only deformed ones caused by birth defects. The same is true that fruitflies doesn't grow true legs on their heads.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But they can be made to do so with genetic manipulation. Just because something only occurs in a lab, not in nature, doesn't mean it can't be proof of evolution.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a known fact there's always more way of breaking something than to creat/built something. As with the blind cave-fish, No surprise here.

If there are many ways to break it, then why are they broken the same way?

 

[Perfection]

It's now pretty well known human embryos do not have gills.

No but they do have pharyngeal pouches which in fish become gills.

 

[Che Guava]

P.S Pseudogenes (as well as identical broken genes) goes againest evolution. For why is it these so called useless genes remain unchanged for millions of years (which is exactly where NS+RM is suppose to do it's job) while serious changes has been made to the brains (for example).

You act as if the genome were being managed: as long as pseudogenes aren't having any detrimental effects, then there's no selection pressure to get rid of them. They're just along for the ride!

 

[El_Machinae]

Pseudogenes have an energetic cost, and it's not minor. But the selection against them is trivial compared to the selection FOR new genes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's now pretty well known human embryos do not have gills.

Evasion noted; I did not say human embryos have gills. How about you address what I actually say.

It's a known fact there's always more way of breaking something than to creat/built something.

Which is why the identically broken pseudogenes are a problem for creationism. Shall I take it you have no explanation?

As with the blind cave-fish, No surprise here.

Really? Why would the creator give eyeless fish the genes for making eyes?

P.S Pseudogenes (as well as identical broken genes) goes againest evolution. For why is it these so called useless genes remain unchanged for millions of years (which is exactly where NS+RM is suppose to do it's job) while serious changes has been made to the brains (for example).

You do realize that pseudogenes are invisible to natural selection, do you?

Also human doesn't have true tails only deformed ones caused by birth defects.

That's a lie.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are the genes for making gills present in humans, but broken?

 

[The Last Conformist]

There really is no such thing as "the genes for making gills". The development of gills is determined by a whole menagerie of regulatory genes, many, perhaps all, of which are also involved in the development of other organs and structures.

Many of the involved genes are fully functional in humans, and critical to the development of our jaws and throats. Some of the ones further down the cascade may be broken - I don't know. Some, no doubt, are simply shut out of the relevant cascade.

 

[classical_hero]

Oh, on the subject of embryonal development, remind me, what's the creationist explanation to why human embryos have structures nigh identical to those of fish embryos that grow into gills?

Or the identically broken C-vitamin synthesis genes of humans and chimps?

The presence of the eyeless gene across all of Bilateria, including eyeless species?

The development of ossification centres in the cartilage of the skeletons of old sturgeons?

Whale pelvises? Whales with atavistic legs? The human true tail?

Diatomite formations dozens of metres thick?

Biostratigraphy?

Vertebrate retinas?

Chuck Norris?

1. The difference between the two structures are big. While similar in appearance, they end makes it so different. The assumption that it points to a common starting point is false. Also this is just one small part of the embryo and the rest of the Embryo does not even share any similarities. Another thing is that you are basically basing this main belief on deceit. The main similarities that you are showing is a small part of the embryo. Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit But this is really a semantic exercise because one could argue that the similarities are designed that way. Human Fetus Development

2. This is basically similar to the first one. Similarities do not prove a common ancestry.

3-7, and 9. I ill get to them later.

6. I assume that you are talking about the Inverted retina situation. I challenge you to show a better design than the human eye. The range of it is incredible. Excellent Eye

The eye can detect a single photon of light, the faintest light possible. Despite some evolutionists claiming that the eye is badly designed, it is impossible to improve on this sensitivity! But the eye can also work with 10 billion photons; that is, its dynamic range is 10 billion to one.

Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only about 1,000 to one. Also, one of us (JS) performed doctoral research using state-of-the-art light detectors. However, they were so delicate that they needed protection from more normal light intensities using filters that let in only a millionth of the light; otherwise, the detector would have been destroyed. Newer models have an automatic shut-off. Yet the eye easily adjusts to a far wider range without needing a shut-off.

Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?

If the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way around (the verted configuration), as evolutionists such as Dawkins propose,2 these two opaque layers would have to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors which would leave them in darkness!

The inverted retina of vertibrates is actually so muchmore useful than what most evolutionists want to admit. It actually is better design that what Evolutionsits want

 

[ironduck]

classical_hero, do you even bother to read the posts in here? I mean, what's the point? You bring up articles that have been torn apart since last time you brought them up, as if they have never even been discussed.

What is your purpose of posting something in a discussion thread when you don't care for learning and don't even care for trying to make it appear as if you were paying attention?

I just don't get it.

 

[carlosMM]

classical_hero:

first, why do you bring up another proto-whale when you ran from discussing the last one?

Second, the human eye is OK, but it has been proven here about ten times that it could be much better. Why do you repeat posts proven to be wrong?


because you have no argument, just propaganda to fing out in another instance of drive-by posting?



I guess so........

 

[ironduck]

I just don't understand the point. If he thought he could convert someone by repeating the same lies ad nauseum it would make some sort of sense, but what's the point in hit and run posting when he most likely knows that people here aren't going to be the least bit convinced by them?

Is it just self gratification?

 

[Samson]

1. The difference between the two structures are big. While similar in appearance, they end makes it so different. The assumption that it points to a common starting point is false. Also this is just one small part of the embryo and the rest of the Embryo does not even share any similarities. Another thing is that you are basically basing this main belief on deceit. The main similarities that you are showing is a small part of the embryo. Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit But this is really a semantic exercise because one could argue that the similarities are designed that way. Human Fetus Development

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The structures look similar initially, and you can understand their eventual structure by understanding where they come from evolutionarly. For example the nerve supply of organs derived from the gill arches comes from the relative cranial nerves.

Why would they be designed this way, other than to decive people into beliveing that our organs are derived from the fish structures?

 

[Perfection]

1. The difference between the two structures are big. While similar in appearance, they end makes it so different.

The ends aren't what is important what is important is that they both have extremely similar beginnings. Both fish and humans have pharangial pouches but they both develop into different things. What makes it such a potent demonstration of evolution is the commonality of starting materials and structure in the beginging.

The assumption that it points to a common starting point is false. Also this is just one small part of the embryo and the rest of the Embryo does not even share any similarities.

Except for lots of things, a post-anal tail comes to mind.

Another thing is that you are basically basing this main belief on deceit. The main similarities that you are showing is a small part of the embryo. Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit

Ummm, we don't live in the 19th century anymore, don't point for point debate dead guys.

But this is really a semantic exercise because one could argue that the similarities are designed that way.

Yeah, but one's arguement would have no evidence and would not explain why it's this way and not another

2. This is basically similar to the first one. Similarities do not prove a common ancestry.

No, but chains of base pair changes certainly go along way.

6. I assume that you are talking about the Inverted retina situation. I challenge you to show a better design than the human eye. The range of it is incredible. Excellent Eye

How about you put the blood vessels under the retina instead of where they block vision. That would be smart

Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?
The inverted retina of vertibrates is actually so muchmore useful than what most evolutionists want to admit. It actually is better design that what Evolutionsits want

It's nice, but it has defects.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@classical_hero: Check your reading comprehension. I did not ask why those traits are not evidence of common decent, but what the creationist explanation for them is.

And as for the claim that human and fish embryos have no similarities beyond the pharyngeal pouches, that's a lie so brazen and transparent that it boggles my mind you should attempt it. Are you a mythomaniac or what?

 

[Perfection]

And just one last thing, I'd really like you to answer TLC's question here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4567590&postcount=364

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Aaaand . . .

Of course Haeckel came up again.

 

[Dr Tiny]

Far from being a poor design, the eye’s dynamic range exceeds that of the best man-made photodetectors. And this latest research shows the intricate microscopic machinery behind it—a motor, glue, ‘calmer’ and internal ‘train tracks’. All these features would need to be present and coordinated; otherwise, the eye would be blinded by bright light. Thus natural selection could not build this system up step-by step, since each step by itself has no advantage over the previous step, until all steps are complete.

This is true as the eye works now, our vision requires opsin proteins and arrestin proteins that form complexes and split up as they in darkness and in light, respectively. However, they are not the only photoreceptors in the eye - there are some opsins in the inner retina ie not in rod and cone cells, that are permanently in complex and shift between sensing different wavelengths eg they have a particular shape that changes when exposed to red light in order to sense blue. This is obviously a much simpler version of the opsin photoreceptors in rod and cone cells and shows that the eye is not irreducibly complex as it can sense light without all the machiney mention in that article.