The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[sanabas]

Viruses and rickettsae are bacteria?

Yep, and they give you big strong bones too.

Bacteria is anything you can't see with the naked eye, dangnabbit.

Eyes are naked? For shame. Sunglasses and/or eyepatches should be compulsory.

 

[ironduck]

Eyes are naked? For shame. Sunglasses and/or eyepatches should be compulsory.

Especially for school teachers!

 

[Dr Tiny]

How about a gain of function mutant that confers a benefit in say humans? Well a quick search of pubmed and I found out about a gain of function mutation in lipoprotein lipase (S447X). Studies on this mutant have shown that is present in 20% of the population and confers many beneficial side effects. See this review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov//entrez...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16574898

It is important to remember with mutations that generally only those that have a drastic effect on phenotype will be studied. Mutations that are beneficial will tend to 'fly under radar' as we do not look for things that are not broken, thus we have a large catalogue of detrimental mutations as their effects are easy to spot. Something that the creationist article neglets to mention.

 

[classical_hero]

Viruses and rickettsae are bacteria?

No. They are totally different. Bacteria can live outside of an organism wereas viruses only exist in a host. Viruses cannot reproduce bythemselves and must use the host to reproduce, whereas Bacteria reproduce by themselves. Perfection you are now starting to talk nonsense.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Your failure at understanding humour is noted.

Now, how about telling us what, if anything, you mean by "transmutation" in context?

 

[classical_hero]

EDIT. DP. Disregard.

 

[classical_hero]

Or the myriad dinosaur/bird organisms? Or the series of terrestrial mammals that evolved into whales? Or the hominims who gradually became humans?

I shall give you a whale of a tale. A Whale Fantasy form National Geographic
Here is a supposed reconstruction of a creature that is meant to have one day turned into a whale.

And now here is the actual skeleton of the creature. This creature is called a Ambulocetus natans (which is a misnomer). Notice the big difference between the reality. That looks very much like a land animal to me. Notice the "artistic" license taken here. The addition of webs which is impossible because with fossils all you find with are bones and no flesh whatsoever, so this drawing is vey much false and is purely a work of art, not a lifelike drawing as it is meant to be.

Now here is the definition everyone wants. I am surprised noone even tried to take a guess at what it means. Transmutation. Simply you put two words together. Trans meaning to cross to go beyond and we all know what mutation means. Thus Transmutation means a mutation that goes beyond or crosses over. One thing must be noted, the Biblical "kind" is not the same as "species".

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What, then, is a "kind"? There is no definition. The term is useless.

And A. natans is not some fantasy, neither are the other members of its lineage. There are skeletal similarities to whales even though it is terrestrial, that is why they classified it as a protowhale to begin with. They didn't just pick a skeleton at random and say it was a whale. It had whalelike features. The illustration is based on the fact that it was built for swimming and walking both.

 

[Samson]

Now here is the definition everyone wants. I am surprised noone even tried to take a guess at what it means. Transmutation. Simply you put two words together. Trans meaning to cross to go beyond and we all know what mutation means. Thus Transmutation means a mutation that goes beyond or crosses over. One thing must be noted, the Biblical "kind" is not the same as "species".

I think you are missing some words here. Goes beyond what? Crosses over what? I cannot see how mutation can be put in the place of what in either of those statements.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I shall give you a whale of a tale. A Whale Fantasy form National Geographic
Here is a supposed reconstruction of a creature that is meant to have one day turned into a whale.
<image snipped>

And now here is the actual skeleton of the creature. This creature is called a Ambulocetus natans (which is a misnomer). Notice the big difference between the reality.

Name one actual discrepancy.

That looks very much like a land animal to me.

So would, I dare say, the skeleton of a crocodile or a marine otter. Luckily, your impressions don't count for anything in paleontology.

Oh, and need I point out that your implication that if it were a land animal it couldn't be a whale ancestor shows you to be stupid, dishonest, or both?

Notice the "artistic" license taken here. The addition of webs which is impossible because with fossils all you find with are bones and no flesh whatsoever, so this drawing is vey much false and is purely a work of art, not a lifelike drawing as it is meant to be.
<image snipped>

Like just about all reconstructions, it involves an element of speculation, but this doesn't make it "false".

Now here is the definition everyone wants. I am surprised noone even tried to take a guess at what it means.

When you invent new obfuscatory terminology, it falls to you to explain it, not to others to guess what it might mean.

Transmutation. Simply you put two words together. Trans meaning to cross to go beyond and we all know what mutation means.

Given that the usual sense of "mutation" in biology is different from what it means in the usual senses of "transmutation", I can only characterize your statement as moronic.

Thus Transmutation means a mutation that goes beyond or crosses over.

That's not a definition - it's handwaving.

One thing must be noted, the Biblical "kind" is not the same as "species".

How did "Biblical kinds" enter the discussion?

 

[carlosMM]

I shall give you a whale of a tale. A Whale Fantasy form National Geographic
Here is a supposed reconstruction of a creature that is meant to have one day turned into a whale.

And now here is the actual skeleton of the creature. This creature is called a Ambulocetus natans (which is a misnomer). Notice the big difference between the reality. That looks very much like a land animal to me. Notice the "artistic" license taken here. The addition of webs which is impossible because with fossils all you find with are bones and no flesh whatsoever, so this drawing is vey much false and is purely a work of art, not a lifelike drawing as it is meant to be.

Now please tell me how you, without ever having seen the skelton, dare to have an opinion on whether this is a land animal or not!

And, while we are at it: how many whale skeletons have you studied?

One thing must be noted, the Biblical "kind" is not the same as "species".

So, for IIRC the fifth time, I ask you to give a definition for 'kind'.....
As usual, your opinion on science is pure BS - hello ainwood, I am expressing na opinion here

 

[Samson]

I think you are missing some words here. Goes beyond what? Crosses over what? I cannot see how mutation can be put in the place of what in either of those statements.

I have just re-read what you have written, and I shall have a go at guessing what you meant. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think you may mean a transmutation is one that defines the difference between species. Perhaps you are under the impression that say we were homo erectus for a while, then there was one mutation and one indavidual became homo sapiens.

This is not how it works. What happens (according to the theory) is that a population is reproductivly split. Frequently this would be a geographical split, for example one population of homo erectus move into a plains habitat while another stayed in the jungle environment.
These population then accumalate mutations, until they get to the point where they can no longer interbreed. This is the point at which a new species comes into being. There is no one mutation that causes a "cross over" or "goes beyond" a species.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, in the particular case of H. erectus and sapiens, we're likely dealing with "anagenetic speciation", which essentially means that a single population gradually changes so much that we find it convenient to refer to earlier and later stages by different specific names. The presence of specimens that some authorities call erectus and some sapiens strengthens the case for anagenesis; we seem to be simply seeing a continuum of forms from early erectus ("ergaster") to modern sapiens.

Species in an anagenetic lineage are sometimes known as "chronospecies". Hardcore cladists don't recognize them as separate species at all.

 

[Samson]

Well, in the particular case of H. erectus and sapiens, we're likely dealing with "anagenetic speciation", which essentially means that a single population gradually changes so much that we find it convenient to refer to earlier and later stages by different specific names. The presence of specimens that some authorities call erectus and some sapiens strengthens the case for anagenesis; we seem to be simply seeing a continuum of forms from early erectus ("ergaster") to modern sapiens.

Species in an anagenetic lineage are sometimes known as "chronospecies". Hardcore cladists don't recognize them as separate species at all.

I know very little about human evolution, I just used these as examples of species that I think evolved one into another. Perhaps it was a bad example.

 

[carlosMM]

So, for IIRC the fifth time, I ask you to give a definition for 'kind'.....
As usual, your opinion on science is pure BS - hello ainwood, I am expressing na opinion here

[bump]

Please, can we have, for once, a DISCUSSION on this subject, not just a hit-and-run post by you, proclaiming a religious view?

 

[civ2]

classical_hero
Good example with the "proto-whale".
The skeleton DOES look like that of a walking animal and the picture's animal wouldn't walk with such back legs - it just couldn't.
(See closer and without previous thinking.)

CarlosMM and The Last Conformist
I can feel (and see) YOU being powerless and therefore starting insulting others as "ignorant".
Did you study any REAL skeletons (whale or other)?
And about the croc - WHY then it didn't become a whale-like creature???
(Crocs are supposed to be MUCH older than whales - so???)
This example isn't working at all!
Crocs feel quite good on the ground - they're still dangerous there.
And whales would just suffocate.

Now please tell me how you, without ever having seen the skelton, dare to have an opinion on whether this is a land animal or not!

Did YOU see it???
And if you look at the picture you can clearly see the legs capable of supporting the body on the ground.
It's YOU who is ignorant and just boasts about his so-called knowledge.
I can't feel it, dude.

Also about the "biblical kind".
And what is a "scientific species"???
Nothing reliable indeed.
Did scientists check EVERY single species of interbreeding???
All insects, all birds???
All those millions of species they say we have???
NO! They just see a somewhat different animal and proclaim it's another species!
They could never check it in reality - this would take some hundreds of years of intense work all over the globe!
I'm not sure if even the entire kingdom of mammals was studied enough to be sure which is a species.
But you still believe them and make their speculations into your BELIEF which you defend as a REAL fanatic.
HA-HA-HA!!!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You answered absolutely nothing. You went "HA-HA-HA " and attacked strawmen. carlosMM has studied real skeletons, and is a paleontologist, which makes him a lot more qualified than you to say things like "The skeleton DOES look like that of a walking animal".

You are discrediting your cause here with the complete lack of substance.

 

[civ2]

Carlos
If you claim being a paleo - please describe in details what makes you think this skeleton is of a whale's ancestor.
But in exact details - which bones (and explain which are which) show it and etc.
Otherwise I can't see you being a paleo - only a claim.

And Eric - I've seen (pictures) lots of skeletons and I can tell which is of a frog that can't walk but can swim and jump, which is of a seal that can't walk at all but can swim, and which is of a cheetah which runs very fast.
The back legs are different and those diffreences are quite obvious.

What is a strawman?

 

[ironduck]

Just for kicks, win a gummy bear (shipping not included) - guess the following animals (send me a pm with your guess).

1



2

 

[classical_hero]

Now please tell me how you, without ever having seen the skelton, dare to have an opinion on whether this is a land animal or not!

And, while we are at it: how many whale skeletons have you studied?

Did you bother looking at the skeleton? If you look at the skeleton of the creature in question, does it look like to be a land based or sea based creature?

So, for IIRC the fifth time, I ask you to give a definition for 'kind'.....
As usual, your opinion on science is pure BS - hello ainwood, I am expressing na opinion here

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/

What is the Biblical creationist model?​

Many of these bait-and-switch arguments imply that creationists believe in ‘fixity of species’. The glossary listed on the Online Course for Teachers: Teaching Evolution is explicit; ‘In Creationism, species are described as “fixed” in the sense that they are believed not to change their form, or appearance, through time.’ But CMI does not deny speciation—in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology—see Q&A: Speciation. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the Biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.

But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. 6 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.7 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species’, genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the term ‘kind’, it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system, not the term ‘kind’. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species’, and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many types) species. A number of examples are presented in Ref. 6, and in the article Ligers and wholphins? What next?, including Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid of two different so-called genera.

Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.

But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.

The Biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because the different varieties of land vertebrates have descended from comparatively few kinds of animals that disembarked from the Ark about 4500 years ago. Conversely, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the Biblical model has been supported by the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory, as mentioned before. One example is a new species of mosquitoes, i.e. one that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists—see Brisk Biters.

That is a concise definition.