Okay Creationists, Explain These!

[Twilight Hue]

So, that's it? The only back and forth coming from your evidence is circular reasoning based on the findings of your own 'gods' whose evidence is somewhat teetering on pure assumption about things that happened so long ago that there is no reliable way to interpret it.....unless you want to support an unproven theory over what is right under our collective noses.

Here we have the monotremes.....two very unusual animals unique to Australia and very difficult subjects for evolutionists to explain.....imagine! egg laying mammals! One an aquatic creature and the other an ant-eating land dweller.

(Google pics)

I just love the way science assumes relationship with these two distinctly different creatures just because they share some traits in common...like laying eggs and suckling their young. They are nothing alike.....not even a vague resemblance.

Care to explain that one for us Sapiens?

Adaptation.

 

[Sapiens]

Nice!

I have God on my side. Let's see who wins!

The topic is "Okay Creationists Explain These." You have failed to do so. Thus, "god" on your side or no ... you lose. Not a very powerful god, eh?

You're mean. Instead you should have asked to be shown whatever I was referring to.

I am not mean, I am merely realistic. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Anyway, I have had enough of atheists today to last me a while. Your attitude is not conducive to continue this thread.

Sore loser?

 

[Jainarayan]

The last time I looked, none of the great apes from which we are supposed to have descended had tails....Go figure....

There's that misunderstanding of human evolution rearing its head again... we did not descend from apes, great or otherwise, or monkeys. We have a common ancestor. Cousins sharing a grandparent, not parent-child descent.

 

[Skwim]

Sore loser?

Defeated loser.

.

 

[Sapiens]

Defeated loser.

.

Redundant.

 

[Skwim]

Redundant.

Yeah, I thought of that as well, but feel it puts a deserved emphasis on it.

..

 

[Deeje]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

yeah, we know......you are still here doing the same thing over and over, imagining that you are addressing anything with substantive support for your pet theory.....if you are an "expert", do you have anything intelligent to add pertaining to the subject, perhaps? You know, like some actual proof that evolution ever even happened? Nothing dependent of "faith" or "belief" though.....because that is what what we have. No jargon either so that we get the low down in plain English. Over to you......

You know I heard a definition of an "expert" that I thought was pretty accurate in some cases....
X = 0 and "spurt" = "a drip under pressure".

Sore loser?

Retreats to his personal victory corner smugly imagining that he actually achieved something important.
You crack me up Sapiens.

 

[Sapiens]

yeah, we know......you are still here doing the same thing over and over, imagining that you are addressing anything with substantive support for your pet theory

Neither my theory, nor my pet, rather the way in which all of modern science sees things, with exception of a few disturbed outliers of little import.

.....if you are an "expert", do you have anything intelligent to add pertaining to the subject, perhaps? You know, like some actual proof that evolution ever even happened?

That has already been done, numerous times by multiple people.

Nothing dependent of "faith" or "belief" though.....because that is what what we have. No jargon either so that we get the low down in plain English. Over to you......

Faith and belief are your milieu, not mine.

You know I heard a definition of an "expert" that I thought was pretty accurate in some cases....
X = 0 and "spurt" = "a drip under pressure".

I heard a definition of an "Australian Jehovah's Witness" once, but I am too polite to repeat it.

Retreats to his personal victory corner smugly imagining that he actually achieved something important.
You crack me up Sapiens.

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” — Eleanor Roosevelt

 

[Skwim]

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” — Eleanor Roosevelt

As a generalization, I think there's a lot of truth in this. It's why I hate people who sit around discussing concepts and such.

.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I resemble some other humans but I am not related to them at all.

How do you know? There are lots of "whoops I found out she was really my long lost sister" stories out there.

We don't interbreed with apes for the same reason.

Seriously, how many people have tried?

Mutations happen because we are no longer the perfect product of his original design.

So if a car manufacturer makes a car that will get out of the factory okay but fall apart once it gets in your driveway, we blame the car and not the manufacturer?

This is not a permanent state however, according to his communication with us....we will regain that perfection once the lessons are learned.

This isn't Beauty and the Beast: learning a lesson won't change a person's body.

Some unfortunately will refuse to learn anything, believing that reliance on human thinking can save the day, giving evolutionary science and its promoters the impression that they themselves are the greatest minds in existence. I'm sure the Creator finds that amusing.

You know what I find amusing? I find amusing that many gods in many myths were just regular human beings who were deified from some trope or another. El and Baal and Yahweh were once just guys who developed superpowers for whatever reason and we called Them Gods.

How to become immortal

If mutations occurred in the past, they were few and far between compared to what has been seen since the industrial revolution.

Hindu gods

Modern Indian birth defects

So, since the Hindu gods were waaaaaay before science and the Industrial Revolution, please explain why they look just like the modern people with this stuff going on.

Here we have the monotremes.....two very unusual animals unique to Australia and very difficult subjects for evolutionists to explain.....imagine! egg laying mammals! One an aquatic creature and the other an ant-eating land dweller.

How are they difficult to explain? They are as easily explained as live-births for animals we normally associate with egg-laying.

Care to explain that one for us Sapiens?

Isolation breeds coolness.

Who said?

The people who are allowed to study such things, dear.

I was a budding atheists when a small child. My parents had just come home from shopping, and I had broken something. Being very small, when asked who done it, I said in best atheist fashion, "It did it itself" ! Somehow they didn't believe me, but of course, you would have believed it.

But a really crappy thing might just break by itself, making the comparison silly.

In that sense, some microbial life has eternal life since it keeps on dividing and some of the copies always shall exist unless the earth is killed off itself.

So religion invented human immortality out of jealousy?

I have God on my side. Let's see who wins!

The (O)ne with the facts wins. God starts off His story by weaseling a false explanation to a couple of hairless apes about the lethality of a certain fruit. He can't even be completely honest in the first couple of chapters.

 

[DavidFirth]

It's interesting that not a single creationist has directly addressed the data that is the subject of this thread. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

It has been dismissed as birth defects and several people have mentioned that fact. You have reading problems. You read only what you want to read and ignore everything else. You should probably stay out of threads like these where people actually dialogue and understand each other.

 

[DavidFirth]

NOW, let's see any non-creationist on here prove those aren't birth defects. If you can't do that we will safely assume that they are in fact birth defects or doctored up pics.

 

[Jose Fly]

It has been dismissed as birth defects

How simplistic. "They're just birth defects".

But why primate tails? Why not bird wings? Or insect antennae? As I described earlier, both the nature of the birth defect and the genetic mechanisms behind it are exactly what we would expect to see under human/primate common ancestry. Simply waving all that data away with "it's just a birth defect" is so childishly simplistic, it's laughable.

 

[DavidFirth]

How simplistic. "They're just birth defects".

But why primate tails? Why not bird wings? Or insect antennae? As I described earlier, both the nature of the birth defect and the genetic mechanisms behind it are exactly what we would expect to see under human/primate common ancestry. Simply waving all that data away with "it's just a birth defect" is so childishly simplistic, it's laughable.

Can you prove it isn't birth defects?

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you prove it isn't birth defects?

I didn't say they weren't birth defects.

Again, the point isn't contingent on the term we use to describe the atavisms, rather it's about their specific anatomical and genetic nature. Why tails that are exactly like other primates? Why not dog tails? And why is it a result of a developmental/genetic pathway that is the exact same as in other primates?

 

[DavidFirth]

I didn't say they weren't birth defects.

Again, the point isn't contingent on the term we use to describe the atavisms, rather it's about their specific anatomical and genetic nature. Why tails that are exactly like other primates? Why not dog tails? And why is it a result of a developmental/genetic pathway that is the exact same as in other primates?

Let me also ask you a question. Do you believe God created?

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me also ask you a question. Do you believe God created?

Nice try, but I don't play the game where you dodge my questions and then demand I answer yours.

My religious beliefs are irrelevant to the data at hand.

Again, why tails that are exactly like other primates? Why not dog tails? And why is it a result of a developmental/genetic pathway that is the exact same as in other primates?

 

[DavidFirth]

Nice try, but I don't play the game where you dodge my questions and then demand I answer yours.

My religious beliefs are irrelevant to the data at hand.

Again, why tails that are exactly like other primates? Why not dog tails? And why is it a result of a developmental/genetic pathway that is the exact same as in other primates?

Exactly? I don't see anything that is exactly like anything else. Examine the DNA/RNA and you'll find the differences.

And I'm not demanding anything. I don't believe in your religion anymore than you believe in mine.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly? I don't see anything that is exactly like anything else. Examine the DNA/RNA and you'll find the differences.

To reiterate....

If humans share a common ancestor with other primates, we would expect to see this reflected in our ontological development. The development of a human adult and an ape adult from an embryo are modifications of the developmental processes of our shared common ancestor. In other words, the common ancestor that humans share with other primates went through a certain process in its embryological development. Because we and other primates have descended from this ancestor, all primates (ourselves included) should have inherited components of this process. Thus a basic prediction of our shared ancestry is that our ontological development should be very similar to that of other primates.

So, is this what we see?

A great example is how all primates have a tail at 4-5 weeks of gestation. At this stage there are 10-12 developing tail vertebrae that extend beyond the anus and legs, and are greater than 10% of the length of the whole embryo. The tail is made up of many complex tissues including a spinal cord, a notochord, a mesenchyme, and a tail gut. In the monkeys, this goes on to form the various types of tails present in adult monkeys.

But as we know, the great apes (including humans) do not have tails. In the great apes, the 6-12 vertebrae undergo "cell death" and disappear, and the 5th and 4th vertebrae are reduced. It has been shown that regulation of a single gene (Wnt-3a gene if you need to know) is the mechanism behind this curious process (thus the cases of the atavistic tails I mentioned earlier are likely due to a mutation in this gene). I say "curious process" because this data leads to the obvious question: Why develop a tail as an embryo that you're not going to have as an adult?

This is a very good example of how evolutionary common descent of all primates provides a very good explanation for the data. Without an understanding of common descent, the ontological development and loss of a tail as an embryo in all apes would be very strange and difficult to explain. But when we view this data in light of common ancestry, it makes perfect sense. At one time, all primates had tails as embryos that went on to develop into adult tails. But sometime after the great ape line split off, a common ancestor to all apes developed a mutation that resulted in the embryonic degeneration of the tail, and that mutation and trait was inherited by all its descendants, humans included.​

And I'm not demanding anything. I don't believe in your religion anymore than you believe in mine.

What religion do you think I adhere to?

 

[syo]

too long spine.