Soft Tissue Discovered Drops Bombshell On Evolution

Evolutionary scientists in their own little box never looked for soft tissues in fossils then in 2005, Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in T-Rex which was dated in the evolutionary framework to be 68 million years old! Why didn’t scientists search for soft tissue in the past? Because evolutionary scientists believe the earth is many millions of years old (4.54 billion to be exact) and the fact that soft tissue decays pretty easily. That is an undeniable scientific fact! So when Schweitzer’s discovery came along, it was a shock and opposition formulated but failed as confirmation after confirmation proved them wrong!

However, this discovery did not conflict whatsoever with the creationist model. In fact, soft tissue being discovered is observational evidence that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim! This latest discovery blows all previous discoveries of soft tissue right out of the water! A fossil of sauropod eggs from China claimed to be anywhere from 190-197 million years old in the evolutionary framework has complex organic remains!

Here is the report of it…

“But it is not just the age of the fossils that is notable, the researchers say. Spectroscopic analysis of bone-tissue samples from the Chinese nesting site revealed the oldest organic material ever seen in a terrestrial vertebrate. That was surprising because the fossilized femur bones were delicate and porous, which made them vulnerable to the corrosive effects of weathering and groundwater, says Reisz.

“That suggests to us that other dinosaur fossils might have organic remains,” he says. “We just haven’t looked at them in the right ways.”

Also in Answers in Genesis

“About 200 disarticulated dinosaur embryo bones excavated along with a good bit of eggshell from early Jurassic rock represent various stages of the development of sauropodomorphs. These long-necked dinosaurs grew to be about 30 feet long. The large vascular spaces indicated in purple in the bone cross-sections are consistent with a fast growing animal, suggesting these dinosaurs had made a good start on life by the time they hatched and may well have hit the ground running. These are the deepest dinosaur embryos yet found in the fossil record.” 

Is there opposition formulating with this one? You bet! Because of the nature of this find which falsifies long age assumptions concerning the earth that is similar to what the T-Rex discovery went through in the beginning…

Science Now

“Other researchers are more cautious. “Almost every example of such organic material is hotly disputed,” and this one will likely be no different, points out Hans-Dieter Sues, a vertebrate paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study. “You can never really totally rule out contamination.”

Here is the main bombshell admission…fossilized femur bones were delicate and porous, which made them vulnerable to the corrosive effects of weathering and groundwater.  How can a reasonable person believe soft tissue exposed to weathering and groundwater could survive almost 200 million years? Listen folks, evolution is not true! Evolutionary scientists use bluffs in their explanation all the time with data that doesn’t agree with evolution, which is not real science.

There is no way soft tissue being able to survive for that many years under those type of conditions, no way, no how…So evolutionary scientists reject the observational data, and then treat evolution like a cult to hold on to, than where the evidence leads! They are without excuse, science does in fact confirm creationism! This is an incredible discovery and there is in no doubt more to come, because there is more soft tissue out there, and scientists should be now looking for it more than ever!

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Soft Tissue Discovered Drops Bombshell On Evolution

  1. There is no way, soft tissue being able to survive for that many years under those conditions, no way, no how…

    Michael, did you do the experiments to demonstrate this yourself, or did someone else do them for you?

    Perhaps you should write up the results and publish them for critique and replication by real paleontologists. Just as real scientists would do.

  2. “Evolutionary scientists in their own little box …”

    Here we go again … ‘evolutionary scientists’ do not exist. It is just ‘scientists’.

    And ‘in their own little box’ is a silly accusation.

  3. How can a reasonable person believe soft tissue exposed to weathering and groundwater could survive almost 200 million years

    How can a reasonable person believe that entire continents drift over the surface of the earth? (Scientists did not believe it, until plate tectonics was shown.) How can a reasonable person believe that two quantum-entangled particles can influence each other’s properties without any connection over which information can be exchanged? (Physicists didn’t believe it.) How can a bacterium cause stomach ulcers. (Everyone “knew” that stress caused them.)

    If common sense were a reliable guide to the world, we wouldn’t need science.

    Fortunately, science is not bound by what reasonable people believe.

  4. After 600 generations, the fruit flies became what? resistant to change. And after millions of generations, they became handicap [sic], less fit…The original generation had a much more advantage in fitness over the mutated ones! If evolution was true, the mutated ones should have been more fit than the originals! The experiment utterly destroys the whole notion of evolution and unwittingly confirms creationism![0]

    Michael periodically trots out this experiment to show that evolution does not occur. He probably read uncritically a November 2010 ICR report of the experiment “No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations”. But this is a lie.

    We warn Michael repeatedly not to rely on creationist sources. They have no credibility whatever. Under scrutiny, they collapse like a house of cards..

    We need go no further than the Abstract of the original paper[1]—

    Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.[2]

    The benefit of faster growth is that the evolved flies can reproduce sooner, and thus outcompete the original flies for resources to increase their population size.

    Everything Michael said above is incorrect. The flies did nt become resistant to change. The experiment involved only 600 generations, not “millions.” They did not become handicapped or less fit. The mutated flies were more fit than the originals. Creationism is not only not confirmed; but, evolution has been experimentally demonstrated in operation. The only appropriate response to Michael’s claims is MWAHAHAHAHAAAA.

    The significance of the experiment is that sexually reproducing organisms appear to employ evolutionary methods that differ from those of bacteria, which had theretofore been the subjects of laboratory experiments in evolution. Bacteria usually evolve by selective sweeps of one or a few genes that control a trait, and go to fixation in the population. The flies, however, evolved by “soft sweeps” in which a large number of genes (about 500, in a dozen different regions) underwent frequency changes in most of the population.[3]

    Co-author Rose notes some practical applications of their results. Instead of looking for single magic-bullet mutations, drug developers should consider larger genome groups.

    “Based on that flawed paradigm, Rose noted, drugs have been developed to treat diabetes, heart disease and other maladies, some with serious side effects. He said those side effects probably occur because researchers were targeting single genes, rather than the hundreds of possible gene groups like those Burke found in the flies.

    Not only does the Nature paper demonstrate evolution, it offers a practical application of evolutionary research. If Michael trots out The Fruit-Fly Experiment again in support of creationism, then we can justly accuse him of lying on his own, rather than profound ignorance. Because he has been made aware of the facts. How often must we say this, Michael: Never rely on creationist sources. They only subject you to ridicule.

    ============

    [0] Michael had previous made this claim (verbatim, no less), in his March 4 post “Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?”

    [1] Burke, et al., “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila” Nature, 467:587-590, (30 September 2010)

    [2] In case Michael is ignorant of the term “phenotype,” is the observable characteristics of an organism.

    [3] The evolved flies did have a large number of SNP mutations over the course of the trial. However, the authors could not correlate this new trait with any small number of individual genes.

  5. After 600 generations, the fruit flies became what? resistant to change. And after millions of generations, they became handicap [sic], less fit…The original generation had a much more advantage in fitness over the mutated ones! If evolution was true, the mutated ones should have been more fit than the originals! The experiment utterly destroys the whole notion of evolution and unwittingly confirms creationism![0]

    Michael periodically trots out this experiment to show that evolution does not occur. He probably read uncritically a November 2010 ICR report of the experiment “No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations”. But this is a lie.

    We warn Michael repeatedly not to rely on creationist sources. They have no credibility whatever. Under scrutiny, they collapse like a house of cards..

    We need go no further than the Abstract of the original paper[1]—

    Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.[2]

    The benefit of faster growth is that the evolved flies can reproduce sooner, and thus outcompete the original flies for resources to increase their population size.

    Everything Michael said above is incorrect. The flies did nt become resistant to change. The experiment involved only 600 generations, not “millions.” They did not become handicapped or less fit. The mutated flies were more fit than the originals. Creationism is not only not confirmed; but, evolution has been experimentally demonstrated in operation. The only appropriate response to Michael’s claims is MWAHAHAHAHAAAA.

    The significance of the experiment is that sexually reproducing organisms appear to employ evolutionary methods that differ from those of bacteria, which had theretofore been the subjects of laboratory experiments in evolution. Bacteria usually evolve by selective sweeps of one or a few genes that control a trait, and go to fixation in the population. The flies, however, evolved by “soft sweeps” in which a large number of genes (about 500, in a dozen different regions) underwent frequency changes in most of the population.[3]

    Co-author Rose notes some practical applications of their results. Instead of looking for single magic-bullet mutations, drug developers should consider larger genome groups.

    “Based on that flawed paradigm, Rose noted, drugs have been developed to treat diabetes, heart disease and other maladies, some with serious side effects. He said those side effects probably occur because researchers were targeting single genes, rather than the hundreds of possible gene groups like those Burke found in the flies.

    Not only does the Nature paper demonstrate evolution, it offers a practical application of evolutionary research. If Michael trots out The Fruit-Fly Experiment again in support of creationism, then we can justly accuse him of lying on his own, rather than profound ignorance. Because he has been made aware of the facts. How often must we say this, Michael: Never rely on creationist sources. They only subject you to ridicule.

    ============

    [0] Michael had previous made this claim (verbatim, no less), in his March 4 post “Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?”

    [1] Burke, et al., “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila” Nature, 467:587-590, (30 September 2010)

    [2] In case Michael is ignorant of the term “phenotype,” is the observable characteristics of an organism.

    [3] The evolved flies did have a large number of SNP mutations over the course of the trial. However, the authors could not correlate this new trait with any small number of individual genes.

  6. Corrigendum: Te quotation in my comment above (“After 600 generations….”) does not appear in this post, but in Michael’s post on March 4, and the same claim was repeated in Michael’s comment on April 11 to his post dated.April 6.

  7. Is there opposition formulating with this one? You bet! Because of the nature of this find which falsifies long age assumptions concerning the earth that is similar to what the T-Rex discovery went through in the beginning…

    Michael fails reading comprehension again. He claims that the doubt of some paleontologists concerns doubts about the age of the fossils—that is, about the age of the earth. But the Science Now article says no such thing. The dissenters agree that the 200My age of the fossils is correct. What they doubt is that the organic material is as old as the fossils.

    Yet another example of creationists attempting to distort what scientists say.

  8. Perhaps you should write up the results and publish them for critique and replication by real paleontologists. Just as real scientists would do.

    And would you be the one financing his study Olorin?

    Fortunately, science is not bound by what reasonable people believe.

    Science does not care what people (reasonable or unreasonable) believe, want to believe or fool themselves to believe in the face of contradictory evidence (aka worldview).

    We warn Michael repeatedly not to rely on creationist sources.

    Who is this we?

    The benefit of faster growth is that the evolved flies can reproduce sooner, and thus outcompete the original flies for resources to increase their population size.

    Is this an example of macro-evolution?

    Creationism is not only not confirmed; but, evolution has been experimentally demonstrated in operation.

    Again, is this an example of macro-evolution?

  9. Not only does the Nature paper demonstrate evolution, it offers a practical application of evolutionary research.

    Any undergrad software engineer would be able to tell you that this is how code (genes) work. There is nothing necessarily novel in this thesis. Also, since evolutionists were ‘surprised’ by the finding of soft tissue preservation, that would count against macro-evolution’s predictive ability and in favour of creationism’s predictive ability. GASP!

    We do not know how long soft tissue fossils take before complete deterioration. We are unable to directly test this and indirect evidence would indicate that soft tissue should not last long even under highly selective PVT conditions. To date, I know of no one doing direct accelerated testing of soft tissue decay.

    To be scientific then is to not claim that experimental micro-evolution = macro-evolution and have it published in Nature! or that soft tissue in fossils confirm creationism. At best, it is partial evidence for creationism.

  10. We do not know how long soft tissue fossils take before complete deterioration. We are unable to directly test this and indirect evidence would indicate that soft tissue should not last long even under highly selective PVT conditions. To date, I know of no one doing direct accelerated testing of soft tissue decay.

    One example of laboratory testing: Deline & Parsons-Hubbard, “Experimentally observed soft-tissue preservation near a marine brine seep,” Palaeontology (27 Feb 2013).

    Five points about MIchael’s claim that “There is no way soft tissue being able to survive for that many years under those type of conditions, no way, no how…”

    (A) The samples may represent more recent contamination rather than ancient tissue.[1] As Michael notes, contention remains on the status of many of the samples. In that case, recovery would not be exceptional.

    (B) Michael asks why scientists for many years had not searched for soft tissue. Two reasons. First, the prevailing opinion was a generalization that such tissue would not be preserved; why look for something that you believe would not be present? But many generalizations produce exceptions when new data appears. Second, palaeontologists strongly prefer to keep fossils intact. Testing for soft tissue involves altering or destroying them: breaking open bones, etching away surrounding material, or dissolving macromolecules. The first really old tissue was discovered serendipitously when a fossil dinosaur hip had to be broken apart in order to remove it from its bed. Since it was already broken, one of the researchers tested the interior.[2]

    (C) Soft tissue is only exceptionally preserved for millions of years. A highly favorable environment is necessary. Anerobic for certain. Amber, asphalt, and peat deposits can preserve soft tissue for extended periods of time. Beyond that, no simple criteria have been found; different cases seem to involve different environmental factors. The Palaeontology paper noted above presents some of them. A widely cited paper in the planetary sciences[3] lists other individual factors.

    (D) Some tissues resist degradation more than others. Chitin, for example, can be preserved for millions of years even without mineralization. Collagen is another example, one often associated with bones, which are well preserved. Although entire DNA molecules often degrade, small DNA fragments are relatively stable.

    (E) In the past, soft issue often could not be characterized with available analysis techniques, or the samples were too small to employ existing techniques. So it was not detected. This situation has changed radically within even the past decade. Low-contrast tomography[4] and synchrotron rapid scanning x-ray fluorescence.[5] A major advance occurred when palaeontologists adopted the “shotgun” approach Craig Venter discovered in analyzing the human gnome. This technique is capable of piecing many short DNA fragments together into coherent long strands. As noted above, whole DNA molecules usually degrade over millions of years, but short pieces are often surprisingly stable. Such pieces were useless until Venter showed how to assemble them.

    Tough noogies, Michael. Your head is entombed in outdated opinions and data. Unlike creationism, science progresses.

    ====================

    {1] Also, when Michael speaks of “tissue,” the samples frequently are bunches of organic molecules, rather than structurally organized tissue. Molecules may be preserved far longer than the matrix they came from. For convenience, I’ll use the term “tissue” to signify both types.

    [2] , “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” Science307:952-1955 (25 Mar 2005)

    [3] Schweitzer, “Soft Tissue Preservation in Terrestrial Mesozoic Vertebrates” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 39:187-216 (May 2011).

    [4] Technology had limited previous tomography–CT, MRI, positron, etc.—to high contrast high-contrast.modalities. This is like setting an S-curve in the gamma control of PhotoShop to emphasize bright colors or posterize a photo. Low contrast preserves fine gradations and greater detail for a truer picture.

    [5] Instead of enabling scientists to see inside or through rock, intense x-rays cause specific elements or compounds to fluoresce, revealing previously unrecognized chemical remnants that are normally invisible. This technique also allows analysis of extremely low concentrations. It has revealed the chemical residues of pigments in feathers, the pigment-filled retinas of eyes, the ink sacs of ancient squid, and muscles.

  11. One example of laboratory testing: Deline & Parsons-Hubbard, “Experimentally observed soft-tissue preservation near a marine brine seep,” Palaeontology (27 Feb 2013).

    Muy interesante but I suspect that this is also indirect experimentation i.e. smaller in scale and with assumptions that may not be proper (e.g. did they use the conditions [PVT, lithology, liquid profile & distribution] at a site where the same type of soft tissue fossils were found?). Too bad this is so recent I don’t have access to it.

    Five points about MIchael’s claim that “There is no way soft tissue being able to survive for that many years under those type of conditions, no way, no how…”

    Michael seems enamored with using ID arguments for ‘creationism’ though I am not sure if he means the moderate (ID, theistic, deistic etc) or strong versions (YEC). Anyway, I think he is too eager to claim evidence for ‘creationism’ using limited data but in that regard he is just as scientific as someone who routinely carps that lab examples of micro-evolution = evidence for macro-evolution. Both of you are extrapolating beyond what is known.

    I also noticed that 4 simple questions went unanswered and again, you have focused only on one part of a post. Is that some evolutionist micro-scoping blog behaviour?

  12. Your questions were directed toward “macro evolution. That was not at issue in Michael’s post. As is common in creationist debate, you are changing the subject when confronted with adverse evidence.

  13. Wow, you’re cowering behind Michael now. His post was about macro-evolution and what he thought was evidence against it. I am not changing the subject but saying that both of you are interpreting the evidence in an unscientific manner IMO. The evidence isn’t in any form, adverse to my worldview. Just when I thought that I heard it all, you take the bar even lower. Given that you are a moderate creationist (Lutheran) and changing the subject when confronted with an adverse interpretation of the evidence, this is all the (ironically) sweeter. Just pathetic Olorin … but it’s all good. Your ‘gentle readers’ can glimpse into the abject absurdity and barrenness of macro-evolutionary naturalistic thought which insists on smears, circumlocution, selective discussion, ad hominem, misrepresentation, blatant lies and unscientific postulates.

  14. Go start your own blog. Then you can choose the subjects. If you remain a guest on Michael’s blog,then stop twisting every subject into a macroevolution macarena.

    You could call your blog Chazing’s Charnel Chapel. Let me know if anyone sticks around to enjoy more than one of your vilification sessions..

  15. For the obvious record, when Michael uses the term evolution, he means macro-evolution. If you remain a guest on Michael’s blog, then stop twisting evidence for micro-evolution into evidence for macro-evolution and making unscientific extrapolations beyond the available evidence.

  16. We don’t have to “twist” evidence for microevolution into evidence for macroevolution. Both employ the same mechanisms, but operating over different time scales.[1]

    Just as evidence for microcreation would be evidence for macrocreation, since both involve direct supernatural intervention. So far, however, no one has produced any physical evidence for microcreation—such as a crocoduck or a fruit-salad tree, or divine restructuring of a genome.

    So your task is to adduce some evidence that creation has occurred—either macro or micro. Keep me posted. And watch out for the thunderbolts that sometimes accompany divine action.

    ===================

    [1] Some plants, however have produced new species (macroevolution) over time scales as short as a couple of years, and thus have been observed.

  17. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am arguing for special creationism. Rather, I am saying that it is unscientific and presumptuous to use micro-evolution as strong evidence for macro-evolution. At best, it is weak evidence for both creationist and evolutionary worldviews.

  18. >
    Rather, I am saying that it is unscientific and presumptuous to use micro-evolution as strong evidence for macro-evolution.

    The whole point of my comment is that evidence for micro is itself evidence for macro. Did you not read it?

    The comment following that one shows that the one macro requirement not found in micro has a lot of historical evidence, and has been directly observed in several cases.

    At best, it is weak evidence for both creationist and evolutionary worldviews.

    Wrong. As I noted above, we observe microevolution under natural law. No one has observed microcreation by divine intervention.

    Also, you still conflate “worldview” with “theory.” You won’t make any progress until you can disambiguate these two concepts.

  19. 1. My whole point is that micro-evolution is NOT STRONG evidence for macro-evolution, but WEAK evidence because it is an extrapolation beyond the data we presently have. Micro-evolution cannot be strong evidence for macro-evolution UNTIL we have a way to circumvent natural mutational limits which usually kill organisms with accumulated mutations (e.g. lung cancer).
    2. YE creationism does not require micro-creation though micro-creationism is evidenced by the entire field of engineering. Here natural non-living material is made into different forms by natural living material (engineers). Additionally, one may argue that micro-evolution is micro-creation of sorts.
    3. Speciation is another form of micro-evolution. Speciation is a FISH producing [through mutation, selection pressures, etc] a new species of fish (OMG!). It is not even a fish turning into a frog far less pond scum turning into all of present earth bio-diversity [plus all that was loss]. Macro-evolution is a taxonomic change from one kind of animal to another with increased genetic complexity/information. It’s actually more complicated than that but for simplicity sake, this is what will cause a creationist to question his beliefs [HINT: Instead of simply googling, you should read the comments on your speciation article].

  20. 4. YE creationism accepts micro-evolution. But this is a sidestep because it is not about creationism being correct, the issue is that macro-evolution is unscientific.
    5. All theories are based on worldviews but they are not the same. Creationism and evolutionism are worldviews, not theories. At best they are hypotheses based on extrapolation. Micro-evolution is a testable and undisputed theory. Macro-evolution is a worldview masquerading as a theory without laboratory support.
    6. Since I do not claim that special creationism is scientific, there is no need for me to present evidence of micro or macro creation. For YEC, there is no micro-creation anyway. The burden is on you who posit that macro-evolution is scientific, the evidence for which you have yet to present [seriously!?, speciation = macro-evolution]. I would really love to be intellectually bludgeoned by experimental data for macro-evolution. Why won’t you present any? Were there none mentioned in those ‘intellectual stimulating’ atheist publications [written by very intelligent scientists] you read?

  21. Gary Parker: “All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)”

    This of course factually incorrect.

    Parker doesn’t just move the goalposts, he makes them disappear., No creationist has ever come up with an accepted definition of “kind.” Therefore Parker’s appeal to “subspeciation,””transpeciation,” and change of kind is pure foofaraw, without any meaning.

  22. Ah yes, dismiss 6 prior points and zero in on one. Pathetic. By kind, I would think Parker means OBVIOUS kind like a fish is different from a bird is different from a pig is different from a dog ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    You may also look at a kind as a separate cline with different morphology, traits, mechanisms and habits [1]. For example, if we look at cats and dogs, similar morphology [4 legs, 2 front, 2 hind, tail, fur coat], different morphology [cranial elongation, paw padding, average height and weight], different habits [some dogs used by hunters, cats used for mice control], different vocal traits [bark vs meow] and the obvious [most don’t like members of the other group and they can’t successfully mate]. I really should not be explaining something so simplistic.

    Parker is quite correct that we have seen no new kinds being produced. Speciation is NOT strong evidence for macro-evolution and neither is adaptation (Lenski), oscillations (Darwin’s finches) or micro-evolutionary mutations (drosophila).

    I fail to see how speciation is macro-evolution in action. So come now Olorin, where is the evidence that one kind (fish) turned into another (frog)?

    [1] Probably among other variables which I am too tired to figure out

  23. I fail to see how speciation is macro-evolution in action

    Yes, you definitely fail to see. Try reading the definition. Stop making up tour own meanings.

    So come now Olorin, where is the evidence that one kind (fish) turned into another (frog)?

    There isn’t any. That’s because it never happened. You’re thinking of design, not evolution.

    Parker is quite correct that we have seen no new kinds being produced

    That’s because he refuses to define “kind.” So he can always change its ambit whenever he needs to.

    Evolution rarely produces revolutionary changes, especially when ecological niches are already full, as they are now. Analogize to TV shows. The only major new “kind” of show within the past 20 years or so is the reality show. But new talk shows appear constantly, and new game shows, and new sitcoms. But these correspond to “species,” not to new “phyla.” motor vehicles are another analogy. Early on, we had 2, 3, and 4-wheel vehicles. Steering was done by wheels, tillers, handlebars, even reins. Today a few kinds proliferate, but we see no new kinds. Different species of motorcycle proliferate, various kinds of sedan and convertible, even a few tricycles have sprung up. Gasoline and diesel engines have sprung numerous variations and enhancements, and electric is making a resurgence; but the earlier steam engines are gone—even though, with today’s technologies, they could match the efficiency and performance[1] of today’s other engine types. Of the airplane phylum, bi-wing and tri-wing have gone extinct, as have wood & cloth fuselages,[1] but the remaining types have each spawned many new species.

    Also, in the beginning, different animal phyla were not all that different from each other. Just recently, a Cambrian fossil long thought to belong to one phylum was reassigned to another, based upon new dissection techniques. There were even some early animals that seem to have the characteristics of one phylum as juveniles, and a different phylum as adults.

    ===============

    [1] Even in its day, the Stanley Steamer was considered too dangerous by many, because its performance so far exceeded that of contemporaneous gasoline cars.

    [2] Although Bellanca Aircraft always maintained that, “If God had wanted metal airplanes, he would have made metal trees.”

  24. Try reading the definition.

    Which one?

    There isn’t any. That’s because it never happened. You’re thinking of design, not evolution.

    If you don’t even understand evolution (that which you spend so much time defending), then you need to have your head checked. Macro-evolution posits that non-life became simple life and evolved into complex life. If you cannot show that (and I have asked multiple times for examples), then I take it as confirmation that macro-evolution is not testable or repeatable and thus not scientific.

    That’s because he refuses to define “kind.” So he can always change its ambit whenever he needs to.

    Did I not define kind for you? Recall, I defined it loosely as: “a separate cline with different morphology, traits, mechanisms and habits” Show how he is wrong using this definition.

    Evolution rarely produces revolutionary changes, especially when ecological niches are already full, as they are now.

    Rubbish, you are localizing the process of evolution. It is as if you have some love affair with micro-evolution. Evolution over 13.55 billion years created all cosmic biodiversity from a singularity. Unless it can be shown that new kinds (as I have loosely defined above) can be created from past life, macro-evolution will not fool any strong creationist. Yet another pathetic attempt at misdirection.

  25. Macro-evolution posits that non-life became simple life and evolved into complex life.

    Sigh. Another definition that you have totally wrong. Go look this one up also.

    Did I not define kind for you? Recall, I defined it loosely as: “a separate cline with different morphology, traits, mechanisms and habits” Show how he is wrong using this definition.

    But that is your definition, not Parker’s. The problem with “kind” is that everyone who defines it defines it differently. Thus this term has no palpable meaning.

    You should also look up “cline”; you are using this term incorrectly.[1]

    Unless it can be shown that new kinds (as I have loosely defined above) can be created from past life, macro-evolution will not fool any strong creationist.

    That’s the whole problem, isn’t it? Nothing can convince a “strong creationist” of anything.

    ===================

    [1] Wait, I’ll save you the effort. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology—

    cline Biology: a gradual variation in the inherited characteristics of an animal or plant species across different parts of its range according to varying ecological, geographic or other factors.

    Quoth the Columbia Encyclopedia—

    cline, in biology, any gradual change in a particular characteristic of a population of organisms from one end of the geographical range of the population to the other. Gradients of characteristics usually accompany, and are responses to, environmental gradients; for example, a mountain range features gradients from top to bottom such as a temperature gradient (colder to warmer) and a humidity gradient (wetter to drier). They may also reflect patterns of individual migration or gene flow. In species of birds and mammals, there is usually a cline in body size, with smaller individuals in warm climates and larger individuals tending to be found in colder climates.

    The key concept here is “gradual.” Gradual change is associated with microevolution, not macro. Therefore, your definition of “kind” would include changes produced by microevolution, for which you have given your imprimatur.. Also, a single individual usually has multiple separate clines, each producing different morphologies, traits, etc. Prithee, how can a single individual be of more than one “kind”?

  26. Note the term: “a SEPARATE cline” which means that this cline is separate from another cline as in one group (or cline) is different from another in morphology, traits, mechanisms and habits among others variables [and that separate groups include clinal differences].

    Anywho, a definition of evolution which seems to be the one most used by YECs:

    There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.

    http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

    Clearly you have been mixing up (willingly?) the STE with the GTE. Naughty naughty.

  27. Note the term: “a SEPARATE cline” which means that this cline is separate from another cline as in one group (or cline) is different from another in morphology, traits, mechanisms and habits among others variables [and that separate groups include clinal differences].

    You’re still confused. You are making a category error. A “cline” refers to a set of traits, not a group of animals.

    I described above how a single individual can have separate sets of clines. For example, consider a wolf species whose members live both in warm prairies and in cold forests. Each individual has a cline for temperature adaptation—smaller body in the warmer regions, and larger body in the colder. Each individual will also have a cline for vision—a keener vision for the ones who live in the dark forest, and a different adaptation for the brighter prairie. If other wolves live in cold open prairie, they will have cold-range characteristics in the temperature cline, but vision characteristics in the vision cline.

    So it is not only possible, but likely, that a single individual may have adaptive morphology, traits, etc. for separate clines. If you won’t go look it up, I can’t help you any further.

    This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’

    There are no such things as the spacial and general theories of evolution in biology. This is yet anther example of creationists making something up for nefarious purposes. .

  28. You’re still confused. You are making a category error. A “cline” refers to a set of traits, not a group of animals.

    Oy, the cline is in the SEPARATE group, each group consists on clinal elements, there is no error.

    There are no such things as the spacial and general theories of evolution in biology. This is yet anther example of creationists making something up for nefarious purposes.

    Professor Kerkut is an evolutionist and the quote is from an evolutionary MONOGRAPH (the highest form of science publication). Couldn’t take the time to download the freely available book, eh? Pathetic wolfy Olorin.

  29. Oy, the cline is in the SEPARATE group, each group consists on [sic] clinal elements, there is no error.

    Oy, that’s not what you said. You’re moving the goalposts again.

    However, you are still wrong. Groups do not “consist of “clinal elements. The clines are not elements of an organism, thy are gradations of specific traits.

    Professor Kerkut is an evolutionist and the quote is from an evolutionary MONOGRAPH (the highest form of science publication).

    Kerkut introduced these nonce terms in his book, not a peer-reviewed journal paper. The book was meant to be speculative, and was quite controversial. Biologists do not speak of general or special theories of evolution, and AFAIK, have never lumped abiogenesis with macroevolution in a single category. They are, after all, quite different from each other, employing different mechanisms.

  30. slaps head…. element = trait, some goal post in your head clearly moves a lot.

    Recall:

    There are no such things as the spacial (sic) and general theories of evolution in biology.

    That would be his terms for micro and macro-evolution so that these are simply his equivalence terms.

    Kerkut introduced these nonce (sic) terms in his book, not a peer-reviewed journal paper. The book was meant to be speculative, and was quite controversial. Biologists do not speak of general or special theories of evolution, and AFAIK, have never lumped abiogenesis with macroevolution in a single category. They are, after all, quite different from each other, employing different mechanisms.

    What evidence is there that this was controversial?

    Kerkut was correct, his GTE is not about biological evolution but about all of evolution i.e. cosmological, chemical, geological and biological. If biologists think he is incorrect, they are simply being myopic.

    After accusing creationists of limited thinking, why are they looking at the whole picture and you the supposed intelligent evolutionist with peer-reviewed journal backing, only content on biological evolution?

    Let us for the sake of making your life easier and take out abiogenesis from Kerkut’s definition. You would still NOT be able to show any experimentally repeatable validation for ‘all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source.’

    And this is what I have been trying to pry out of you but you only come up with micro-evolutionary evidence (like speciation) which no creationist has a problem with. Now you are making a scene over abiogenesis to distract from your lack of scientific evidence. Pathetic wolfy Olorin.

  31. You’re still confused. You are making a category error. A “cline” refers to a set of traits, not a group of animals.

    Oy, the cline is in the SEPARATE group, each group consists on clinal elements, there is no error.

    “Cline” REFERS to biological traits or charcaters. A “cline” IS the variation in such characteristic, not the characteristic itself. The term was introduced by Julian Huxley in 1938 to to mean “a gradation in a series of subspecies with continuous change in characters over a geographical area. That’s the meaning of the term, traced back to its original source. You can argue with the correctness of theories or even facts, but words mean what their intended users decide that they mean.,

    Sometimes this term is extended to denote the physical area over which the variation occurs. For example, a border between a forested area and an open rocky area may constitute a cline in which alleles for fur color may vary.[1]

    .

    At this point you are being either stunningly stupid or deliberately deceptive. In either case, you are beyond succor. ‘Bye.

    ====================

    [1] Other fields have appropriated this sense. In hydrology, for example, a thermocline is a layer of water over which a temperature gradient occurs.

  32. There are no such things as the spacial (sic) and general theories of evolution in biology.

    That would be his terms for micro and macro-evolution so that these are simply his equivalence terms.

    Kerkut made up those terms, and no one else in biology uses them, AFAIK.

    If “generaal evolution” is the same as “general theory of evolution,” then “general theory” includes speciation. That’s what macro-evolution means: changes above the sopecies level.

    Thye rest of your comment is inane, self-contradfictory drivel. I can’t help pou with that. You’ll just have to drivel all over the floor by yourself.

  33. It seems odd that no one noted that yesterday, May 4, was Star Wars Day.

    You know: “May the Fourth be with you.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s