Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Will Genetics be the death of Creationism/ID?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:31 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

That inject venom like reptiles??? Please... cite.

It's this kind of laziness that makes me not want to bother. LOOK IT UP.

Trinity1 wrote:

Let me get this straight... the only answer for this critter is 'common ancestor' and then you say... we don't need to know now? Weren’t you just lambasting me about… what was it? Hell… it ain’t important… this is just priceless.

You keep going on and on about this. Please be a dear and explain why it is even necessary to pinpoint a precise ancestor.

Trinity1 wrote:

Buddy... I understand your theory better than you do... that much is obvious to everyone participating in this thread. This is exactly why Bouncer bowed out and FFT and Ana ain't got a word to say.

I think FFT's response to this just about captures it. But also, responding to you is a waste of time both because you're too lazy to look into what you're talking about and because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can just open up any search engine and find quite a lot that outright contradicts whichever point you are grasping at at the time, and yet you keep helping by bringing up articles that directly refute what you're saying, so nobody even has to go through any more work than that. I didn't really feel the need to come in and torch your arguments too. I've rather got more important things (like kidney stones and out-of-town hospital trips) to deal with.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Trinity wrote:

You keep going on and on about this. Please be a dear and explain why it is even necessary to pinpoint a precise ancestor.

Well.... sweetie... I jus get all confused when ya'll start insisten that ToE is correct when I try to make a practical, logical, and simple application of what the theory teaches, it falls apart. Then... and this is the best part, I get to hear how it is me.... not the theory... me.. that am wrong.

I am only making a practical application of the theory here. We are taught these mutational processes occured resulting in three seperate classes of animals. Two of which divergered prior to the development of the traits (for FFT's benefit - that would be the DNA... the mutated genes). We find all of these traits in one animal. The animal just happens to be of a completely seperate class than the ave and reptile... yet, it has very similar traits. The only logical explanation is that they all shared a common ancestor... but... and this is the important part, using current theory, that is not possible as the divergence of the traits occured after their stated common ancestor.

So, since current theory doesn't hold up, I just thought Scorp or FFT might be polite and cite this other common ancestor demonstrating that current theory is correct and ole Trinity doesn't know what he is talking. To date, I have been called everything except Catholic in this thread and all I am doing is asking a simple, logical, and practical question.

So, Ms. Ana... can you cite the common ancestor, or do I get to read more of the same from you too?

Quote:

But also, responding to you is a waste of time both because you're too lazy to look into what you're talking about and because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can just open up any search engine and find quite a lot that outright contradicts whichever point you are grasping at at the time, and yet you keep helping by bringing up articles that directly refute what you're saying, so nobody even has to go through any more work than that. I didn't really feel the need to come in and torch your arguments too. I've rather got more important things (like kidney stones and out-of-town hospital trips) to deal with.

Thought so.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject:

Scorp wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

According to current theory mammals descended from amphibians.

Trinity1 wrote:

Reptiles also descended from amphibians ... developing reptilian traits over gazillions of years.

Trinity1 wrote:

....these traits that are found in th[r]ee classes developed separately ......

If we are to follow your line of reasoning, they all had the same lineage.

If you are talking about reptiles, aves and mammals... yes... that is what the theory posits. Do you disagree? If so, why? All of the material I have read on this states that the common ancestor was an amphibian... do you disagree? If it wasn't the amphibian, what was it?

Quote:

Even if we cannot be certain of every species (extinct or living)common ancestry, it is clear through the fossil record that the shared DNA shows a relationship. Here is what Creationists have to deal with. They can't prove that shared DNA isn't proof of common ancestry.

Are you being serious... if I share DNA with a bacterium, does that mean the bacteria and I had a common ancestor? This is the dogma that I keep asking for evidence of... BTW, this is post number 11 with out a citation of any type.... just more of your ridiculing me for asking a practical question.

Quote:

I think that's what upsets you the most Trinity.

No, what upsets me is the lack of intellectual honesty involved in this discussion when all I'm doing is asking you to provide me with an explanation of why this critter has these traits. You don't, so the next thing we know you are either insulting my intelligence or belittling my religious beliefs. I have grown to expect this from virtually every evolutionist that comes to this board, and you sir are no different.

Scorp
Goldfish

Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Scorp wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

According to current theory mammals descended from amphibians.

Trinity1 wrote:

Reptiles also descended from amphibians ... developing reptilian traits over gazillions of years.

Trinity1 wrote:

....these traits that are found in th[r]ee classes developed separately ......

If we are to follow your line of reasoning, they all had the same lineage.

I think that there has been a line of common ancestors which have branched off into separate species. However, they still carry the DNA of thier common ancestors. You do realize that we all have more than one common ancestor right? And no, I'm not going to give them all names for you.

Quote:

Are you being serious... if I share DNA with a bacterium, does that mean the bacteria and I had a common ancestor?

Yes.

Quote:

This is the dogma that I keep asking for evidence of... BTW, this is post number 11 with out a citation of any type.... just more of your ridiculing me for asking a practical question.

It would take a tremendous amount of research to find distinct common ancestors for any species. I'm just not going to do the work for you regardless of how many times you ask. Get off yer tush and learn this stuff yerself.

Quote:

what upsets me is the lack of intellectual honesty involved in this discussion when all I'm doing is asking you to provide me with an explanation of why this critter has these traits.

Whoa....after all my research to make these laborious posts to discuss this with you, you call me intellectually dishonest? That is a very serious accusation and I don't take it lightly.

Quote:

You don't, so the next thing we know you are either insulting my intelligence or belittling my religious beliefs.

I could hardly belittle your religous beliefs since I share them. And you insult your own intelligence by asking the exact same question ten times over.

Quote:

I have grown to expect this from virtually every evolutionist that comes to this board, and you sir are no different.

Well, since no two posters are alike, could it be that you see ToE proponents through the same distorted lens?

FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy

Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5881

Location: Memphis

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

So, when an organism contains information (DNA - instructions) for the development of... oh... I'm not really sure what to call it here... yeah... sure... why not.... a TRAIT... and animals share similar traits, then they don't necessarily have to share the same exact DNA sequences... but the sequences of the DNA are closely patterned... indicating a shared ancestry (according to current theory of course).

All this, but the thing is that the platypus' snout isn't a bird trait unless you aren't paying attention. As to the reptilian features, I've quoted this part already:

Quote:

The platypus represents the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles. "What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles," says Wes Warren, Ph.D., an assistant professor of genetics, who led the project.

Trinity1 wrote:

Which leads me back to my original point that you are having a hard time understanding. According to current theory mammals descended from amphibians. Mammalian traits were developed through the evolutionary processes over gazillions of years. Reptiles also descended from amphibians (aves from reptiles) developing reptilian traits over gazillions of years. You see FFT... these traits that are found in thee classes developed separately from their amphibian ancestors... therefore, what you want us to believe is that at the same time mammals were developing the same traits as reptiles.... aves... and to top all of this off... and yes this is the most predictable and laughable part... you provide NO... NONE... NADA... ZIPPO... ZILCH... (as most of the theory does) observational evidence to back up your assertions.

Quote:

Further, the platypus isn't the only animal with these reptilian traits.

Trinity1 wrote:

It always seems to be the poor little ignorant fundy YEC that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Usually true, yes.

Trinity1 wrote:

I realize that I’m asking you to apply higher level thinking skills beyond the knowledge level… but don’t get down on me when you can’t and then lash out (wishing you could curse)… it is not my fault. I realize life is harder when you have not developed these skills yet…. but that gives you no reason to upset with everyone else.

It's so fun to watch you when you've lost.

Trinity1 wrote:

Oh… that’s cute… can you explain where an intermediary between a reptile and a mammal would come from? I’m sure you realize that no one claims this FFT… yes?

Fair enough, mammal with reptilian traits. And there are several of them.

Nice (though expected) of you to completely ignore how you were all gloating about how there couldn't be mammals with venom.

Trinity1 wrote:

We find all of these traits in one animal. The animal just happens to be of a completely seperate class than the ave and reptile... yet, it has very similar traits. The only logical explanation is that they all shared a common ancestor... but... and this is the important part, using current theory, that is not possible as the divergence of the traits occured after their stated common ancestor.

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

So, since current theory doesn't hold up,

Trinity1 wrote:

I just thought Scorp or FFT might be polite and cite this other common ancestor demonstrating that current theory is correct and ole Trinity doesn't know what he is talking.

Even if we could, it's not like it would actually change your mind.

Trinity1 wrote:

No, what upsets me is the lack of intellectual honesty involved in this discussion when all I'm doing is asking you to provide me with an explanation of why this critter has these traits.

Likewise seeing as your question has already been answered.

Trinity1 wrote:

You don't, so the next thing we know you are either insulting my intelligence or belittling my religious beliefs.

Well I mean you're not exactly making a good showing for yourself.

Trinity1 wrote:

I have grown to expect this from virtually every evolutionist that comes to this board, and you sir are no different.

The only consistent element is you!

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:07 am Post subject:

Scorp wrote:

Quote:

This is the dogma that I keep asking for evidence of... BTW, this is post number 11 with out a citation of any type.... just more of your ridiculing me for asking a practical question.

Scorp... I'm not asking you to name the species, or the Genus... maybe something in the order, family, or even a separate class... but at least get close.

Quote:

what upsets me is the lack of intellectual honesty involved in this discussion when all I'm doing is asking you to provide me with an explanation of why this critter has these traits.

Whoa....after all my research to make these laborious posts to discuss this with you, you call me intellectually dishonest? That is a very serious accusation and I don't take it lightly.

I didn't mean for you to take it personal Scorp... and if you did, I am sorry. You claim to have researched this issue but the only thing I have seen is (and again, I don't mean this in a demeaning personal way) rudimentary dogma. Coming up with LUCA did not require 'research'... that is the party line for 'we have no earthly idea and what we see makes absolutely no sense'. Sorry... but this is just the way I see it.

Quote:

You don't, so the next thing we know you are either insulting my intelligence or belittling my religious beliefs.

I could hardly belittle your religous beliefs since I share them. And you insult your own intelligence by asking the exact same question ten times over.

If you are going to keep insisting that platypus shares a common ancestor with animals outside of its class... when those traits were develop separately in its lineage, yes, I'm going to keep asking as long as you keep insisting it does... and the reason is because it makes no sense at all. It’s the equivalent of my cousin stating he and I share the same mother... which can't be true.

Quote:

I have grown to expect this from virtually every evolutionist that comes to this board, and you sir are no different.

Well, since no two posters are alike, could it be that you see ToE proponents through the same distorted lens?

Perhaps... the same lens... which isn't fair to you. Distorted? Well, that is a matter of opinion.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:44 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

All this, but the thing is that the platypus' snout isn't a bird trait unless you aren't paying attention. As to the reptilian features, I've quoted this part already:

FFT... this was in response to your comment where you wrote:

FFT wrote:

Then do feel free to cite where it has been claimed that the platypus shares the same DNA as birds. Not just traits, traits are easy. DNA. Whenever you're ready, oh master of the cite demands.

You seemed to be implying that traits and DNA were completely separate topics, where, in this case, they are not… but hey… you know what you’re talking about… I just wanted to make sure you were keeping me straight.

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

Further, the platypus isn't the only animal with these reptilian traits.

In other words... it has a reptilian ancestor? How does this work? It states that an amphibian (using current theory) develops both reptilian and mammalian traits... loses the most of the reptilian traits, retains a few, all the while developing the majority of its mammalian traits. Is this what you are stating or at least endorsing by citing this?

If so, please explain how both of these traits would simultaneously develop in two separate organisms... all the while developing avian traits to...

I keep asking for an explanation (since no one wants to cite which common ancestor this animal descended from) how this works out. The only thing I get is sophomoric derision. If this is how this works, then I'm sure there must be a logical, applicable, demonstrable explanation. The odd thing is that since you all seem to be so well versed in this subject, and the poor ole fundy YEC here isn't, already knows what the answer is... all the while you are floundering around out there trying to put up excuses explaining away this problem. Laughing

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

It always seems to be the poor little ignorant fundy YEC that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Usually true, yes.

Then explain it... if this is true... oops... usually true, then FFT or anyone else shouldn't be beating around the bush with all of these non answers and excuses.

Quote:

It's so fun to watch you when you've lost.

Huh? How does this work out? What have I lost. I have to explain to you that DNA produces traits, these traits from three separate classes of animals, are shared by this organism, and you’re only retort is to somehow crow victory?

Fine, here is your gold star... congratulations. Please, though, do me the favor of writing the explanation on the back of it detailing how the problem is solved so at least I'll know why you’re crying… I mean crowing so loudly. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

So, since current theory doesn't hold up,

By citing the total amount of science Dr. Waren used to develop this statement I could just as easily wrapped it up with 'ands the little pink dragons also come from sunflowers'. FFT, you are sooooo intelligent... you sure showed me. I mean, the amount of research and falsifiable evidence you just provided is beyond what was necessary to persuade me. Hopefully, you’ll get around to posting it… or at least trying to explain it… but you are the man Sir. Rolling Eyes

Scorp
Goldfish

Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:37 am Post subject:

I tried to answer your post, Trinity. My paragraphs were researched and well thought out. However, when I tried to post some links for references I lost the entire post with all my well though out answers. It was a labor totally destroyed by this sites frustrating and unnecessary forum rules. I'm very discouraged. I worked hard on that post. It cannot be duplicated.

FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy

Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5881

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:40 am Post subject:

Scorp: that sort of thing is why I always type up posts in notepad first. Makes it a lot easier to see the whole thing, too.

Trinity1 wrote:

FFT... this was in response to your comment where you wrote:

FFT wrote:

Then do feel free to cite where it has been claimed that the platypus shares the same DNA as birds. Not just traits, traits are easy. DNA. Whenever you're ready, oh master of the cite demands.

I get where you're going, but the platypus snout isn't a bird trait. It's only superficially similar to a beak.

Trinity1 wrote:

In other words... it has a reptilian ancestor?

Quote:

from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles.

What part of this aren't you getting?

Trinity1 wrote:

How does this work? It states that an amphibian (using current theory) develops both reptilian and mammalian traits... loses the most of the reptilian traits, retains a few, all the while developing the majority of its mammalian traits. Is this what you are stating or at least endorsing by citing this?

If so, please explain how both of these traits would simultaneously develop in two separate organisms... all the while developing avian traits to...

What do you mean, two separate organisms?

Trinity1 wrote:

I keep asking for an explanation (since no one wants to cite which common ancestor this animal descended from)

Because we simply don't know. The theory does not stand or fall based on fossil evidence alone.

Trinity1 wrote:

Then explain it... if this is true... oops... usually true, then FFT or anyone else shouldn't be beating around the bush with all of these non answers and excuses.

Which are?

Trinity1 wrote:

Well since you've somehow completely ignored that the platypus only has traits from two separate classes of animals and superficial similarities to a third, yes.

Bouncer
Kitten

Joined: 23 May 2007

Posts: 149

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

He must be working some monster hours then as my previous post has been up there for about week... Rolling Eyes

Monster doesn't even come close to describing it. Design is hard work.

Quote:

Perhaps again I failed to explain the problem to you... I am thinking progeny... what I'm asking for is a common ancestor... what would be a common ancestor that has avian, reptilian, and mammalian traits?

Seems you are always asking for something. All I asked was that you demonstrate you would know what you were looking at before I made the effort. You went off on another tangent.

Quote:

Remember... current theory teaches avian and reptilian traits developed separately from the mammalian... so the problem is, how does a mammal posses these traits if the theory is correct? The only answer I get is... they share a common ancestor... Ok... if that is correct... what mammalian ancestor had developed avian and reptilian traits? Bouncer has not responded because he knows there is no answer... not because he has been at work for a week.

What happened to you explaining how such a creature could exist? Creationists allege that no animal can have features not of it's 'kind' Yet here is proof.

Quote:

Sir... I've been debating this topic for years and have had the theory explained to me three ways from Sunday

And you still can't grasp it.

Quote:

... I got it...

Actually, no you don't 'got it'

Quote:

what I never get though is straight, qualified answers to these seemingly simple questions. Perhaps you might be different... I don't know.

Name the ancestor(s) Sir… and how do they fall does the avian traits develop separately… and then all of a sudden show up in a mammal?

Your turn. Explain how this creature acquired features not that are not of other members of his 'kind' Was the designer a little tipsy that day?

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004

Posts: 881

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

Creationists allege that no animal can have features not of it's 'kind' Yet here is proof.

Features not of it's 'kind' huh. Hmmmm....let's see....eyes, fingers, feet, legs, head, tongue, mouth, stomach, brain, ect......Obviously we're talking a common designer, or at the very least, a common design......Get real!

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Creationists allege that no animal can have features not of it's 'kind' Yet here is proof.

Or perhaps a common ancestor...

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004

Posts: 881

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Or perhaps a common ancestor

Yes, but not necessarily. We can make all sorts of unnecessary assumptions....and do.

Regardless.....we're talking a common designer, or at the very least, a common design.

Scorp
Goldfish

Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:55 am Post subject:

Dust wrote:

Regardless.....we're talking a common designer, or at the very least, a common design.

Evolution is that commonality that all living organisms share.

Bouncer
Kitten

Joined: 23 May 2007

Posts: 149

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:46 am Post subject:

Dust wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Creationists allege that no animal can have features not of it's 'kind' Yet here is proof.

Features not of it's 'kind' huh. Hmmmm....let's see....eyes, fingers, feet, legs, head, tongue, mouth, stomach, brain, ect......

Why does a creature of the mammal 'kind' lay eggs like the bird 'kind' that are soft and leathery like those laid by the reptile 'kind?'

Quote:

Obviously we're talking a common designer, or at the very least, a common design

Where does the design apply? No two platypii are identical. No two cells within a platypus's body are identical. One does not need a 'designer' to build things that are not identical.

Quote:

......Get real!

Reality seems to be a concept that consistantly escapes your understanding. I am not sure you would know when something was 'Real'

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8