pajarito

Not really. You just believe that the process of Natural Selection can accomplish a lot more than I do and a lot more than there is evidence for. Of course. Let’s just take one for now: Two fruit flies successfully mate (indicating same species) and produce offspring which display behavioral isolation. How is this trans-speciation? More information does not mean new information. New characteristics may arise from recombinations, mutations, loss of information, etc. but the result is still coming from the information available to begin with (or the reduced amount over time). It’s like the difference between a short haired dog and a long haired dog; they’re both still just dogs; just more isolated and specialized. One more adapted to live and function in a particular environment better than the other. The short haired dog would probably die out if placed an extreme cold environment and visa versa. Speciation occurs due to the ability built into the instruction set within our DNA to adapt to our differing environments. 1) Better adapted organisms (i.e. horses with long necks) survive better than organisms without the new adaptation. The organisms without the adaptation die. 2) Those adaptations are heritable; they appear in offspring. That's all you need for pandas to evolve a sixth finger (a "thumb"), for people to evolve the skeleton/musculature for walking upright, for giraffes to grow long necks, for fish to turn fins into spines into legs, for squirrels to turn loose skin into wings. The "new information" you talk about is nothing more than DNA that has only one advantage over every other bit of DNA ever made - it survived slightly better than a version that died out. I’m not talking magic here. You’re trying to gain a benefit from Natural Selection that it cannot provide. Yes… it allows for longer haired dogs to survive over short haired dogs in extreme cold environments. The gene for short hair would be more detrimental to the survival of the short haired dogs and they would most likely die out. No… it cannot give you a heritable line of traits (even over millennia) which can gradually grow wings for the dog so it can fly (I’m not predicting this by the way). The possible information for that kind of progression is not available. The above experiment shows how you can get order from randomness by just plain throwing away patterns you don't like. Which is exactly what natural selection does. Who added the new information? God? Again, no. Just the natural process of selection acting on a process with a lot of randomness to it (sexual reproduction.) If you took a bunch of cards, each with a number from 0 to 9, shuffled them, threw out every card with a number greater than 1, threw out every card that’s a repeat, and due to all this there suddenly appeared a card that you didn’t put in there with a capital A on it, that would be new information. Otherwise, you’re just reorganizing or losing information from the finite amount that you started with (e.g. Natural Selection). A loss of information might make the hand more specialized and more ordered but it’s still just a series of 1’s and 0’s. Not 1’s, 0’s, and an A. (required by NDT).

We're discussing NDT here. What I believe to be true is no secret and has been discussed A LOT in many other threads. Just trying to stay on topic. (this time)

No need to be insulting Bill. Adaptation and Natural Selection as a result of environmental cues happens all the time. This is observable. Transspeciation does not and cannot be shown to occur. Natural Selection always results in a loss of information. It cannot add to the genome. Populations selected become more specialized and less information is available. Evolution (as you would describe it) requires the addition of new information. Not just reorganization, copying error, or mutation. Completely new information.

I don’t think all of the findings are fraud. However, some certainly seem to be. Most seem to be examples of wishful thinking. Piltdown Man – Human skullcap with the lower jaw of an orangutan; teeth were stained and filed down to make them look human and to match size of teeth in upper human jaw. Nebraska Man – Pig’s tooth which was claimed to have been Hesperopithecus. The reconstruction of the tooth’s owner was shown as an upright-standing ape-man with human-like anatomical features along with a mate, domestic animals, and tools. Peking Man - Brow ridges, sloping forehead, and prognathus face exist in Neanderthal and archaic Homo sapiens and in some modern skulls. Almost every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941. Java Man – Regarded as suspect when its discoverer allegedly hid two fully human Javan skulls in order to strengthen his claims for the Pithecanthropus (erectus) specimen known as Java Man. A year or so later, two fully human femur bones of Java Man were also “discovered” 15 meters away from where the skull cap was originally found. Australopithecines (southern ape) – Claimed to be the closest to the common ancestor of humans and apes. However, CAT scans of the inner ear region of the skulls show their semi-circular canals (balance & ability to walk upright) resembling those of existing apes. ***Most well known (Lucy: Australopithecus afarensis) was 40% complete but without the upper jaw, most of the skull, and no hand or foot bones. Lucy, however, has been restored and displayed worldwide with an ape-like head face & head and a human-like body including human-like hands & feet. On the contrary, other specimens show that Australopithecus afarensis had long curved fingers and toes (tree-dwellers) and the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas. More like a specialized ape and not a human link. Homo habilis (handy man; works with tools) – Most well known is KNM-ER 1470. A fossil skull and leg bones were found. CAT scans of the inner ear of the skull found that it walked like a baboon and not a human. Most consider it to be comprised of bits of Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is an invalid taxon (never existed as such). Homo erectus (upright man) – Use of tools, control of fire, buried their dead, use of decoration. Brain size was somewhat smaller but within human range. Recent evidence of seafaring skills. CAT scan of inner ear region of skull indicates posture such as ours. Variation within a kind of modern humans. Neanderthal – Early findings were reconstructed with a hunched over appearance fitting preconceived notions very well. However, some specimens probably suffered from bony diseases such as rickets (childhood vitamin D deficiency) causing bowing of the skeleton. Might have been caused by lack of exposure to sunlight consistent with having lived during the Ice Age. The minor variation in brain size is also consistent with the minor variation between humans today (variation within a kind driven by natural selection). Many think Neanderthal should be regarded as Homo Sapiens. All these really represent are some of the temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of both humans and apes driven by natural selection.

An evolutionist dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape's jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man. He was so exited about the find he said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."

Of course I think the Bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny. However, as I've said before, I'm not arguing for Christianity here. I'm just showing the gaping holes in the NDT. Believe what you want. Just don't tell me that it is all "objective."

It's just seems to be the trend with evolutionists and evolution science publications to report any find (as fast as possible) in the supposed evolutionary chain as the proof they need to put any doubt to rest only to have it shot down as either inconclusive or fraudulent. e.g. It took 40 years from the time of its discovery to expose the fraud of Piltdown Man. Part of a human skull and an orangutan jaw doctored to look like fossils. Why did it take that long? One might suspect that evolutionists are so intent on making their theory work that scientific objectivity often times gets left behind.

Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) - Same wrist anatomy as knuckle walking chimpanzees and gorillas. - Skeletal anatomy indicates a stooped gait similar to rolling knuckle walk of chimpanzees. - Hands & feet misrepresented as human in statues and textbooks. The fingers and toes are actually long and curved even more so than apes today. - The big toe sticks out as in chimpanzees. They may have walked more upright than most apes but not in a human manner. The walk is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. - The Lucy footprints cannot fit the footprints at Laetoli. - CAT scans of inner ear canals (posture and balance) showed they did not walk habitually upright. Dr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia said “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.” Dr Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that they have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever and are simply an extinct form of ape. All he could really confirm was that “The australopithecines are unique.” Dr. Donald Johanson (the discoverer of Lucy Australopithecus afarensis said “There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it. …In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age. …Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.” Johanson went on to confess: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.”

I agree with you 100% on that one. That's called natural selection. Observable...demonstrated...proven. That, however, is not what NDT is trying to call macro-evolution. It cannot lead to the large scale transpeciation that NDT tries to predict. No matter how the pictures of the pretty horses seem to fit together in a line. Again...I'm NOT arguing for God here. I could but that would be another discussion.

What's wrong with my understanding of it Jack? I didn't make this stuff up. I just read more books than the one I was handed in Biology class depicting an imagined pictoral progression from primate to man and telling you this "is" the way it happened.

The only thing I find upsetting is otherwise intelligent, educated people in industrialized nations in the 21st Century sacrificing the rational side of their intellects to enable the burning of witches. It's embarrassing. More than that, it's shameful. Who's burning witches?

I guess we're not talking about "Origin of the species, where do you stand?" anymore. I'm not even arguing for God in these posts. I'm just saying that you may want to pick another theory to believe in or at least hope for some modification to the current one (again).

I realize that it is very upsetting for something to fall apart that you've always been told. However, intellectual honesty requires the following: There aren’t enough “billions of years” to explain away some of this stuff. No matter how much you want it to be true.

You put your faith in one and I put mine in another. I just wish you'd call it what it is instead of hiding behind what you want/wish/desperately need to be "good science."

Neo-Darwinians presume a long chain of random changes which eventually (through very small ones) can lead to large evolutionary change. However, if these events all lose information, they can’t explain NDT no matter how many mutations there are. The argument "for" Creation doesn't even have to be made here. The argument "against" Evolution is just too strong. If it fails the test at its foundation, it doesn't matter how well you can "stack the bones" based on "looks."

The sheep/lamb symbolism was used to describe/predict Christ way before any of this. Isaiah 53 (written ~ 740 – 680 B.C.) “1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Donkeys, horses, and zebras readily hybridize with each other. They and their offspring (mule, hinny, zorse, zeedonk, zonkey, zebras) would appear to come from a common ancestor (variation within a kind).

There's more to it than that. Speciation driven by natural selection is not the same nor can it lead to macro-level evolution. All of the instructions to form a living thing the way it is and to gradually change in different directions (e.g. grow longer/shorter hair or lighter/darker skin) due to environmental input is included in its DNA. In order for it to change (even gradually) into something completely different (e.g. fish to the next random level ultimately leading to man) there must be instruction to do so. Whatever design features they have came from information which was already included in their genes. Evolution cannot be built on a loss of specificity which is what occurs over time.

I was told the same stuff you obviously were in school. I just don't necessarily buy into everything my college professor (or anyone for that matter) put out just b/c he had a PhD beside his/her name. There are plenty of others with that same title who have posed very real and critical problems with the theory. If you want to believe it, that's fine.

All I'm saying is that there has to be new information to gradually transition (even over "insert # of billions of years) from (just one example) a fish with gills to a land animal with functional lungs (and survives the transition). You can't just re-sequence the DNA (or just add more of the same) of a fish and come up with the instruction set to make that leap. Even if there were billions of transitions between the fish and land animal. You've got to have something added which didn't exist before. It doesn't just come from nothing. Appearances can be deceiving. You've got to base your "science" on more than that.

There is no capacity to produce new information in a meiosis/fertilization event. DNA is “copied” and transferred from the parent to the daughter cell. You’re still just dealing with information that was already there. No new information, just reorganization of pre-existing information. Not true. It is possible. Copying errors produce results like this. If it is functional, it may be passed along. If not, it will be selected out. However, it doesn’t make the kid anything other than human. The arm was produced from pre-existing information. A fully functional extra arm doesn’t produce new functionality. It just produces more functionality. More of the same isn’t going to produce something different unless you have available instruction to do so. I have a polydactyl cat with an extra toe on its front paws. It’s still a cat. If it grew another toe on each paw, it would still be just a cat (genetically speaking). Again… pre-existing information switched on in the wrong place or just in a different sequence. Re-sequencing of pre-existing information will result in a new “sentence” but not one consisting of additional information that wasn’t there before. That new information (not just shuffling the deck) is necessary to change into something new. Duplications/insertions are a good way of destroying the functionality of existing genes. It’s an increase in information but not new information. It is in fact a “loss of specificity.” We've seen the numbers of chromosomes change through cases where we "force" rapid evolution by selective breeding. Wild horses have 66 of chromosomes; domesticated horses have 64. We've seen the same thing in recent hominid evolution as well. Humans have 46 chromosomes; chimpanzees have 48. As you said, number of chromosomes has nothing to do with the amount of information or specificity. Your use of evolution above would be better stated as speciation (changes within a kind driven by natural selection). You can’t just shuffle the deck and come up with something new altogether. You may draw a new hand every time but it’s still just made up of cards. I’ll try and read the rest of this later. Gotta work.

Prove it.

Sure. They happen all the time. What's the point?

More or less... and that is why there is such diversity among us within a species. However, the information for the Neo-Darwinian kind of change just isn't there. New information would have to be added for one species to (even gradually) change into another.

New information is not necessary for mutation. DNA strands can mutate as they synthesize, such that the base pairs do not line up the same way as they did in previous versions. It may be a new sequence but there's no new information added that wasn't already there before. There is speciation within a kind driven by natural selection, however, the leap hasn't been demonstrated as possible for anything beyond that.