Gill slits, and Adam and Eve

From the first link:

"Charles Darwin once said that he thought that the evidence from the comparative anatomy of embryos is “by far the strongest single class of facts” in favor of common descent (Darwin, 1860) and while it has since been eclipsed by genetics, it remains one of most compelling subsets of evidence for evolution. And perhaps the single most striking detail of the comparative embryology in vertebrates, are the structures colloquially known as “gill slits”."

So when Robert shows up at 4 AM and trashes up the thread with a bunch of denialist nonsense, he won't even have to click on the link to get this quote. All he will be able to do is to claim that embryology is not biology. Good luck with that.

Reality is so mean, so discourteous to creationism, by putting out there a host of evidences from the sequence of fossils necessary if evolution to have occurred, embryology, genomics, wonderful transitional forms, and (related) morphology, that there is nothing left to do but to shun that anti-god bigot.

Nothing, including reality, deserves any consideration if it is so impolite to pious Bible thumpers.

Glen Davidson

Thanks Richard!

Troy Britain said: Thanks Richard!

By gum, Richard, that DI book is even worse than I thought. According to that Amazon.com link, "Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple."

So not only are they arguing that all humans descended from one couple, they're also denying (sorry, "critically assessing") that humans and apes had a common ancestor. This is getting pretty close to unapologetic literalist YEC.

Glenn Branch has pointed out a positive review of the new DI Gauger-Axe-Luskin book in a Seventh Day Adventist magazine here. It summarizes the chapters, and only one seems to be about Adam and Eve, most are about human/chimp unrelatedness.

Joe F.: It summarizes the chapters...most are about human/chimp unrelatedness.

A big read here but gills conveys a image.
It means and was meant to persuade people that having gills in embryo of all creatures is evidence of a early primitive stage we all come from.
Creationists say they are not gills from a living early ancestor but a needed operation and application for the unique case of embryonic development.
Not gills!

Its not the same as Kiwi buds and marine mammals.
they actually have these vestigial bits and pieces, and very rare examples of this in nature or fossil, in adult life.
These gills are not in adult life when the body/DNA has reached its completion in making the creature.
Not a accurate analogy.
Atrophy of these bits is not the same as simple development of a embryo in a special stage of growth.
It was plain wrong guessing for Darwin to persuade himself or others we all evolved up from gill things and presto here is the evidence for that early stage in our growth from conception.
its a line of reasoning only anyways and not based on scientific evidence however its just a useless idea from long ago .
Creationists make a good point about this.
If evolutionists insist gills in early growth are evidence of leftovers from our ancestors then stick to it.
The idea seems to be losing breath.

You didn't read the article very carefully, did you, Byers? Because Troy Britain explained numerous times during the article that the "gill slits" are never functional gills in most chordates. (Most embryologists would prefer to use the term pharyngeal arches rather than gill slits or branchial arches for this reason.) What's more, the pharyngeal arches don't "atrophy" -- in humans they develop into important anatomical structures such as the facial muscles, larynx, jaw bones, and so on. If these arches "atrophied", as you claim, then you would not be able to speak, hear, eat, or move your face, you would not be able to regulate your calcium metabolism, and you'd have no arteries to your brain or lungs.

Byers, you didn't read the bit in the article which showed that no scientist before or after Darwin thought that these were gills, did you? All bar one, that is - and he was an ardent creationist!

Scientists before Darwin thought that these were structures like those that developed into gills in fish, and couldn't explain why they were there in reptiles, mammals and birds. Darwin explained why.

The rest of your post illustrates your shambolic thought processes as well as demonstrating your incoherent prose. Those structures, like the vestigial remnants of the Kiwi's wings, are not "analogies". They are facts to be explained - and creationism does not explain them, but evolution does. They are "leftovers" from ancestors, and your denial is merely further demonstration of your ignorance and superstition.

Is the pressing question "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?" answered in either of these publications?

Self-refutin' Robert

"It's a line of reasoning only anyways and not based on scientific evidence".

You do love incanting this phrase, or a version thereof. You have no idea what it means or how to apply it, but you do seem to cling on to it as if it were a magical charm or a sorceror's trick that can somehow, magically, settle an argument. Where did you get it from? Morris and Whitcomb? Genesis?

That said, you can invoke this word-magic all you want, insist on it all you want, but it has no efficacy - let's face it, there are millions of scientists and researchers around the world doing things that you claim are in error, based on lines of reasoning and no scientific evidence, and yet they manage to accrue actual knowledge of the world and apply it successfully. By contrast, the "scientists" working according to the authority of YECCH are a hopeless shambles that can't actually do anything, other than obtain monies by fraudulent deception.

Dave Luckett said: Byers, you didn't read the bit in the article which showed that no scientist before or after Darwin thought that these were gills, did you? All bar one, that is - and he was an ardent creationist!

Chris Lawson said: So not only are they arguing that all humans descended from one couple, they're also denying (sorry, "critically assessing") that humans and apes had a common ancestor. This is getting pretty close to unapologetic literalist YEC.

The facts that creation science is inspired by the Book of Genesis and that Section 4(a) is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis leave no doubt that a major effect of the Act is the advancement of particular religious beliefs. [end of Section III]

Section 4(a)(2), relating to the "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism," is an incomplete negative generalization directed at the theory of evolution. Section 4(a)(3) which describes "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals" fails to conform to the essential characteristics of science for several reasons. First, there is no scientific definition of "kinds" and none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific authority which recognized the term or knew how many "kinds" existed. One defense witness suggested there may may be 100 to 10,000 different "kinds." Another believes there were "about 10,000, give or take a few thousand." Second, the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species. There is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law. The statement in 4(a)(4) of "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion. It explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory (26).

The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory. The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it. ...The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.

Robert Byers said: A big read here but gills conveys a image. It means and was meant to persuade people that having gills in embryo of all creatures is evidence of a early primitive stage we all come from. Creationists say they are not gills from a living early ancestor but a needed operation and application for the unique case of embryonic development. Not gills! Its not the same as Kiwi buds and marine mammals. they actually have these vestigial bits and pieces, and very rare examples of this in nature or fossil, in adult life. These gills are not in adult life when the body/DNA has reached its completion in making the creature. Not a accurate analogy. Atrophy of these bits is not the same as simple development of a embryo in a special stage of growth. It was plain wrong guessing for Darwin to persuade himself or others we all evolved up from gill things and presto here is the evidence for that early stage in our growth from conception. its a line of reasoning only anyways and not based on scientific evidence however its just a useless idea from long ago . Creationists make a good point about this. If evolutionists insist gills in early growth are evidence of leftovers from our ancestors then stick to it. The idea seems to be losing breath.

I believe that Ken Miller is working on a book on human origins.

One doesn't even have to read the book to tell it's a pile of doggie poo written by three (?) scientists!

Axe and Gauger are known ID creationists at the Dishonesty Institute's faux research lab that doesn't produce any research results whatsoever, and of which "Luskin is research coordinator at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture."

But Luskin's credentials are the funniest of all. "He earned his M.S. in earth sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and CONDUCTED GEOLOGICAL RESEARCH at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography." Yes, he was a graduate student, yes, his "research" consisted of the lab work required of all graduate students, and yes, he did manage to get his name on one published paper as a grad student contributor, but not as the author of the paper (his grad school advisor's paper), AND THAT WAS IT. So much for Luskin's research career! But Luskin continues to parade around his inflated, phoney credentials and call himself a "scientist." Obviously Amazon does not verify the credentials of the authors very well.

Troy Britain said:

Joe F.: It summarizes the chapters...most are about human/chimp unrelatedness.

Has anyone told Behe?

This is just another case of the old "same evidence different conclusions" scam. Sure these "scientists" can "debunk" anything they like. After all, they haven't got any new data and they haven't earned the right to analyze anyone any existing data. They also haven't got the background, training or knowledge in the relevant fields to have an expert opinion. So exactly why should anyone accept their pronouncements over the real experts? Exactly why should one even consider a popular book compared to real scientific journals?

Anyone got a reference for the "recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.” Anyone know if the book discusses all of the evidence such as mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome markers, micro satellites, SINE insertions, etc. Or is it just an inbreeding depression, genetic diversity, population genetics kind of argument?

Maybe those wacky DI folks are counting on people confusing/conflating biblical Eve with mitochondrial Eve. The IDea is to keep doubt alive, after all.

DS asked: Anyone got a reference for the "recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.” Anyone know if the book discusses all of the evidence such as mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome markers, micro satellites, SINE insertions, etc. Or is it just an inbreeding depression, genetic diversity, population genetics kind of argument?

Joe Felsenstein said: Glenn Branch has pointed out a positive review of the new DI Gauger-Axe-Luskin book in a Seventh Day Adventist magazine here. It summarizes the chapters, and only one seems to be about Adam and Eve, most are about human/chimp unrelatedness.

Carl Drews said: The statement is probably referring to this peer-reviewed publication: Dennis Venema, "Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010. link

Based on the review, I see that DI has decided to go with the “we won’t accept evolution until you describe and find every intermediate between earlier hominids and humans” defense. They are literally asking for scientists to come up with a confirmable, historical record of exactly which mutations happened when.

Carl Drews said:

DS asked: Anyone got a reference for the "recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.” Anyone know if the book discusses all of the evidence such as mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome markers, micro satellites, SINE insertions, etc. Or is it just an inbreeding depression, genetic diversity, population genetics kind of argument?

The statement is probably referring to this peer-reviewed publication: Dennis Venema, "Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010. link

From the Venema paper:

"Recent progress in examining genetic diversity solely within our species has provided a comple- mentary means to estimate our ancestral effective population size, using assumptions independent of those used for cross-species, comparative-genomics approaches."

So Robert was wrong again. There are not two different forces operating. SNP variation and measures of linkage disequilibrium, well documented at the intraspecific and population levels, are sufficient to falsify creationist scenarios. And the comparison of complete genomes provides the opportunity to accurately estimate ancestral population sizes. These were found to be in the range of 8 - 10 thousand for humans.

This is biology pure and simple. There is nothing atomic about. There is nothing unproven about it. There are not two factors. The evidence comes from comparative genomics that allows for examination of homology, synteny and pesudogenes. It has nothing to do with phenotype or body form or anything else. It is strong and compel;ling evidence of common ancestry.

Now if Robert can explain linkage disequilibrium and its relation to human SNP analysis, then maybe someone will care about his opinion. Same for any other creationist. How in the world could they write and entire book to trying to misrepresent this tremendous research? It would have been nice if at least one of them were a geneticist or population geneticist.

"The Discovery Institute is becoming more and more overtly creationist, with apologetics overwhelming any scientific aspirations it might once have had. "

As if it could be more overtly creationist

I was unaware of the "Discovery Institute Press." Looks like the Dishonesty Institute has set up their own little publishing function to circumvent any (all) science publishers who reject their books as pseudoscience and assign them to the religious side of their publishing houses. Now the DI can claim their books are science books (reviewed and raved by religious reviewers of course).

DavidK said: I was unaware of the "Discovery Institute Press." Looks like the Dishonesty Institute has set up their own little publishing function to circumvent any (all) science publishers who reject their books as pseudoscience and assign them to the religious side of their publishing houses. Now the DI can claim their books are science books (reviewed and raved by religious reviewers of course).

Chris Lawson said: You didn't read the article very carefully, did you, Byers? Because Troy Britain explained numerous times during the article that the "gill slits" are never functional gills in most chordates. (Most embryologists would prefer to use the term pharyngeal arches rather than gill slits or branchial arches for this reason.) What's more, the pharyngeal arches don't "atrophy" -- in humans they develop into important anatomical structures such as the facial muscles, larynx, jaw bones, and so on. If these arches "atrophied", as you claim, then you would not be able to speak, hear, eat, or move your face, you would not be able to regulate your calcium metabolism, and you'd have no arteries to your brain or lungs.

Robert Byers said:

Chris Lawson said: You didn't read the article very carefully, did you, Byers? Because Troy Britain explained numerous times during the article that the "gill slits" are never functional gills in most chordates. (Most embryologists would prefer to use the term pharyngeal arches rather than gill slits or branchial arches for this reason.) What's more, the pharyngeal arches don't "atrophy" -- in humans they develop into important anatomical structures such as the facial muscles, larynx, jaw bones, and so on. If these arches "atrophied", as you claim, then you would not be able to speak, hear, eat, or move your face, you would not be able to regulate your calcium metabolism, and you'd have no arteries to your brain or lungs.

Yes the 'gills" don't atrophy because they are not or ever were gills. I said the kiwi etc atrophied. Darwin did see the gills as remnants pictures of a previous anatomical past. This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this. Thats the point.

This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this.

Robert B.: Yes the ‘gills” don’t atrophy because they are not or ever were gills.

Robert B.:: I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

Robert B.: Darwin did see the gills as remnants pictures of a previous anatomical past. This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this. Thats the point.

Byers, they are the structures from which a fish's gills develop. The very same structures in the tetrapod embryo develop in a different direction to produce very different eventual outcomes; but they are the same basal structures.

That's a fact. I know you can't and won't recognise it as one, far less understand its implications, but it's still a fact, Byers. Insist the sky is green all you like, but it's still blue, and you're simply wrong.

Robert Byers said: Yes the 'gills" don't atrophy because they are not or ever were gills. I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

These gills are not in adult life when the body/DNA has reached its completion in making the creature. Not a accurate analogy. Atrophy of these bits is not the same as simple development of a embryo in a special stage of growth.

Joe Felsenstein said: Glenn Branch has pointed out a positive review of the new DI Gauger-Axe-Luskin book in a Seventh Day Adventist magazine here. It summarizes the chapters, and only one seems to be about Adam and Eve, most are about human/chimp unrelatedness.

As I understand it, the genes for making gills still exist in the mammalian genome but are disabled. Thus, it might some day become possible to use genetic engineering techniques to enable those genes and produce, say, humans with both gills and lungs.

Dave Luckett said: Byers, they are the structures from which a fish's gills develop. The very same structures in the tetrapod embryo develop in a different direction to produce very different eventual outcomes; but they are the same basal structures. That's a fact. I know you can't and won't recognise it as one, far less understand its implications, but it's still a fact, Byers. Insist the sky is green all you like, but it's still blue, and you're simply wrong.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that “archaic” structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into “modern” structures recognizable in the adult animal.

Rolf said:

Dave Luckett said: Byers, they are the structures from which a fish's gills develop. The very same structures in the tetrapod embryo develop in a different direction to produce very different eventual outcomes; but they are the same basal structures. That's a fact. I know you can't and won't recognise it as one, far less understand its implications, but it's still a fact, Byers. Insist the sky is green all you like, but it's still blue, and you're simply wrong.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that "archaic" structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into "modern" structures recognizable in the adult animal. The problem with people like Byers is that they are afraid to open a science book. I wish I could write an essay about the pathology of creationism and its correlation with the pathology of eating disorders. The victims/patients see what they want to see and are unable to accept reality. Starved to Belsen-like apparation; they still see an ugly, fat being in their mirror. Their brain is incapable of thinking otherwise. It takes an immense effort for anorexia or bulimi victims to break the vicious circle. They are incapable of rational thinking and immune to rational arguments. Robert Byers is a showcase. His incoherent arguments are "priceless".

Troy Britain said:

Robert B.: Yes the ‘gills” don’t atrophy because they are not or ever were gills.

They do function as gills in the lava of extant amphibians and some of the earliest tetrapods had functioning, internal, gills as adults.

Robert B.:: I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

The wings of kiwis are not atrophied either. Kiwis are born with tiny vestigial wings and they stay tiny vestigial wings throughout their lives. But the better example is hind limb buds in cetaceans, how is this example not analogous to "gill slits"/pharyngeal clefts?

Robert B.: Darwin did see the gills as remnants pictures of a previous anatomical past. This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this. Thats the point.

No the point is that the pre-Darwin creationist scientists saw, as evolutionist scientists still do, that there are detailed similarities between the embryonic pharyngeal clefts in "fish" (which develop into gills) and the embryonic pharyngeal clefts of amniotes (which do not). Something modern creationists either deny or attempt to minimize. Darwin provided a testable explanation (common descent with modification, i.e. evolution) for the existence of these sorts of anatomical similarities, whereas creationists had only vague untestable ideas about "unity of plan". Also, as has been pointed out to you, at least one creationist, Louis Agassiz, did claimed that they function as gills in amniote embryos (though he obviously didn't consider them as evidence of a descent relationship between "fish" and amniotes).

Rolf

If you think that self-refutin' Robert's incoherent arguments are priceless, then you should read his essay on post-flood marsupial migration.

It's here: http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html

In short, Byers: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean nobody does.

fnxtr said: In short, Byers: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean nobody does.

Rolf said: Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that "archaic" structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into "modern" structures recognizable in the adult animal.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: If you think that self-refutin' Robert's incoherent arguments are priceless, then you should read his essay on post-flood marsupial migration. It's here: http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html

bbennett1968 said:

fnxtr said: In short, Byers: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean nobody does.

You mean, Just because Byers doesn't know anything, doesn't mean everyone knows nothing.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Rolf If you think that self-refutin' Robert's incoherent arguments are priceless, then you should read his essay on post-flood marsupial migration. It's here: http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Rolf If you think that self-refutin' Robert's incoherent arguments are priceless, then you should read his essay on post-flood marsupial migration. It's here: http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html

So according to Bob, evolution can change a marsupial into a placental mammal in 2,000 years, but it can't change a chimp into a human.

DS: Nice try, but Robert isn’t here to learn anything.

John_S said: So according to Bob, evolution can change a marsupial into a placental mammal in 2,000 years, but it can't change a chimp into a human.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Carl Drews said: The statement is probably referring to this peer-reviewed publication: Dennis Venema, "Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010. link

My bet is that Venema will review the book on BioLogos, and will eviscerate it. He's not shy about calling out IDist nonsense.

Karen S. said: "The Discovery Institute is becoming more and more overtly creationist, with apologetics overwhelming any scientific aspirations it might once have had. " As if it could be more overtly creationist

xubist said:

Karen S. said: "The Discovery Institute is becoming more and more overtly creationist, with apologetics overwhelming any scientific aspirations it might once have had. " As if it could be more overtly creationist

Yes, the DI could be more overtly Creationist. Rather than just drop suggestive hints in the direction of Creationism, they could flat-out declare that science has just proved the Biblical story of Eden to be correct.

In one sense the DI is more "overtly creationist" than the literal Genesis peddlers, because they indirectly peddle all the mutually contradictory versions, plus nonliteral ones that are at least as opposed to "Darwinism."

Troy Britain said:

Robert B.: Yes the ‘gills” don’t atrophy because they are not or ever were gills.

They do function as gills in the lava of extant amphibians and some of the earliest tetrapods had functioning, internal, gills as adults.

Robert B.:: I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

The wings of kiwis are not atrophied either. Kiwis are born with tiny vestigial wings and they stay tiny vestigial wings throughout their lives. But the better example is hind limb buds in cetaceans, how is this example not analogous to "gill slits"/pharyngeal clefts?

Robert B.: Darwin did see the gills as remnants pictures of a previous anatomical past. This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this. Thats the point.

No the point is that the pre-Darwin creationist scientists saw, as evolutionist scientists still do, that there are detailed similarities between the embryonic pharyngeal clefts in "fish" (which develop into gills) and the embryonic pharyngeal clefts of amniotes (which do not). Something modern creationists either deny or attempt to minimize. Darwin provided a testable explanation (common descent with modification, i.e. evolution) for the existence of these sorts of anatomical similarities, whereas creationists had only vague untestable ideas about "unity of plan". Also, as has been pointed out to you, at least one creationist, Louis Agassiz, did claimed that they function as gills in amniote embryos (though he obviously didn't consider them as evidence of a descent relationship between "fish" and amniotes).

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the 'gills" don't atrophy because they are not or ever were gills. I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

Robert, what you said was,

These gills are not in adult life when the body/DNA has reached its completion in making the creature. Not a accurate analogy. Atrophy of these bits is not the same as simple development of a embryo in a special stage of growth.

It takes remarkable chutzpah to lie about the contents of a comment you yourself wrote just a few places up the same thread.

harold said:

Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that “archaic” structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into “modern” structures recognizable in the adult animal.

Yes. Robert Byers is a tolerable sort by creationist standards (addresses the actual topic and refrains from threats) but he avoids clicking links as well as reading books. The link to the "Chess With Pigeons" blog leads to a very nice review of the embryology of pharyngeal arches ("gill slits"). They are embryological structures which give rise to gills in marine animals that use gills. The homologous structures give rise to different adult structures in different lineages. For example, in mammals, they give rise to ear structures that are not present in reptiles. But fish, reptiles, and mammals are share the homologous embryological structures.

Robert Byers said:

Troy Britain said:

Robert B.: Yes the ‘gills” don’t atrophy because they are not or ever were gills.

They do function as gills in the lava of extant amphibians and some of the earliest tetrapods had functioning, internal, gills as adults.

Robert B.:: I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

The wings of kiwis are not atrophied either. Kiwis are born with tiny vestigial wings and they stay tiny vestigial wings throughout their lives. But the better example is hind limb buds in cetaceans, how is this example not analogous to "gill slits"/pharyngeal clefts?

Robert B.: Darwin did see the gills as remnants pictures of a previous anatomical past. This is not true and so creationists rightly insist on this. Thats the point.

No the point is that the pre-Darwin creationist scientists saw, as evolutionist scientists still do, that there are detailed similarities between the embryonic pharyngeal clefts in "fish" (which develop into gills) and the embryonic pharyngeal clefts of amniotes (which do not). Something modern creationists either deny or attempt to minimize. Darwin provided a testable explanation (common descent with modification, i.e. evolution) for the existence of these sorts of anatomical similarities, whereas creationists had only vague untestable ideas about "unity of plan". Also, as has been pointed out to you, at least one creationist, Louis Agassiz, did claimed that they function as gills in amniote embryos (though he obviously didn't consider them as evidence of a descent relationship between "fish" and amniotes).

I didn't realize this thread still had gills, I mean legs. Kiwis wings are atrophied from ancestors by the way. lets understand this. Darwin SIMPLY thought that these structures called "gills" in embryos was one of his best proofs for evolution. This proof was plain wrong as he saw it simply. Or rather it is not proof of a fact but only a interpretation of stucture. They find these structures in embryo and then find like structures in nature that they consider primitive. Then announce a past relict for all of us. Yet all that if found is a structure suited to such early development in mother. What else could it be? There is no reason or hint to connect born creatures with 'primitive" gills with embryonic "gills" or really simple structures. The logic is flawed again. This is why creationists bang a gong about this subject. The structures are not gills but simply gills look like a very common structure that occurs in embryo in biology. Darwin and company got it backward. there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800's got carried away. Darwin really was saying evolution had kept a vestigial stage in the present embryological early stage of much of biology. its not a vestigial structure/in stage in reality. its suited to its calling. The rest is connecting the dots with no evidence except the evolutionary hypothesis. darwin was quick to draw conclusions like this. He , in trying to prove biology regressed back like piegans to its former stages, said retarded people had more hair then others. In short retarded people are closer to ape brains and so body Darwin said. Today they don't say this. In fact I insist retardation has nothing to do with the brain as such but is entirely the result of memory interference. Not affecting hair growth. Sorry to the Descent of man.

You don't know what "atrophied" means, do you, Byers? You don't understand the difference between "atrophied" and "vestigial", do you?

Darwin didn't think that structures in the embryo were "the evolutionary stage of gills". He didn't think that they were "a stage in growth of more evolved creatures", either. Although they are obviously "a stage in growth", (because they develop into fully functional structures) the creatures in which they develop into gills are no more and no less evolved than the creatures in which they develop into other structures.

What Darwin thought is that the existence of these basal structures is evidence for different development pathways from similar roots - and in that, he was undeniably, definitely, unimpeachably correct.

As for chutzpah, I have never in my life heard of anyone so deeply, ineluctably and unregenerately proud of his utter ignorance and incompetence as Byers. He's amusing, but only until it becomes painful.

Robert Byers said:

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the 'gills" don't atrophy because they are not or ever were gills. I said the kiwi etc atrophied.

Robert, what you said was,

These gills are not in adult life when the body/DNA has reached its completion in making the creature. Not a accurate analogy. Atrophy of these bits is not the same as simple development of a embryo in a special stage of growth.

It takes remarkable chutzpah to lie about the contents of a comment you yourself wrote just a few places up the same thread.

No deception is being practiced. The embryonic so called gills are not atrophied structures of previous evolutionary stages where they were working gills. Unlike actual living birds.

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that “archaic” structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into “modern” structures recognizable in the adult animal.

Yes. Robert Byers is a tolerable sort by creationist standards (addresses the actual topic and refrains from threats) but he avoids clicking links as well as reading books. The link to the "Chess With Pigeons" blog leads to a very nice review of the embryology of pharyngeal arches ("gill slits"). They are embryological structures which give rise to gills in marine animals that use gills. The homologous structures give rise to different adult structures in different lineages. For example, in mammals, they give rise to ear structures that are not present in reptiles. But fish, reptiles, and mammals are share the homologous embryological structures.

Thanks. I did click here. Your right and put it better. They are embryo structures . Darwin tried to say they were the evolutionary stage of gills for all creatures and remaining as a stage in growth of more evolved creatures. Thats what he thought. Now evolutionists retreat to saying these structures become or became other bits of bodies. Creationists pick up on the traditional error and make a good case about it. Darwin was plain wrong and that which was so intuitively persuasive to him that his hypothesis was right was in fact as wrong as can be. His concept of it was wrong. They are not representing a previous evolved stage of living creatures. We do not have in embryology the stages of our evolution over millions of year . Looking at embryology of anything is not rewinding the story.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Unless I am mistaken, I believe embryonal development of mammals has been studied to the extent that we actually have seen, identified and verified that “archaic” structures visible in the embryo actually do develop into “modern” structures recognizable in the adult animal.

Yes. Robert Byers is a tolerable sort by creationist standards (addresses the actual topic and refrains from threats) but he avoids clicking links as well as reading books. The link to the "Chess With Pigeons" blog leads to a very nice review of the embryology of pharyngeal arches ("gill slits"). They are embryological structures which give rise to gills in marine animals that use gills. The homologous structures give rise to different adult structures in different lineages. For example, in mammals, they give rise to ear structures that are not present in reptiles. But fish, reptiles, and mammals are share the homologous embryological structures.

Thanks. I did click here. Your right and put it better. They are embryo structures . Darwin tried to say they were the evolutionary stage of gills for all creatures and remaining as a stage in growth of more evolved creatures. Thats what he thought. Now evolutionists retreat to saying these structures become or became other bits of bodies. Creationists pick up on the traditional error and make a good case about it. Darwin was plain wrong and that which was so intuitively persuasive to him that his hypothesis was right was in fact as wrong as can be. His concept of it was wrong. They are not representing a previous evolved stage of living creatures. We do not have in embryology the stages of our evolution over millions of year . Looking at embryology of anything is not rewinding the story.

Tired of playing chess with this flatulent pigeon. Your not worth the effort Byers. You is wrong as wrong can be. You ain't even wrong you is so wrong. Dump this asshole to the bathroom wall before someone decides to get really nasty.

The BW takes so long to load on this machine - script errors causing Explorer to slow down and all that stuff. If it wasn't for that ...

Darwin tried to say they were the evolutionary stage of gills for all creatures and remaining as a stage in growth of more evolved creatures. Thats what he thought.

Now evolutionists retreat to saying these structures become or became other bits of bodies.

Creationists pick up on the traditional error and make a good case about it. Darwin was plain wrong and that which was so intuitively persuasive to him that his hypothesis was right was in fact as wrong as can be. His concept of it was wrong.

They are not representing a previous evolved stage of living creatures.

We do not have in embryology the stages of our evolution over millions of year .

Looking at embryology of anything is not rewinding the story.

DS said: Tired of playing chess with this flatulent pigeon. Your not worth the effort Byers. You is wrong as wrong can be. You ain't even wrong you is so wrong. Dump this asshole to the bathroom wall before someone decides to get really nasty.

So, Robert Byers, what makes you think that gods exist?

Do you believe in other things that don't exist?

phhht said: So, Robert Byers, what makes you think that gods exist? Do you believe in other things that don't exist?

Richard B. Hoppe said:

DS said: Tired of playing chess with this flatulent pigeon. Your not worth the effort Byers. You is wrong as wrong can be. You ain't even wrong you is so wrong. Dump this asshole to the bathroom wall before someone decides to get really nasty.

I leave Byers' comments here because every once in a while some naive scientist of my acquaintance says something like, "Well, if we just educated them better in biology and evolution they'd come to accept it." Every time that happens I refer that poor naif to a thread like this one (which is becoming a classic). Byers illustrates beautifully the persistent willful ignorance of the full-blown creationist. I couldn't do it better if I invented him.

John said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

DS said: Tired of playing chess with this flatulent pigeon. Your not worth the effort Byers. You is wrong as wrong can be. You ain't even wrong you is so wrong. Dump this asshole to the bathroom wall before someone decides to get really nasty.

I leave Byers' comments here because every once in a while some naive scientist of my acquaintance says something like, "Well, if we just educated them better in biology and evolution they'd come to accept it." Every time that happens I refer that poor naif to a thread like this one (which is becoming a classic). Byers illustrates beautifully the persistent willful ignorance of the full-blown creationist. I couldn't do it better if I invented him.

Not only that, RBH, but you should also note that Byers isn't an American creotard, but instead, a Canadian one.

Whenever this comes up in class the question I always ask my doubting students is this; "If we were designed by a designer why do our jaws start out looking the same as what will form the gills in a fish? Why don't we just grow a jaw instead of starting it out as a "gill"?" Oh that's right there was a stage in the fossil record when gill arches made only gills and no jaws. Imagine that, embryological development mirrors the fossil record. Can't imagine why!!!!

Kevin B said:

John said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

DS said: Tired of playing chess with this flatulent pigeon. Your not worth the effort Byers. You is wrong as wrong can be. You ain't even wrong you is so wrong. Dump this asshole to the bathroom wall before someone decides to get really nasty.

I leave Byers' comments here because every once in a while some naive scientist of my acquaintance says something like, "Well, if we just educated them better in biology and evolution they'd come to accept it." Every time that happens I refer that poor naif to a thread like this one (which is becoming a classic). Byers illustrates beautifully the persistent willful ignorance of the full-blown creationist. I couldn't do it better if I invented him.

Not only that, RBH, but you should also note that Byers isn't an American creotard, but instead, a Canadian one.

Ring species.

Mary H said: Whenever this comes up in class the question I always ask my doubting students is this; "If we were designed by a designer why do our jaws start out looking the same as what will form the gills in a fish? Why don't we just grow a jaw instead of starting it out as a "gill"?"

Richard B. Hoppe said: I leave Byers' comments here because every once in a while some naive scientist of my acquaintance says something like, "Well, if we just educated them better in biology and evolution they'd come to accept it." Every time that happens I refer that poor naif to a thread like this one (which is becoming a classic).

"Harold.
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed.
thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days.
I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present.
Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc.
Your missing Darwin's point and error.

He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage.
Not just what original material was developed into everything.
Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time.

However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning.
Its not biological evidence.
Its just interpretation of data.
there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology.
Its only what it could be.
Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions.
The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start.
What else?
Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

Dave Lovell said: when God created "fish" what did He create?

Robert,

What is the difference between "biological evidence" and "data"?

What does "interpretation of data" involve that, say, "assessment of evidence" doesn't?

The world of Science awaits your pronouncement with breathless indifference . . .

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

He didn’t do embryology or paleontology

TomS said:

Dave Lovell said: when God created "fish" what did He create?

That simple question poses the biggest problem for creationism/intelligent design. What would it look like if we were to observe a creation/design event taking place? Does a single adult individual come into existence where there was nothing (not even space-time) before? Or is it an egg, or many individuals of a species (or "kind"), or a whole ecologically mature system of predators, prey, and physical environment? Or is it just a new organ (maybe an "irreducibly complex" set of organs) in part of an already existing population? And one wonders whether the result of this creation/design event has the appearance of having had a history. (Does an adult mammal behave as if it had learned some of its behavior? Does the DNA bear traces of genetic history?) And what guidance on an answer to this question do we get from the Bible, or from reason, or from evidence?

harold said:

He didn’t do embryology or paleontology

Potential nitpickers, I do realize that Darwin made observations about larvae and other developmental stages.

Better yet, Robert Byers, why don't you explain to us what the Bible says about gill slits, and explain to us why that's so much better than science?

Oh, wait, you can't explain it because you're a lazy idiot on top of a moronic coward.

John said: I wouldn't distinguish between creationism/Intelligent Design which is exactly what Intelligent Design "theorists" want you to believe. As others, ranging from philosopher Robert Pennock to historian of science Ronald Numbers have noted, Intelligent Design IS creationism, or rather, the latest "evolved" variety, with "creation scientists" becoming "cdesign proponentsis" and then, finally, "design proponents". However, as much as the Discovery Institute would like you to think otherwise, it can't even get its own message straight with regards to Intelligent Design thanks to "design proponents" like "atheist" philosopher Bradley Monton as philosopher Barbara Forrest noted recently: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2012/05/31/monton-didnt-get-the-memo/

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

TomS said:

John said: I wouldn't distinguish between creationism/Intelligent Design which is exactly what Intelligent Design "theorists" want you to believe. As others, ranging from philosopher Robert Pennock to historian of science Ronald Numbers have noted, Intelligent Design IS creationism, or rather, the latest "evolved" variety, with "creation scientists" becoming "cdesign proponentsis" and then, finally, "design proponents". However, as much as the Discovery Institute would like you to think otherwise, it can't even get its own message straight with regards to Intelligent Design thanks to "design proponents" like "atheist" philosopher Bradley Monton as philosopher Barbara Forrest noted recently: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2012/05/31/monton-didnt-get-the-memo/

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between "Intelligent Design" and creationism is that creationism, especially Young Earth Creationism, has a bit of substance to it. YEC specifies when and who while ID does not. They agree in not specifying anything else positive, and they agree that there is something wrong with evolution.

DS said: If you had bothered to actually read the article cited you would have learned this.

In the time that you have been spouting your misconceptions and pandering your pedantic puffery, you could have gotten an undergraduate degree in biology and a masters degree in genetics.

You can't even be bothered to read the articles you are discussing,

Robert,

you claimed that whales were descended from land creatures i dont believe it prove it prove what land creature you must use only biology no unproven atomic stuff and no geology stuff if you cant then you will be wrong

Robert Byers said: there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800's got carried away.

"woman", of course. Not "whoman".

What happened to the "spell check" link above the edit box?

DS

Self-refutin' Robert cannot do those things - he has willingly consented to spending the rest of his life with "choose ignorance and lie repeatedly" tattooed on his forehead. Self-refutin' Robert's only guide is revelation - and more specifically, the revelation of the diabolical Morris and Whitcomb, as given since 1961.

As far as self-refutin' Robert is concerned, there is not a thing or process called science, it's just a careless misunderstanding of human investigation and imagination in dealing with the elements of nature. I'm sure that if self-refutin' Robert was not a mendacious and lying coward, he would agree that this represents a fair statement of one of his core beliefs.

terenzioiltroll said: What would you accept as valid scientific evidence, Robert?

I like Byers' "ontogeny reflects phylogeny" argument. What he is saying is that because this one hypothesis turned out to be incorrect, then every other evolutionary hypothesis about embryonic development is also incorrect. Let's play this game outside evolutionary theory:

"Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory turned out to be wrong. The nail in the coffin was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The CMBR showed that the most famous cosmologist of his time was wrong. The Big Bang theory is the most popular cosmological theory amongst scientists today. Thus the CMBR is evidence against the Big Bang."

This is fun!

Chris Lawson said: I like Byers' "ontogeny reflects phylogeny" argument. What he is saying is that because this one hypothesis turned out to be incorrect, then every other evolutionary hypothesis about embryonic development is also incorrect. Let's play this game outside evolutionary theory: "Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory turned out to be wrong. The nail in the coffin was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The CMBR showed that the most famous cosmologist of his time was wrong. The Big Bang theory is the most popular cosmological theory amongst scientists today. Thus the CMBR is evidence against the Big Bang." This is fun!

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

So Robert, when God created "fish" what did He create? In a world without death the genome of a created fish could be much simpler as it would have no need to include instructions to build a fish from a single cell, nor would the fish need reproductive organs. Was this information front loaded or added after the Fall? Were the fish created complete in an instant, or did they develop exactly as modern fish from a single cell, but at a vastly increased speed? But if we assume that He front loaded everything, and by common design He made sure a man could develop from a fish embryo by making would-be fins grow into arms and legs, and "gill slits" grow into specialised structures around a man's throat, etc, etc, you would still need to explain all the bodged transitional attempts to implement these changes in the fossil record. I think the clincher for your hypothesis would be if male human embryos developed via a pharyngeal stage and female human embryos developed via a sliver of bone.

bplurt said: Robert, What is the difference between "biological evidence" and "data"? What does "interpretation of data" involve that, say, "assessment of evidence" doesn't? The world of Science awaits your pronouncement with breathless indifference . . .

harold said:

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was a hypothesis that the early stages of embryos look more or less exactly like the adult stages of ancestral species. It is incorrect. It is associated with Ernst Haeckel, not with Darwin. However, that was an over-interpretation of something that is correct - that related lineages share common mechanisms of embryologic development. Darwin's original exposition of the theory of evolution was based on his study of macroscopic, modern forms of life. He didn't do embryology or paleontology. He was closer to what we might call an ecologist or zoologist today. Both embryology and paleontology happen to be among the multiple independent, converging lines of evidence for evolution.

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800's got carried away.

What would you accept as valid scientific evidence, Robert? Consider the matter from another point of view: could you prove to me that you are the son of your mother (that is to say, how do you prove that the whoman legally registered as your mother is actually your biological mother)? No offence meant to the honourability of your family, of course: I have no reason whatsoever to cast any shadow of doubt on this touchy subject. Please, consider answering my question as a sort of philosophical exercise. Thank you.

Byers admits: i don’t agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things.

Robert, have you ever read a science book? Can you be persuaded to do some reading, to learn a little of what we really do know about the building of animal bodies, from the tiniest bedbug to whales?

I have no idea what you will do with it; how you may align the basic facts with your faith and beliefs, but wouldn't it be great to know that you really know what you are talking about instead of pulling the most absurd stuff out from you know where?

Here are my recommendations: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carroll, and "Your Inner fish" by Neil Shubin.

What say, Robert, take the challenge and let us have some interesting discussion?

Self-refutin' Robert

Would you please cease with the witless and mendacious use of the phrase "lines of reasoning" - it's a tiresome repetition of a baseless and barefaced creationist lie that has been pointed out to you on many an occasion. You understand perfectly well that scientists test their lines of reasoning, often to destruction, by reference to facts, evidence, observation, experiment - and this is precisely what Darwin did, across multiple areas. If you'd ever bothered to pick up any of his works, and sat down and read them, then you would know this.

There is a reason why, historically, we have discarded concepts such as phlogiston, the aether, spontaneous generation, the fixity of species via divine fiat, the miasma theory of disease, an historically young earth, alchemy, astrology etc - the lines of reasoning that were used to construct those theories failed to account for the EVIDENCE that existed in the world around us, and that this was demonstrably the case by reference to the EVIDENCE. Evolution is a well-demonstrated fact - and you know this as it's been repeatedly shoved in your face; it's a banker certainty that our theories about it will change - as indeed they already have over the past 150 years - but that, my dear self-refutin' Robert, is a strength, not a weakness.

I appreciate that you come from the position where facts and EVIDENCE are irrelevant, and that reality is to be ignored, on pain of excommunication and damnation, if it conflicts with your perverted and blasphemous doctrine - but we are not indulging in apologetic games here, we're testing theories in relation to the actuality of the world around us. Your assertion that there is no such thing as science isn't going to alter the fact, easily confirmed by basic observations that anyone can make, that there are millions of people around the world pursuing scientific researches that produce actual knowledge of reality that are applied successfully to solve actual world problems and build technologies that actually and reliably work. You're simply indulging, again, in the dishonest pretence that the EVIDENCE, that reality itself, can be ignored, primarily because it witnesses to the failure of your pathetic apologetical excuses to actually explain the world around us.

Get a better theology, self-refutin' Robert, no good can come of the pursuit of ignorance, persistent denialism in the face of reality, lies, deceit and dishonesty.

Robert Byers said: i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads.

Robert Byers said: I don't get your criticism.? These "gills" ain't gills. Gills just have a superficial likeness to these embryonic structures. Darwin thought they were a memory of the gill stage and evolutionists today say they a feature from whence some creatures got gills and everyone got their start in other features.

Robert Byers said:

bplurt said: Robert, What is the difference between "biological evidence" and "data"? What does "interpretation of data" involve that, say, "assessment of evidence" doesn't? The world of Science awaits your pronouncement with breathless indifference . . .

Data is just raw facts one is aware of. Biological evidence is moving these facts into a separate fact about some point related to biological systems. Interpretation of data is a conclusion about some fact that includes the data. it only does that and so is open to the criticism there can be another conclusion(s) using the same data and more. An assessment of evidence is a greater attention to weight the evidence including criticisms and a accurate ability to do so. It judges evidence better including if there is not enough evidence for some conclusion. ideas matter and so words do and investigation .

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Robert Byers said: "Harold. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a term i don't know but seems to be the correction Darwin needed. thats a point here about Darwin saying, and persuading himself, about the best evidence for evolution being the embryonic stages as they understood them and looked at them in those days. I don't mean he thought gills were active as such but that indeed these early stages after conception carried the memory of evolutionary stages everything had had before the present. Not just saying some common early anatomy developed into everything we have in biology etc. Your missing Darwin's point and error. He did think AHA embryos are remnant stages of the former bodies or evolutionary lineage. Not just what original material was developed into everything. Instead a actual entity of what we all had looked like for at least some time. However reasonable ones mind might be in accepting present ideas about these early structures being a common heritage its still just a line of reasoning. Its not biological evidence. Its just interpretation of data. there is no reason to see in early embryo anything to do with origins of biology. Its only what it could be. Just a common design of a early stage after conception from whence biology segregates within its kinds and divisions. The obvious common design in nature would easily force someone to conclude such common design having common embryonic looks at the start. What else? Yet not evidence or hinted at a common origin from where all evolved up.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was a hypothesis that the early stages of embryos look more or less exactly like the adult stages of ancestral species. It is incorrect. It is associated with Ernst Haeckel, not with Darwin. However, that was an over-interpretation of something that is correct - that related lineages share common mechanisms of embryologic development. Darwin's original exposition of the theory of evolution was based on his study of macroscopic, modern forms of life. He didn't do embryology or paleontology. He was closer to what we might call an ecologist or zoologist today. Both embryology and paleontology happen to be among the multiple independent, converging lines of evidence for evolution.

I don't think he did these subjects either. Yet he did invoke embryology as one of his most persuasive, to him and everyone listening to him, points. He was to be persuaded but right it was as best as he had.

Robert Byers said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800's got carried away.

What would you accept as valid scientific evidence, Robert? Consider the matter from another point of view: could you prove to me that you are the son of your mother (that is to say, how do you prove that the whoman legally registered as your mother is actually your biological mother)? No offence meant to the honourability of your family, of course: I have no reason whatsoever to cast any shadow of doubt on this touchy subject. Please, consider answering my question as a sort of philosophical exercise. Thank you.

lines of reasoning are not scientific evidence pertaining to facts. i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads. otherwise evidence is about witness , papers, pictures, looks and who else wants to be my mom. i don't agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things. However the best they can say is that Science is a higher standard of investigation that can DEMAND higher confidence in its conclusions. Then they demonstrate the atoms of this higher standard. This is how the public sees science. Lines of reasoning, like dArwin used, are not scientific evidence even if they were right. Bird beaks doesn't equal bubbles to buffaloes just by a line of reasoning from , seemly, bird beak selectionism determining beak shapes. One must go along way to show macro evolution can and did take place.

Robert Byers said: i don't agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things. However the best they can say is that Science is a higher standard of investigation that can DEMAND higher confidence in its conclusions. Then they demonstrate the atoms of this higher standard. This is how the public sees science.

i don’t agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things.

Experiments on plant hybridization Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at the University of Olomouc (i.e. Friedrich Franz; Johann Karl Nestler) and his colleagues at the monastery (e.g., Franz Diebl) to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's 2 hectares (4.9 acres) experimental garden,[8] which was originally planted by Napp in 1830.[6] Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants (i.e., Pisum sativum). This study showed that one in four pea plants had purebred recessive alleles, two out of four were hybrid and one out of four were purebred dominant. His experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.

Genetics is atomic and unproven. Haven't you been paying attention?

Robert Byers said: i don't agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things.

Rolf said: Robert, have you ever read a science book? Can you be persuaded to do some reading, to learn a little of what we really do know about the building of animal bodies, from the tiniest bedbug to whales? I have no idea what you will do with it; how you may align the basic facts with your faith and beliefs, but wouldn't it be great to know that you really know what you are talking about instead of pulling the most absurd stuff out from you know where? Here are my recommendations: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carroll, and "Your Inner fish" by Neil Shubin. What say, Robert, take the challenge and let us have some interesting discussion?

Dave Luckett said:

Byers admits: i don’t agree there is such a thing as science. There is just people thinking about things.

And there we have it. Pristine, perfect, exactly as it came from the horse's mouth. Or possibly the other end of the equine digestive tract.

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads.

Very well. One more question then. Would you accept the same kind of evidence to support the statement that your cousin is actually your cousin? Would DNA tests (or, more broadly, a line of evidence from genetics) be proof enough that you and your cousin share the same grandmother and that she is she?

Robert Byers said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads.

Very well. One more question then. Would you accept the same kind of evidence to support the statement that your cousin is actually your cousin? Would DNA tests (or, more broadly, a line of evidence from genetics) be proof enough that you and your cousin share the same grandmother and that she is she?

The line of evidence from genetics would have to be actual evidence like in paternity suits. Cousin to cousin is getting down to closeness of DNA within human beings. I guess it could be done. yet one must not use this as a line of reasoning to jump from human kind to ape kind. Thats only a line of reasoning.

Somewhere on my bookshelves there is a Bible.

I wonder if the words in it attributed to the Judaeo-Christian gods are "evidence" of those gods' words.

Or is that just a line of reasoning?

If you want to indulge your passion for making shit up without any reference to reality, then please, take your prion-addled brain to the let’s make shit up section of the internet.

bplurt said: Somewhere on my bookshelves there is a Bible. I wonder if the words in it attributed to the Judaeo-Christian gods are "evidence" of those gods' words. Or is that just a line of reasoning?

Anybody notice that the atomic and unproven field of genetics has just produced the gorilla genome sequence? We have entered a new field of comparative genomics. Genome comparisons between humans, chimps and gorillas is going to revolutionize our understanding of basic processes in evolution. It also has important implications for medicine and many other fields. Too bad those who don't believe in genetics will be left behind. I'm sure they will not be so hypocritical as to reap the benefits of a field of science they deny.

Maybe someone would be willing to devote a thread to this topic. This one seems to have degraded into meaninglessness.

there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800’s got carried away. [...] i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads. [...] Cousin to cousin is getting down to closeness of DNA within human beings. I guess it could be done.

terenzioiltroll said: Back to the subject of the post: the genes expressed in the development of pharingeal pouches in humans and fishes are the same, only slightly modified (read the link in the post); the more so the more your specimen is removed from the "fish" line. Exactly as it happens with less conserved genes between your granny, your cousin and you.

bbennett1968 said:

If you want to indulge your passion for making shit up without any reference to reality, then please, take your prion-addled brain to the let’s make shit up section of the internet.

For creationists, the entire universe is a let’s-make-shit-up zone. When reality fails to conform to one's most preciously-held bigotries and superstitions, what choice does one have but to invent facts?

DS said:

terenzioiltroll said: Back to the subject of the post: the genes expressed in the development of pharingeal pouches in humans and fishes are the same, only slightly modified (read the link in the post); the more so the more your specimen is removed from the "fish" line. Exactly as it happens with less conserved genes between your granny, your cousin and you.

The difference is that he doesn't want to believe it, that is all. That is all he ever has. That is all he will ever have. THe problem is that he is so ignorant that he doesn't realize how much of science he has to give up in order to maintain his blissful denials. If he actually did believe the things he writes he would be dead, he's just too ignorant to realize it. The magic barrier that cannot be crossed exists only in his own mind, nowhere else.

Robert is not trying to convince anyone about origins or science.

Robert is trying to convince YECs - himself included - that one can fulfil one's Biblical Duty to stand in the fire of the heathens and not have one's faith singed.

This is faith-based frottage, folks. Nothing more.

(Ewwww, I need a shower now...)

bplurt said: Robert is not trying to convince anyone about origins or science. Robert is trying to convince YECs - himself included - that one can fulfil one's Biblical Duty to stand in the fire of the heathens and not have one's faith singed. This is faith-based frottage, folks. Nothing more. (Ewwww, I need a shower now...)

terenzioiltroll said:

there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage. Its just a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800’s got carried away. [...] i think they can prove my mom is my mom by biological DNA tests. I know they can by dads. [...] Cousin to cousin is getting down to closeness of DNA within human beings. I guess it could be done.

Ok, let's "recapitulate". 1) Living organisms spawn "children". No one contends that. 2) One can use clues from genetics to infer the degree of relationship between such organisms. You do not contend that. 3) Using genetic data to infer if any two organisms (human beings, in this case) are cousins or not does not amount to "reading the hypothesis into the data". Ono does not need to know in advance if your mother gave birth to you, to check if she really is your mother or not. Nor does to conclude that you and you cousin share the same granny. 4) The "genetic data" of point 3) specifically amounts to "structures" that are actually related to your past biological lineage (to use your words). Extremely specific and selective structures: so much so that they are sensitive enough to tell first cousins apart. Now, the final question for you. We have hard evidence that all of this works not only across one or three generations, but across many hundreds of generations: scientists have been able to draw genealogical trees of humans and of many other different species (cats, cows, golden fishes, bees...) Where is the boundary that brings you to you write: "there is no scientific evidence these structures are in any way related to everyones past biological lineage"? What is the element that invalidates the evidence you yourself accept for N=3 (and maybe for N=100) but not for N=10,000? Please note that any answer on the line of: "yet one must not use this as a line of reasoning to jump from human kind to ape kind" is not valid. It is not so because, in this case, it's YOU that are "reading the hypothesis into the data": if you did not know in advance that a given piece of DNA came from you and another from a chimp (or a golden fish), you would have nothing to object (according to your previous answers) to results obtained using exactly the same methodology that one would apply to DNA from you and your granny. Back to the subject of the post: the genes expressed in the development of pharingeal pouches in humans and fishes are the same, only slightly modified (read the link in the post); the more so the more your specimen is removed from the "fish" line. Exactly as it happens with less conserved genes between your granny, your cousin and you.

Robert Byers said: First its only assumed that going back hundreds of human generations will still show like DNA with me/relatives and like biological reproductive relationship. I agree with this assumption but thats what it is. No one has actually done the tests from thousands of years ago.

The boundary is Genesis.

Mike Elzinga said:

The boundary is Genesis.

This is an assertion. No one has actually done the tests from thousands of years ago.

Robert Byers said: I don't see why my line of reasoning is wrong here.

It is not so because, in this case, it’s YOU that are “reading the hypothesis into the data”: if you did not know in advance that a given piece of DNA came from you and another from a chimp (or a golden fish), you would have nothing to object (according to your previous answers) to results obtained using exactly the same methodology that one would apply to DNA from you and your granny.

No one has actually done the tests from thousands of years ago.

you ask what boundary there is to stop passing over from people to primates. The boundary is Genesis. I don’t know what dNA boundary there might be and I don’t know but that there is a great one or a number of them.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said:

The boundary is Genesis.

This is an assertion. No one has actually done the tests from thousands of years ago.

Dear, dear Byers. By your own "reasoning" (such as it is), "Genesis" is still JUST a line of reasoning and so faulty because the folks in the 1800's [BCE] got carried away. Its not reasonable or demanding to those who don’t already accept the Bible as God's inerrant Word. Humans made up the stories in "Genesis", and you have applied "just a line of reasoning" to ASSUME that these made up stories are real. They are not. You have no evidence that they are. Wishful thinking is not evidence. Circular arguments are not evidence. In fact, we have quite a bit of real historical contemporaneous evidence that Genesis is a bunch of made up stories. Genesis is mythology, and is no more real than Zeus, Apollo, Athena, or (mores the pity) Bacchus. So why do you believe that "Genesis" is more "useful" than actual science? Please name a single intellectual advancement in understanding the world we live in, anywhere in the world, any time in human history, which was achieved by reading the Bible as literal truth. Name one. Just one. ANY one. You can't, can you. Science is useful. It works. Creationism is not useful. Creation does not work to explain anything. Creationism actually obstructs the advancement of human knowledge. And God apparently likes it that way. Well, at least the Church really likes it that way. And apparently so do a lot of the Church's followers.

Well, at least capitalizing N and A and not D was amusing. What an asshole.

Scott F said: And God apparently likes it that way. Well, at least the Church really likes it that way. And apparently so do a lot of the Church's followers.

Robert Byers said: A creator would give us the best body in nature for a being made in the image of God. It could only be that way.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Au contraire self-refutin' Robert - it's just as plausible that a bunch of aliens who ate primate-like creatures, but didn't particularly like the taste of the extant stock a few hundred thousand years ago, did a little tinkering to improve the culinary qualities of the species; and homo sapiens is just an animal husbandry project for the creation of better-tasting food.

Robert Byers said: A creator would give us the best body in nature for a being made in the image of God. It could only be that way.

You're a loon.

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: I don't see why my line of reasoning is wrong here.

I have to repeat myself.

It is not so because, in this case, it’s YOU that are “reading the hypothesis into the data”: if you did not know in advance that a given piece of DNA came from you and another from a chimp (or a golden fish), you would have nothing to object (according to your previous answers) to results obtained using exactly the same methodology that one would apply to DNA from you and your granny.

Moreover:

No one has actually done the tests from thousands of years ago.

The fact that YOU are not aware of it, does not mean it has not been done. Even Wikipedia knows better.

you ask what boundary there is to stop passing over from people to primates. The boundary is Genesis. I don’t know what dNA boundary there might be and I don’t know but that there is a great one or a number of them.

Ok, this pretty much settles the matter. As I said, you are acting on an a-priori assumption (a prejudice?), yet you accuse us of doing so!

Robert Byers said: I assume the bible is true...

My reasoning is to ignore Byers. Bye bye drive by Byers.

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: And God apparently likes it that way. Well, at least the Church really likes it that way. And apparently so do a lot of the Church's followers.

Please don't equate "the Church" (or "religion" or "religious") with creationism. If "the Church" (capitalized) means anything in western society, it means the RC, which OPPOSES creationism. The implication that "religion" is opposed to evolution concedes the major point of the creationists.

Scott F said: Creationism actually obstructs the advancement of human knowledge. And God apparently likes it that way. Well, at least the Church really likes it that way. And apparently so do a lot of the Church’s followers.

Robert Byers said: I assume the bible is true but my criticisms of evolutionism teaching DNA trails equals biological reproductive connections is just from reasoning. Two points i make. First there is no reason to draw lines between the dots of DNA likeness equals man/ape sameness.

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: I assume the bible is true...

Why do you assume the Bible is true?

Scott F said: Based on this, we conclude that it is possible to count from zero to 100 billion, even though no one has ever done this thing. This is "just a line of reasoning", no one has "been there", but it works.

terenzioiltroll said:

Scott F said: Based on this, we conclude that it is possible to count from zero to 100 billion, even though no one has ever done this thing. This is "just a line of reasoning", no one has "been there", but it works.

If this was indeed the case, though, Robert would not be too far off with his "just a line of reasoning" mantra. The point is that genealogies based on genetic data are strongly supported by empiric evidence. As I wrote earlier, we hold as a fact that the genetic code of a child is related to that of his/her relatives (that's why we call them "relatives" in the first place, don't we?). In the link to the Wikipedia page I gave earlier there are references to complete genealogies ascertained by traditional paperwork that go back to the XI century and, guess what? The data from genetics match nicely whit the historical informations (look up the Russian nobility genealogy project, for instance). With Basques, similar data stretch back to VII century B.C. This is no guesswork, as Robert would be willing to believe: A- if any two organisms are somehow relatives, then their genetic codes are also related, in a predictably way. B- If the genetic codes of any two organisms are related, then the organisms are also relatives. So far, no one - NO ONE - has shown a single case of organisms with related DNA that are not relatives (at least within animals). If Robert wishes to differ, he has to come up with at least one counterexample.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe

Scott F said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Scott F said: Based on this, we conclude that it is possible to count from zero to 100 billion, even though no one has ever done this thing. This is "just a line of reasoning", no one has "been there", but it works.

If this was indeed the case, though, Robert would not be too far off with his "just a line of reasoning" mantra. The point is that genealogies based on genetic data are strongly supported by empiric evidence. As I wrote earlier, we hold as a fact that the genetic code of a child is related to that of his/her relatives (that's why we call them "relatives" in the first place, don't we?). In the link to the Wikipedia page I gave earlier there are references to complete genealogies ascertained by traditional paperwork that go back to the XI century and, guess what? The data from genetics match nicely whit the historical informations (look up the Russian nobility genealogy project, for instance). With Basques, similar data stretch back to VII century B.C. This is no guesswork, as Robert would be willing to believe: A- if any two organisms are somehow relatives, then their genetic codes are also related, in a predictably way. B- If the genetic codes of any two organisms are related, then the organisms are also relatives. So far, no one - NO ONE - has shown a single case of organisms with related DNA that are not relatives (at least within animals). If Robert wishes to differ, he has to come up with at least one counterexample.

All true. But Robert's point (even though he probably doesn't understand the very point he's trying to make) is that we (scientists, rationalists) then extrapolate our evidence-based knowledge from the 100's of generations we can measure to the millions of generations that we can't measure. It's why the "just a line of reasoning" mantra is so infuriating. It *is* just a line of reasoning. But it's a rational line of reasoning. As with mathematical inference, there is no "guesswork" (as you say) involved. But there is one assumption:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe

It's a reasonable rational assumption. And, in the pure scientific sense is open to the possibility that the assumption might not be true. We continually test that the assumption is true, and find that it continues to be warranted. (In fact, the Big Bang theory posits a time in the history of the universe where the natural laws do break down, and do not remain the same. Same with theories of black holes, and the hypotheses of dark matter and (especially) dark energy.) The problem with Robert's Creationist "line of reasoning" is that it has an end point. His/Their "reasoning" is that there was some magic point in time when the natural laws and processes ceased to function. For some magic reason, at some magic point in time generation "N" cannot give rise to generation "N + 1". This also is "just a line of reasoning", but one which has no rational basis of support. "Because Genesis is true", is the only reason ever given, even though that itself is also just an assumption, one which is never tested, and which by mere human fiat is never allowed to not be true. But they see that as a feature, not a bug. "Our Biblical assumptions are absolute and never vary." It's just their "facts" which can change at a mere whim: Floods, ice domes, and arbitrary (and arbitrarily dramatic) variations in physical processes such as the speed of light, atomic decay rates, continental drift, mutation rates, etc. Personally, I'd rather have provisional assumptions and hard facts on which to base my inferences, rather than hard assumptions and shaky "facts".

terenzioiltroll said:

Scott F said: Based on this, we conclude that it is possible to count from zero to 100 billion, even though no one has ever done this thing. This is "just a line of reasoning", no one has "been there", but it works.

If this was indeed the case, though, Robert would not be too far off with his "just a line of reasoning" mantra. The point is that genealogies based on genetic data are strongly supported by empiric evidence. As I wrote earlier, we hold as a fact that the genetic code of a child is related to that of his/her relatives (that's why we call them "relatives" in the first place, don't we?). In the link to the Wikipedia page I gave earlier there are references to complete genealogies ascertained by traditional paperwork that go back to the XI century and, guess what? The data from genetics match nicely whit the historical informations (look up the Russian nobility genealogy project, for instance). With Basques, similar data stretch back to VII century B.C. This is no guesswork, as Robert would be willing to believe: A- if any two organisms are somehow relatives, then their genetic codes are also related, in a predictably way. B- If the genetic codes of any two organisms are related, then the organisms are also relatives. So far, no one - NO ONE - has shown a single case of organisms with related DNA that are not relatives (at least within animals). If Robert wishes to differ, he has to come up with at least one counterexample.

Byers, it doesn't matter how much you put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and babble nonsense. The evidence still exists. The difference between the DNA of living human beings precisely correlates with their known degree of relatedness, as attested by birth record. The difference between the DNA of human groups precisely correlates with the distance of their known most recent common ancestor. The difference between the DNA of modern human beings and neanderthals follows exactly the same rule.

And this is true for the DNA of humans and all living things.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that this is for any other reason than because all humans and all living things share a common ancestor. Be as stupid and as prejudiced as you like, deny it all you want. The evidence is still there, and it refutes you.

lies from the king of ignorances byers is atomic and unproven no one has proven hs is related to any primate or even parent its all mental gymnastics

bye bye drive bye byers

the bible is assumption and only that it is atomic and unproven but byers dont to care he sticks to it no matters what even if he being completely wrong about everything and must to be ignoring one hundred fifty years of real science how sadly

bye bye drive bye byers

Robert Byers, why can't you explain to us why we have to believe what you lie about science and the Bible?

To some people, Byer's argument that "like body parts like DNA" may sound reasonable. There are three OBVIOUS problems with this stance though.

1: As has been pointed out, a result of this "like body parts like DNA"-theory is that sharks and dolphins should have similar DNA. Byers tried to shrug this off (as usual). But according to his theory, they should (and they don't). According to his theory, guillemots and penguins should have "like DNA", but they don't, instead the guillemots have DNA that is more "like" skua DNA. On the other hand, colibris and swifts look extremely different, occupy totally different habitats and have totally different eating habits, migration patterns and behaviours. And yet, their DNA is similar. Now why is that Byers? Surely, people here can come up with more examples that you would be hard-pressed to explain.

2. "Like DNA, like body parts" hints at a horribly restricted understanding of how DNA works. It is NOT a blueprint. It is not a matter of a gene encoding an individual to be 10 or 50 cm tall. PLEASE JUST READ A DAMN DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK AND SPARE US THE MIGRAINE! I'll even give you a tip: Principles of Development by Wolpert & Tickle is a good one. Heck, a good cell biology book wouldn't hurt either.

3. As we all know (hopefully including you Byers) DNA includes huge amount of non-coding, non-conserved sequences. They do not encode proteins. And they vary A LOT among species (ie are non-conserved) simply because there is no harm (or benefit) of mutations in useless DNA. Now, according to the theory of common descent, there should be more variation between, say, Aspergillus fungi and humans, than among chimps and humans. And guess what; there is. This cannot be explained by your theory Byers. Because this DNA doesn't contribute to the body plan. The pattern fits the hypothesis of common descent nicely though.

On another topic. How is it possible for a Canadian to write in such a staggeringly lousy English (spelling, grammar, coherence, vocabulary, punctuation)? I do know some Canadians have French as their first language, but still. My dyslectic brother writes more eloquent and coherent English, even though English is his third language! Sometimes it' terribly hard to follow the line of reasoning in Byers texts, but maybe it's not all because of the writing...

Thank you Niltava. Nicely worded. I have wondered why RB's writing was sooo poor, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was not English first and couldn't type either. If one can wade through the strange constructs to get to the logic one finds there was nothing there to begin with. The trouble is too many of the deniers here are exactly the same they can neither write nor think.

Robert Byers said: Yes the bible is a assumption that affects conclusions about these matters. Also yes it is not demanding that me/relatives equals man/apes because of like DNA closeness. Its an assumption there is no barrier or other option and the reasoning flows from this. Even if true its just, not established otherwise, a line of reasoning. You say YES its is a line of reasoning but a rational one. The atomic structure of the REASONING will be seen as rational by its holder. your reasoning is no more rational nor aided by a rational concept. Its still just reasoning along a line. However reasonable it is based on other assumptions. Evolutionists persuade themselves and try to persuade others that one must agree with man/apr genetic trails if one agrees with me/relatives genetic trails. They tell me this all the time. They are wrong and it is a logically fallacy. Even if factually true its still not a logical demanding point or close. The reasoning can be matched by other reasoning. Further reasoning is not scientific evidence on its own. Science must demand more evidence .

Scott wrote:

"Now, science may assume that there is no barrier, but science is forced to assume that. Science can’t prove there is no barrier."

I humbly wish to disagree. I believe that science has demonstrated conclusively that there is no barrier, none whatsoever. Besides the fact that no barrier has ever been found and no mechanism for any barrier has ever been discovered, the simple genetic facts are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of a single origin for all extant life and for descent with modification being responsible for producing the diversity that is observed today. This a the major conclusion of the last one hundred and fifty years of research.

Of course there are still unanswered questions. Of course we are still discovering the mechanisms that are responsible. Of course there is more to learn. But the basic question has been settled. Descent with modification is real. It matters not how many ignorant fools wish to ignore it, it simply remains the case. That is all. Drive bye byers can make up all of the foolish ignorant shit he wants, it won't change a thing. Just like capitalizing N and A and not d won't change anything. He is ignorant of the evidence that exists and offers no evidence of his own. The thing that he doesn't realize is the harm that he is doing by being so stubborn, disrespectful and arrogant, exactly the opposite of what his inerrant bible demands. How sad.

Of course drive bye byers knows there is no barrier. Macroevolution is just fine by him. In fact, he thinks that whales evolved from "land creatures" in only a few thousand years! Now that's macroevolution. He has no idea what "land creatures" they evolved from or how, cause genetics is "atomic and unproven" don't you know. Except when it comes to paternity suits, then geneticists have it right. But everything else, well they must be all wrong about that just because their must be some barrier in there heads or something. It's just a line of faulty reasoning with no evidence i guess, just like creationism.

In accordance with Byers logic, I will call my boss on monday morning and tell him there is a "barrier" preventing me from going to work. When pressed on the details of this "barrier", where it is, the nature of it, and exactly how it blocks my way to work, I will tell him HE'S the one who has to prove it's possible for me to travel past this barrier. He has to prove there is no barrier. ABSOLUTELY prove it.

Makes no sense huh? Of course not. Byers has it all backwards, like all fundies. We DO NOT have to prove there is no barrier, we do not have to prove there is no God, and we do not have to prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof in this case is on Byers.

Here is how you do it:
In the early eighties Robin Warren and Barry Marshall realized a bacteria could be the cause of peptic ulcers. Everyone thought they were raving mad for making such a claim. Instead of whining about censorship and prejudice against their ideas, they got to work and did SCIENCE, and PROVED THEIR CLAIM. They got a Nobel Prize for it.

Now Byers, how do you plan to prove your claim that a "barrier" exists? If you PROVE it, I will accept your claim, as I accept the fact that Helicobacter pylori can cause peptic ulcers. I will not even require absolute proof (as you do of evolutionists), I will only require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Until you do, I will not accept it. Go ahead.

DS said: Scott wrote: "Now, science may assume that there is no barrier, but science is forced to assume that. Science can’t prove there is no barrier." I humbly wish to disagree. I believe that science has demonstrated conclusively that there is no barrier, none whatsoever. Besides the fact that no barrier has ever been found and no mechanism for any barrier has ever been discovered, the simple genetic facts are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of a single origin for all extant life and for descent with modification being responsible for producing the diversity that is observed today. This a the major conclusion of the last one hundred and fifty years of research. Of course there are still unanswered questions. Of course we are still discovering the mechanisms that are responsible. Of course there is more to learn. But the basic question has been settled. Descent with modification is real. It matters not how many ignorant fools wish to ignore it, it simply remains the case. That is all. Drive bye byers can make up all of the foolish ignorant shit he wants, it won't change a thing. Just like capitalizing N and A and not d won't change anything. He is ignorant of the evidence that exists and offers no evidence of his own. The thing that he doesn't realize is the harm that he is doing by being so stubborn, disrespectful and arrogant, exactly the opposite of what his inerrant bible demands. How sad.

Niltava said: In the early eighties Robin Warren and Barry Marshall realized a bacteria could be the cause of peptic ulcers. Everyone thought they were raving mad for making such a claim. Instead of whining about censorship and prejudice against their ideas, they got to work and did SCIENCE, and PROVED THEIR CLAIM. They got a Nobel Prize for it.

Scott, I'm sorry to hear that. Sometimes though I think about this; how much faster we could have developed our civilization, how much earlier we could have discovered cures for crippling diseases, and so on, had it not been for self-destructive selfish priesthoods, ayatollas and opressors. Well, there is no point in dwelling about it, as there is no way of knowing.

On the other hand it baffles me how people can use so much energy on holding back science and preventing progress, all the while talking about an after-life for which we have no proof, while millions of children die of starvation and diseases. While real children and real adults suffer from real diseases, creationists just sit around and fantasize and spin their word games while they could have spent time and resources on solving real-life problems. They talk of a wonderful Eden while refusing to accept that we soil our own habitat and destroy the ecosystems. Had they ever been to Eden, I doubt they would have seen it's beauty, rather they would have chopped down the trees and slayed the animals...

But that is not enough, halting progress. They want to reverse it. They want to bring us back to the dark ages when theocracy ruled, where I (as a woman) can't study medicine and treat sick people, where homosexuals are stoned to death, progress made impossible, and scientists are silenced. It's nothing short of horrific.

Robert Byers said: It could only be that we have like DNA if their was a single parts department from a single parts creator.

Niltava said: Here is how you do it: In the early eighties Robin Warren and Barry Marshall realized a bacteria could be the cause of peptic ulcers. Everyone thought they were raving mad for making such a claim. Instead of whining about censorship and prejudice against their ideas, they got to work and did SCIENCE, and PROVED THEIR CLAIM. They got a Nobel Prize for it.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: It could only be that we have like DNA if their was a single parts department from a single parts creator.

We're still waiting for Byers to explain why his particular Designer would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C and hemoglobin pseudogenes) in the same places in humans, chimps, gorillas and other primates. We especially want to know why these defective genes in many cases have exact matching defects in humans and other primates.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: It could only be that we have like DNA if their was a single parts department from a single parts creator.

We're still waiting for Byers to explain why his particular Designer would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C and hemoglobin pseudogenes) in the same places in humans, chimps, gorillas and other primates. We especially want to know why these defective genes in many cases have exact matching defects in humans and other primates.

DS said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: It could only be that we have like DNA if their was a single parts department from a single parts creator.

We're still waiting for Byers to explain why his particular Designer would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C and hemoglobin pseudogenes) in the same places in humans, chimps, gorillas and other primates. We especially want to know why these defective genes in many cases have exact matching defects in humans and other primates.

And that's just one of the kinds of data that confirm common descent. There is no barrier, never was. The barrier is only in Robert's mind. It's just reasoning without evidence and without biological investigation.

Niltava said: To some people, Byer's argument that "like body parts like DNA" may sound reasonable. There are three OBVIOUS problems with this stance though. 1: As has been pointed out, a result of this "like body parts like DNA"-theory is that sharks and dolphins should have similar DNA. Byers tried to shrug this off (as usual). But according to his theory, they should (and they don't). According to his theory, guillemots and penguins should have "like DNA", but they don't, instead the guillemots have DNA that is more "like" skua DNA. On the other hand, colibris and swifts look extremely different, occupy totally different habitats and have totally different eating habits, migration patterns and behaviours. And yet, their DNA is similar. Now why is that Byers? Surely, people here can come up with more examples that you would be hard-pressed to explain. 2. "Like DNA, like body parts" hints at a horribly restricted understanding of how DNA works. It is NOT a blueprint. It is not a matter of a gene encoding an individual to be 10 or 50 cm tall. PLEASE JUST READ A DAMN DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK AND SPARE US THE MIGRAINE! I'll even give you a tip: Principles of Development by Wolpert & Tickle is a good one. Heck, a good cell biology book wouldn't hurt either. 3. As we all know (hopefully including you Byers) DNA includes huge amount of non-coding, non-conserved sequences. They do not encode proteins. And they vary A LOT among species (ie are non-conserved) simply because there is no harm (or benefit) of mutations in useless DNA. Now, according to the theory of common descent, there should be more variation between, say, Aspergillus fungi and humans, than among chimps and humans. And guess what; there is. This cannot be explained by your theory Byers. Because this DNA doesn't contribute to the body plan. The pattern fits the hypothesis of common descent nicely though. On another topic. How is it possible for a Canadian to write in such a staggeringly lousy English (spelling, grammar, coherence, vocabulary, punctuation)? I do know some Canadians have French as their first language, but still. My dyslectic brother writes more eloquent and coherent English, even though English is his third language! Sometimes it' terribly hard to follow the line of reasoning in Byers texts, but maybe it's not all because of the writing...

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the bible is a assumption that affects conclusions about these matters. Also yes it is not demanding that me/relatives equals man/apes because of like DNA closeness. Its an assumption there is no barrier or other option and the reasoning flows from this. Even if true its just, not established otherwise, a line of reasoning. You say YES its is a line of reasoning but a rational one. The atomic structure of the REASONING will be seen as rational by its holder. your reasoning is no more rational nor aided by a rational concept. Its still just reasoning along a line. However reasonable it is based on other assumptions. Evolutionists persuade themselves and try to persuade others that one must agree with man/apr genetic trails if one agrees with me/relatives genetic trails. They tell me this all the time. They are wrong and it is a logically fallacy. Even if factually true its still not a logical demanding point or close. The reasoning can be matched by other reasoning. Further reasoning is not scientific evidence on its own. Science must demand more evidence .

Dear Robert, The assumption that the Bible is inerrantly true doesn't just "affect" conclusions. It *defines* conclusions. It's an assumption that there *is* a barrier. An unwarranted, irrational assumption. You said yourself that you don't know what that barrier is, or how it works. You said yourself that you only assume that it does, because you assume Genesis to be true. No Creationist has ever been able to describe this magical barrier either. Ever. Now, science may assume that there is no barrier, but science is forced to assume that. Science can't prove there is no barrier. But science has found no evidence that any barrier is needed. If Genesis is not true, then there is no need for a magical barrier. "Time" is all that is needed for Evolution to be true. Creationists persuade themselves and try to persuade others that the Bible is literally true. They tell me this all the time. They are wrong and it is a logical fallacy. The Creationist "reasoning" is nothing of the sort. Creationists don't "reason". Creationists rely on assumptions and revelation, not logic and reasoning. You've proved this yourself, right here, numerous times. You say, "Science must demand more evidence." That's right. It does. In contrast, Creationists by their own Statement of Faith, by their own documented definition, actively reject more evidence.

Byers can see that sharks and dolphins are different "kinds", although they have similar general body shapes and proportions. He thinks that thylacines and wolves are the same "kind", though. This is because Byers takes as fact whatever it comes into his head to assert.

dNAism, good one byers wits remains unsharpened the barrier remains in his head. genetics is not atomic And unproven, only his make believe barrier is bye bye drive bye byers

Robert Byers said: One. There easily is another option to not be persuaded that close primate/man DNA equals like origin . Second. its a logical flaw to demand only this conclusion. Its just a line of reasoning. its not scientific evidence about this point. In short one can logically see other options. I add the idea there is just a parts department and DNA is a false trail outside kind.

Apparently he didn't read your comments at all, couldn't understand them if he did and wouldn't be convinced no matter what. You are talking about a guy who hasn't learned to capitalize i, why should he be bothered to learn anything about the last one hundred and fifty years of scientific research? As long as he can think up some other option, then he don;t have to believe it no hows. Well, I can certainly think of another option other that made up nonsense, so I guess he loses again.

Predictably, Byers just ignores the examples put right in front of him. Then AGAIN: why isn't penguin and guillemot DNA similar? And how can it be that colibries and swifts have quite similar DNA, when their "body parts" are so different? Explain. If you want to "beat" TOE you must provide a better explanation. Now do.

And why is it that you never adress the issue of noncoding DNA? Explain. And you may say it's "atomic and unproven" but it would be quite a coincidence if the pattern we see in this DNA matched up with the rest of the evidence for evolution by pure chance. Astronomical odds against it in fact. What you're saying is exactly the equivalent of "Yes, your honor, I know it's my DNA on the murder weapon, but I swear, I must have a genetic doppelganger..." All the more strange as creationists are so fond about pulling out the "Improbable odds"-card!

And again: No, we do NOT have to prove there is a barrier. You made a positive claim Byers, now you prove it. And you may not use the "I cannot grasp my mind around it" or the "It makes no sense" answers. Your inability to fathom the progress of life through "bubbles to buffalos" is no proof against anything.

To say there is a barrier in evolution is to say it's flat out impossible to travel to Mars. It was impossible in the 13th century. It's theoretically possible now. It certainly ISN'T physically impossible. It's simply a matter of technology. Just as there is no physical impossibility of "macroevolution" - it's a matter of time.

I know nothing of space travel and sure as hell don't understand any of it, but I'd never be so arrogant to say I'd know better than NASA...

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: One. There easily is another option to not be persuaded that close primate/man DNA equals like origin . Second. its a logical flaw to demand only this conclusion. Its just a line of reasoning. its not scientific evidence about this point. In short one can logically see other options. I add the idea there is just a parts department and DNA is a false trail outside kind.

For what it is worth... Robert, please, read again my previous comments. IF all there is to it was: "we see similar DNA, therefore: common descent", you would be right. This is NOT the case. But apparently you misread some of the points I have made. B does not follow from A, to use your words. B and A are distinct facts. We know that animals give birth to offspring. No need to use inference: simple observation. We know that offspring share similar genetic code with its parents: again (not so) simple observation. We have tested the laws of inheritance and the way (and the ratio) of change over the span of hundreds of generations (among humans) or thousands (among shorter lived animals). To be able to say that "DNA is a false trail outside kind", you are posing a host of unsubstantiated assumptions. First of all, you should state what in the H... world a "kind" is and how to identify one (except, maybe, through distinct behavioural patterns, as in: "oh, how kind of you!").

Niltava said: And again: No, we do NOT have to prove there is a barrier. You made a positive claim Byers, now you prove it. And you may not use the "I cannot grasp my mind around it" or the "It makes no sense" answers. Your inability to fathom the progress of life through "bubbles to buffalos" is no proof against anything. To say there is a barrier in evolution is to say it's flat out impossible to travel to Mars. It was impossible in the 13th century. It's theoretically possible now. It certainly ISN'T physically impossible. It's simply a matter of technology. Just as there is no physical impossibility of "macroevolution" - it's a matter of time. I know nothing of space travel and sure as hell don't understand any of it, but I'd never be so arrogant to say I'd know better than NASA...

Robert Byers said: You are saying positively there is NO barrier. Even if true how would you know? Its just presumed. it follows alone from observing nature that segregated complexity in unrelated creatures insists on barriers. Its unreasonable to say nature is not defined by barriers. Its up to your side to show otherwise. Anyways its up to your side to prove your case. Yes we start from assumptions there was no evolution nor could be even with time. the bible and nature teach that to us.

Byers contradicts himself: You are saying positively there is NO barrier.

i don't want to believe it so it isn't true and anyone who says it is is wrong i don't need any evidence i believe it so it must be true so there is no evidence that shows it is not true just bad reasoning i claim there is a barrier so there must be even if i have no evidence and you can't prove there isn't and even if you can i can ignore anything i don't like or just pretend to not understand it or actually not understand it i can do this for years at a time without ever learning anything so everyone will realize that logic reason and evidence is worthless in the face of invincible willful ignorance there is a barrier in my brain and there is nothing you can do about it i remain impervious to reality and you say there is no barrier

Robert Byers said:

Niltava said: And again: No, we do NOT have to prove there is a barrier. You made a positive claim Byers, now you prove it. And you may not use the "I cannot grasp my mind around it" or the "It makes no sense" answers. Your inability to fathom the progress of life through "bubbles to buffalos" is no proof against anything. To say there is a barrier in evolution is to say it's flat out impossible to travel to Mars. It was impossible in the 13th century. It's theoretically possible now. It certainly ISN'T physically impossible. It's simply a matter of technology. Just as there is no physical impossibility of "macroevolution" - it's a matter of time. I know nothing of space travel and sure as hell don't understand any of it, but I'd never be so arrogant to say I'd know better than NASA...

You are saying positively there is NO barrier. Even if true how would you know? Its just presumed. it follows alone from observing nature that segregated complexity in unrelated creatures insists on barriers. Its unreasonable to say nature is not defined by barriers. Its up to your side to show otherwise. Anyways its up to your side to prove your case. Yes we start from assumptions there was no evolution nor could be even with time. the bible and nature teach that to us.

DS said: i don't want to believe it so it isn't true and anyone who says it is is wrong i don't need any evidence i believe it so it must be true so there is no evidence that shows it is not true just bad reasoning i claim there is a barrier so there must be even if i have no evidence and you can't prove there isn't and even if you can i can ignore anything i don't like or just pretend to not understand it or actually not understand it i can do this for years at a time without ever learning anything so everyone will realize that logic reason and evidence is worthless in the face of invincible willful ignorance there is a barrier in my brain and there is nothing you can do about it i remain impervious to reality and you say there is no barrier

DS said: i don't want to believe it so it isn't true and anyone who says it is is wrong i don't need any evidence i believe it so it must be true so there is no evidence that shows it is not true just bad reasoning i claim there is a barrier so there must be even if i have no evidence and you can't prove there isn't and even if you can i can ignore anything i don't like or just pretend to not understand it or actually not understand it i can do this for years at a time without ever learning anything so everyone will realize that logic reason and evidence is worthless in the face of invincible willful ignorance there is a barrier in my brain and there is nothing you can do about it i remain impervious to reality and you say there is no barrier

Scott F said:

DS said: i don't want to believe it so it isn't true and anyone who says it is is wrong i don't need any evidence i believe it so it must be true so there is no evidence that shows it is not true just bad reasoning i claim there is a barrier so there must be even if i have no evidence and you can't prove there isn't and even if you can i can ignore anything i don't like or just pretend to not understand it or actually not understand it i can do this for years at a time without ever learning anything so everyone will realize that logic reason and evidence is worthless in the face of invincible willful ignorance there is a barrier in my brain and there is nothing you can do about it i remain impervious to reality and you say there is no barrier

Sorry, DS. That's a reasonable effort, but just pulling an ee cummings isn't sufficient. The text it still way too easy to read. The subjects and verbs mostly agree, and you have actual noun phrases in there. Though I do like some of the obvious run-ons. You need some randomly capitalized letters, random misspellings, and random homonyms and homophones. I've seen you do better. :-) Other than that, I'd give the effort a B-.

DS said:

Scott F said: Sorry, DS. That's a reasonable effort, but just pulling an ee cummings isn't sufficient. The text it still way too easy to read. The subjects and verbs mostly agree, and you have actual noun phrases in there. Though I do like some of the obvious run-ons. You need some randomly capitalized letters, random misspellings, and random homonyms and homophones. I've seen you do better. :-) Other than that, I'd give the effort a B-.

Thanks for the critique. I'll try to not try harder.

There is no try. There is do, or do not. :p