Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[sMASH]

That new find of pterrasaur has not shown up in any of my feeds as yet....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

it was a cross reference duane- an example - how have we evolved since the oldest fossil?

The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.

The oldest T-Rex dinosaur fossil is dated to be around 66 million years old.

Fossils of Australopithecus, an early genus of homonids that are a potential human ancestor, have been dated to 3 million years old.

While remains of modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have been dated to only 200,000 years ago.

Recorded human history starts in the Bronze Age where humans start writing and recording events around 6000 years ago. Anything before that is considered prehistoric.

Jesus was around 2000 years ago.
Muhammad was 1400 years ago.
Columbus discovered the new world 522 years ago.

if Columbus discovered the new world just 500 years ago in three wooden ships, can you fathom how long ago is 3 million years?

[bluefete]

Chimp DNA Mutation Study—Selective Yet Surprising
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Scientists just published a study describing chimp DNA mutation rates and compared a number of cherry-picked genomic regions to human—and this research doubled their evolutionary timeline.1 However, the selective data did not account for the vast chasm of documented genome differences that were not included in the analyses.

Heritable mutations are the rare changes that occur in DNA during the process of making egg cells in females and sperm in males, known as the germ line. Scientists believe that by determining the rate of mutations in the germ line, they can predict when evolutionary events occurred in the past. In this recent study, they sequenced the germ line genomes of nine different chimpanzees in a three-generation pedigree (family).

The researchers then compared selected DNA segments between chimpanzee and human that were highly similar, omitting the many non-similar regions. They state, "In the intersection of the autosomal genome accessible in this study and regions where human and chimpanzee genomes can be aligned with high confidence, the rate is slightly lower (0.45 × 10−9 bp−1 year−1) and the level of divergence is 1.2%...implying an average time to the most common ancestor of 13 million years [page 1274, emphasis added]."1 There are basically two notable points from this summary statement that I will address.

The first important point is that the comparative data was clearly cherry-picked—the scientists only used the regions that were about 98% similar and essentially threw out everything else. These are the regions that the researchers stated "can be aligned with high confidence." It appears that all the dissimilar DNA regions got tossed out because they didn't fit the evolutionary paradigm and would have made the whole idea of chimps evolving into humans completely impossible.

It was initially noted by another group of evolutionary scientists that when comparing random chimp genomic sequence only "about two thirds could be unambiguously aligned to DNA sequences in humans."2 In confirmation of this widely known, but seldom discussed, inconvenient fact among those evolutionists working in the field was a comprehensive study published in 2013 by this author.3 In that research, I compared each individual chimpanzee chromosome to human (piece-by-piece) and it was shown that the chimpanzee genome was only 70% similar on average to human, with only short regions being highly similar.

The second notable point is that even when these scientists used the cherry-picked, nearly-identical segments between humans and chimps, and then incorporated their newly discovered mutation rates, they had to double their hypothetical evolutionary timeline. One of the researchers on the project (Gil McVean) stated, "Our results add substance to the idea that the human-chimpanzee split was considerably older than has been recently thought."4 It was previously believed that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor only 2 to 6 million years ago. Now they are claiming that it is 11 to 17 million years ago with the average being about 13.

The reality of the situation is that simply adding more time doesn't solve evolution's immense problems. Giving evolution another 6 or 7 million years still does not explain why chimps and humans are so vastly different, not only in their anatomy and behavioral traits but also the glaring 30% difference in their genomes—some 900,000,000 DNA letter differences. Jesus Christ compared this type of philosophically flawed selective attitude to "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"5 When the entire genomes are compared between humans and chimps, it becomes clear that they were each engineered uniquely and separately by an Omnipotent Creator.

References

Venn, O. et al. 2014. Strong male bias drives germline mutation in chimpanzees. Science. 344 (6189):1272-1275.
Ebersberger, I. et al. 2002. Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics. 70 (6): 1490-1497.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.
Choi, C. Q. 2014. Human & Chimp Genes May Have Diverged Twice As Long Ago As We Thought. Huffington Post. Posted on huffingtonpost.com June 13, 2014, accessed June 17, 2014.
Matthew 23:24. ESV.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on June 25, 2014.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/8196/282/

[rspann]

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

[bluefete]

That new find of pterrasaur has not shown up in any of my feeds as yet....

Just because it is from the Daily Mail - Science? Okay! I don't know what your feeds are attached to.

Check out this then. It sure has more credibility. Right?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

New Flying Reptile Found in "Unprecedented" Pterosaur Boneyard
Forty-seven pterosaur skeletons unearthed at Brazilian site, study says.


Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic
PUBLISHED AUGUST 13, 2014

Nearly 50 skeletons of a new species of ancient flying reptile have been unearthed in southern Brazil, an "absolutely unprecedented" discovery, one expert says.


Varying ages of the newfound species, dubbed Caiuajara dobruskii, fill the rare boneyard, which was once part of a desert lake in the late Cretaceous period, about 100 million to 66 million years ago. With a wingspan of up to 7.7 feet (2.35 meters) C. dobruskii had a head that was shaped differently from those of other pterosaurs, including a bony protrusion in front of its eyes. (See "New Golden Age for Pterosaurs, Flying Reptiles of the Dinosaur Era.")

The discovery offers the "best evidence ever uncovered" that the extinct dinosaur-era animals, called pterosaurs, may have lived in colonies, said study author Alexander Kellner, a paleontologist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

It also offers a new window into how the animals—the first vertebrates to fly—developed into adults.

Finding such an intact fossil site is unusual—though pterosaurs were found on every continent, their fragile wing bones do not preserve well. What's more, most pterosaur remains have been found near what was once oceans or lagoons, not desert.

"To be honest with you, when they first told me they had pterosaur bones, I was going, 'Yeah, sure,'" Kellner said. But once he confirmed the bones, he was thrilled. (See "Toothy Texas Pterosaur Discovered; Soared Over Dallas.")

"To find part of what could be part of a [pterosaur] population is really splendid," he said.

Flamingo-Like Reptiles?

Caiuajara dobruskii gets the second half of its name from Alexandre Dobruski and João Dobruski, the local father and son who first noticed odd bones poking out of the ground near Cruzeiro do Oeste (map) in 1971. But it wasn't until a few years ago that paleontologists began excavating the site and found the incredible jumble of skeletons.

It's unknown why or how the 47 pterosaurs died, but it's possible a desert storm or a drought caused their untimely ends, Kellner said.

To Mark Witton, author of the 2013 book Pterosaurs, the "gem" of the new research is finding so many pterosaurs in one place from the same species.

For instance, the number of animals found together suggests that C. dobruskii lived in groups, like flamingos, which may have flocked to the inland lake as an oasis in the otherwise dry landscape, said Witton, who was not involved in the research.

What's more, the new research, published August 13 in the journal PLOS ONE, allows scientists to chart the development of a pterosaur from youth to adulthood, providing "a really detailed, step-by-step representation of actual fossils and how it changes," Witton said. (See "Pterosaur 'Runway' Found; Shows Birdlike Landing Style.")

Historically, scientists have only been able to piece together how pterosaurs developed and lived based on skeleton fragments.

Independent Youth

Already, the new study hints that young pterosaurs were not highly dependent on their parents.

That's because juvenile pterosaurs found in the boneyard seemed to be miniature versions of adults—for instance, the young sported the adult signature crests on their heads.

Being so well developed, this means the young could also probably fly from birth, noted James Clark, a biologist at George Washington University's Columbian College of Arts and Sciences in Washington, D.C., who was also not involved in the new study.

It's "really rare to get that kind of assemblage and growth series—you don't see that in that same extent in other collections" of pterosaur fossils, Clark said.

Such independence is typical of some modern reptiles, such as crocodiles, which are born looking like tiny grown-ups, Witton added. (See "Meet Kryptodrakon: Oldest Known Pterodactyl Found in China.")

"This is really going to give us so much information about how these animals grow, what their population structures were like—so much data for us to look at," Witton said.

And experts seem confident more fossils await. Said Witton: "I'm sure this is not the last we've heard of this site."

[bluefete]

The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.

The oldest T-Rex dinosaur fossil is dated to be around 66 million years old.

Fossils of Australopithecus, an early genus of homonids that are a potential human ancestor, have been dated to 3 million years old.

While remains of modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have been dated to only 200,000 years ago.

Scientists say that the earth is around 4.5 billion years. Let's do some maths.

The oldest known fossils came around 1 billion years after the earth formed.

The oldest T-Rex at 66 million years - took around 3.86 billion years to evolve.


The potential human ancestor, Australopithecus, needed around 3.2 billion years to evolve into a human or something close to it.

Modern humans (where did they come from?) needed almost 4.5 billion years to evolve.

So what next?

[bluefete]

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

why do you ask such hard questions? Evolution only happens over great periods of time. So say the scientists.

So although we may be evolving now, the changes are much to minute for the naked eye to see.

But I can tell you when my stomach evolves from small to large! That is large evolution. Or is it? After all, it is still my stomach! Is my stomach evolving or adapting?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete, do you have to keep showing everyone that you have no clue how evolution works?

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

[bluefete]

Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Scientists believe that the study of genes that encode the proteins for molecular motors will help solve the mysteries of evolution. However, the result of a study published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution has only served to support the predictions of special creation—that unique variants of cellular complexity and innovation exist at all levels of life.1

Molecular motors are important features of eukaryotic cells that are formed by a variety of protein types. One group of molecular motors is called the myosins, which have recently been studied in everything from one-celled eukaryotes to humans. The goal of this and many other studies has been the ever-elusive characterization of the mythical Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA).2

The fictional LECA creature represents the final stage of a transition between a bacterial-archaeal prokaryote (the smallest and simplest organism) and a one-celled eukaryote (a cell with a nucleus and other organelles). The main problem with this idea is that, not only does no such creature exist, but eukaryotes also contain molecular similarities to both bacteria and archaea—prokaryotes that are found in completely separate domains of cellular life. Another major problem is that many complex molecular and cellular features unique among eukaryotes are not found in any prokaryotes. Because of this elaborate mosaic of cellular features, the development of any evolutionary story for the origin of eukaryotes has been fraught with much difficulty.

Researchers had hoped to find that matters would be clarified by myosin proteins derived from the DNA sequences of different single-celled eukaryotes, such as flagellated protozoa (protozoa with a whip-like tail), amoeboid protozoa, and algae.1 Instead of finding a pattern of evolving myosin "motor" genes (simple to complex) as life seemingly became more advanced, they found that the highest numbers of different types of myosin genes were found in single-celled eukaryotes. The authors stated, "The number of myosin genes varies markedly between lineages [types of eukaryotes]," and "holozoan genomes, as well as some amoebozoans and heterokonts, have the highest numbers of myosins of all eukaryotes. In particular, the haptophyte Emiliania huxleyi has the highest number of myosin genes (53), followed by the ichthyosporean Pirum gemmata (43), the filasterean M. vibrans (39), and the metazoan Homo sapiens (38)."1

The end result of all this labor was ultimately counterproductive to the formation of any sort of evolutionary tree. The researchers stated, "We do not aim to infer a eukaryotic tree of life from the myosin genomic content."1 This is because the data was not amenable to do so. Instead, they noted that "we provide an integrative and robust classification, useful for future genomic and functional studies on this crucial eukaryotic gene family."1

So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa), 2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures), and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there).

None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life. Specifically, the ideas of convergent evolution and lineage-specific expansions are nothing more than fancy terms for the fact that these different types of myosin genes appeared suddenly in unrelated creatures at the same time.

Clearly, the only scientific model that predicts this type of molecular and cellular complexity and innovation across all forms of life is one associated with special creation. Each created kind is genetically unique and has its own special and complex gene repertoire needed for the niche that it fills.

References

Sebé-Pedrós, A. et al. 2014. Evolution and classification of myosins, a paneukaryotic whole genome approach. Genome Biology and Evolution. 6 (2): 290-305.
Koumandou, V. L. et al. 2013. Molecular paleontology and complexity in the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 48 (4): 373-396.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ is there a source for that article that is not on a creationist website or page?

The Creation Museum in Kentucky is full of similar claims - none are supported by the scientific community

[rspann]

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

In other words it is something that is theoretical and cannot be easily proved(since there is no absolute evidence of the change happening) and only exists in the minds of someone who believes in it?
Sounds a bit like religion doesn't it ?

[bluefete]

bluefete, do you have to keep showing everyone that you have no clue how evolution works?

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

But didn't I say that the changes are too minute for us to see while they are happening?????? Doesn't that equate to a "very slow process?"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I meant you talking about your stomach getting larger and asking if that is evolution.

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

In other words it is something that is theoretical and cannot be easily proved(since there is no absolute evidence of the change happening) and only exists in the minds of someone who believes in it?
Sounds a bit like religion doesn't it ?

who says that it cannot be easily proved and there is no evidence of it?

Don't confuse the meaning of the word "theory" with the definition of "scientific theory".
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. A scientific theory is differentiated from a hypothesis in that a theory must explain actual observations."

If a scientific theory is disproven it stops being a scientific theory. Biological Evolution is a scientific theory.

It absolutely exists in the real world via mountains of evidence!

[bluefete]

How Old Is The Earth?

by FRASER CAIN on MAY 30, 2013

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter


This article comes from the Universe Today archive, but was updated with this spiffy video.





How old is the Earth? Scientists think that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Coincidentally, this is the same age as the rest of the planets in the Solar System, as well as the Sun. Of course, it’s not a coincidence; the Sun and the planets all formed together from a diffuse cloud of hydrogen billions of years ago.

In the early Solar System, all of the planets formed in the solar nebula; the remnants left over from the formation of the Sun. Small particles of dust collected together into larger and larger objects – pebbles, rocks, boulders, etc – until there were many planetoids in the Solar System. These planetoids collided together and eventually enough came together to become Earth-sized.

At some point in the early history of Earth, a planetoid the size of Mars crashed into our planet. The resulting collision sent debris into orbit that eventually became the Moon.

How do scientists know Earth is 4.54 billion years old? It’s actually difficult to tell from the surface of the planet alone, since plate tectonics constantly reshape its surface. Older parts of the surface slide under newer plates to be recycled in the Earth’s core. The oldest rocks ever found on Earth are 4.0 – 4.2 billion years old.

Solar nebula
Scientists assume that all the material in the Solar System formed at the same time. Various chemicals, and specifically radioactive isotopes were formed together. Since they decay in a very known rate, these isotopes can be measured to determine how long the elements have existed. And by studying different meteorites from different locations in the Solar System, scientists know that the different planets all formed at the same time.

Failed Methods for Calculating the Age of the Earth
Our current, accurate method of measuring the age of the Earth comes at the end of a long series of estimates made through history. Clever scientists discovered features about the Earth and the Sun that change over time, and then calculated how old the planet Earth is from that. Unfortunately, they were all flawed for various reasons.

Declining Sea Levels – Benoit de Maillet, a French anthropologist who lived from 1656-1738 and guessed (incorrectly) that fossils at high elevations meant Earth was once covered by a large ocean. This ocean had taken 2 billion years to evaporate to current sea levels. Scientists abandoned this when they realized that sea levels naturally rise and fall.

Cooling of the Earth – William ThompsonWilliam Thompson, later known as Lord Kelvin, assumed that the Earth was once a molten ball of rock with the same temperature of the Sun, and then has been cooling ever since. Based on these assumptions, Thompson calculated that the Earth took somewhere between 20 and 400 million years to cool to its current temperature. Of course, Thompson made several inaccurate assumptions, about the temperature of the Sun (it’s really 15 million degrees Kelvin at its core), the temperature of the Earth (with its molten core) and how the Sun is made of hydrogen and the Earth is made of rock and metal.

Cooling of the Sun – In 1856, the German physicist Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz attempted to calculate the age of the Earth by the cooling of the Sun. He calculated that the Sun would have taken 22 million years to condense down to its current diameter and temperature from a diffuse cloud of gas and dust. Although this was inaccurate, Helmholtz correctly identified that the source of the Sun’s heat was driven by gravitational contraction.

Rock Erosion – In his book, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin proposed that the erosion of chalk deposits might allow for a calculation of the minimum age of the planet. Darwin estimated that a chalk formation in the Weald region of England might have taken 300 million years to weather to its current form.

The Moon

Orbit of the Moon – George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, guessed that the Moon might have been formed out of the Earth, and drifted out to its current location. The fission theory proposed that the Earth’s rapid rotation caused a chunk of the planet to spin off into space. Darwin calculated that it had taken the Moon at least 56 million years to reach its current distance from Earth. We now know the Moon was probably formed when a Mars-sized object smashed into the Earth billions of years ago.

Salinity of the Ocean – In 1715, the famous astronomer Edmund Halley proposed that the salinity of the oceans could be used to estimate the age of the planet. Halley observed that oceans and lakes fed by streams were constantly receiving more salt, which then stuck around as the water evaporated. Over time, the water would be come saltier and saltier, allowing an estimate of how long this process has been going on. Various geologists used this method to guess that the Earth was between 80 and 150 million years old. This method was flawed because scientists didn’t realize that geologic processes are extracting salt out of the water as well.

Radiometric Dating Provides an Accurate Method to Know the Age of the Earth

In 1896, the French chemist A. Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity, the process where materials decay into other materials, releasing energy. Geologists realized that the interior of the Earth contained a large amount of radioactive material, and this would be throwing off their calculations for the age of the Earth. Although this discovery revealed flaws in the previous methods of calculating the age of the Earth, it provided a new method: radiometric dating.

Geologists discovered that radioactive materials decay into other elements at a very predictable rate. Some materials decay quickly, while others can take millions or even billions of years to fully decay. Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy, working at McGill University, determined that half of any isotope of a radioactive element decays into another isotope at a set rate. For example, if you have a set amount of Thorium-232, half of it will decay over a billion years, and then half of that amount will decay in another billion years. This is the source of the term “half life”.

By measuring the half lives of radioactive isotopes, geologists were able to build a measurement ladder that let them accurately calculate the age of geologic formations, including the Earth. They used the decay of uranium into various isotopes of lead. By measuring the amount of three different isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and Pb-208 or Pb-204), geologists can calculate how much Uranium was originally in a sample of material.

If the Solar System formed from a common pool of matter, with uniformly distributed Pb isotopes, then all objects from that pool of matter should show similar amounts of the isotopes. Also, over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change because as these isotopes are end-products of uranium decay. This makes the amount of lead and uranium change. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time. Now, supposing that the source of the Solar system was also uniformly distributed with uranium isotopes, then you can draw a data line showing a lead-to-uranium plot and, from the slope of the line, the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects can be computed.

Bertram Boltwood applied this method of dating to 26 different samples of rocks, and discovered that they had been formed between 92 and 570 million years old, and further refinements to the technique gave ages between 250 million to 1.3 billion years.

Geologists set about exploring the Earth, seeking the oldest rock formations on the planet. The oldest surface rock is found in Canada, Australia and Africa, with ages ranging from 2.5 to 3.8 billion years. The very oldest rock was discovered in Canada in 1999, and estimated to be just over 4 billion years old.

This set a minimum age for the Earth, but thanks to geologic processes like weathering and plate tectonics, it could still be older.



Meteorites as the Final Answer to the Age of the Earth
The problem with measuring the age of rocks on Earth is that the planet is under constant geological change. Plate tectonics constantly recycle portions of the Earth, blending it up and forever hiding the oldest regions of the planet. But assuming that everything in the Solar System formed at the same time, meteorites in space have been unaffected by weathering and plate tectonics here on Earth.

Geologists used these pristine objects, such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite (the fragments of the asteroid that impacted at Barringer Crater) as a way to get at the true age of the Solar System, and therefore the Earth. By using the radiometric dating system on these meteorites, geologists have been able to determine that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old within a margin of error of about 1%.

Sources:
Understanding Science – Lord Kelvin
USGS Age of the Earth
Lord Kelvin’s Failed Scientific Clock
The Role of Radioactive Decay
Astronomy Cast Episode 51: Earth
Oldest Rock Formations Found

[bluefete]

If the earth is 4.5 billion years and the oldest rocks are 4-4.2 billion years old, what was there before the rocks, for approximately 300 million years?

Where did the rocks come from? Below the earth? In the ocean? From outer space?

[bluefete]

^ is there a source for that article that is not on a creationist website or page?

The Creation Museum in Kentucky is full of similar claims - none are supported by the scientific community

Why are you "brakesing" all of a sudden?

It is either the FACTS are true or not. The fact that it comes from a creationist website should not matter.

None are supported by the scientific community but it is using the same methodologies to refute their arguments!

[bluefete]

Evidence For The Big Bang?

[bluefete]

So did the big bang form from nothingness or already existing elements?

[rspann]

Fossils of Australopithecus, an early genus of homonids that are a potential human ancestor, have been dated to 3 million years old.


Does the word "potential" signify an element of doubt or uncertainty?

[rspann]

Is this a possibility too?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

If the earth is 4.5 billion years and the oldest rocks are 4-4.2 billion years old, what was there before the rocks, for approximately 300 million years?

Where did the rocks come from? Below the earth? In the ocean? From outer space?

when planets form they are first very hot, almost entirely molten. As it cools, it forms a crust. The crust of the earth makes up only about 1% of the entire earth. The crust is the land and sea we live on. 84% of the earth is the mantle which is made up of semi-molten rock known as magma. And that's today!

As magma cools it forms rocks.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Is this a possibility too?

Perhaps! What scientific evidence is there to support the claim?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ is there a source for that article that is not on a creationist website or page?

The Creation Museum in Kentucky is full of similar claims - none are supported by the scientific community

Why are you "brakesing" all of a sudden?

It is either the FACTS are true or not. The fact that it comes from a creationist website should not matter.

None are supported by the scientific community but it is using the same methodologies to refute their arguments!

brakesing?

what makes it a fact?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Fossils of Australopithecus, an early genus of homonids that are a potential human ancestor, have been dated to 3 million years old.


Does the word "potential" signify an element of doubt or uncertainty?

Australopithecus is what is labelled as "potential", not the fact that our ancestors were an early genus of homonids.

[Habit7]

bluefete, do you have to keep showing everyone that you have no clue how evolution works?

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

What am I reading here? You are carping about how bluefete has no clue about evolution and you are saying evolution doesn't stop? Human evolution is largely regarded as stopped by the scientific community. DNA transferring from generation to generation is not evolution, it is reproduction.

Sometimes I wonder if in an effort to defend evolution, you guys make it into your own personal fairy tale.

[sMASH]

Is this a possibility too?

He wanted to see what he bounced his big toe on....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete, do you have to keep showing everyone that you have no clue how evolution works?

Did any evolution take place during the period of recorded history? No matter how minute?

evolution does not stop. Once there is life and reproduction there will be DNA transferred from generation to generation altering various aspects of all living organisms. It is a very slow process.

What am I reading here? You are carping about how bluefete has no clue about evolution and you are saying evolution doesn't stop? Human evolution is largely regarded as stopped by the scientific community. DNA transferring from generation to generation is not evolution, it is reproduction.

Sometimes I wonder if in an effort to defend evolution, you guys make it into your own personal fairy tale.

Where does it say human evolution has stopped? There are opinions, like those from Sir David Attenborough, that natural selection in humans had stopped. He stated that he felt particularly in the West natural selection has stopped mainly due to the fact that we are able to survive longer and almost 100% of our offspring live on - however this does not stop the process of evolution! Firstly the entire human species is hardly in such a privileged, healthy, well-nourished, low-mortality, high-life-expectancy state of nature that has "stopped natural selection". We have very far to go before that is even a concern. Human evolution has not stopped.

A mutation is a change in DNA. DNA is the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it behaves, how it looks, and its physiology. A change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life. Over millions of years this effect can be seen on a macro scale.

Go read up on how DNA mutations affect evolution.

[Habit7]

You sir might be the one how needs to read up. Scientific consensus (what you repeatedly appeal to) says human evolution has stopped. Your argument is not with me, it is with the consensus.

Furthermore your original post said nothing about mutations. I will allow you the grace to clarify yourself but please return to someone else next time before you scold them on the topic of evolution you clearly know so much about.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You sir might be the one how needs to read up. Scientific consensus (what you repeatedly appeal to) says human evolution has stopped. Your argument is not with me, it is with the consensus.

Furthermore your original post said nothing about mutations. I will allow you the grace to clarify yourself but please return to someone else next time before you scold them on the topic of evolution you clearly know so much about.

where is the proof of this consensus?

Post a link, a quote, something.

We are talking about evolution. The mechanisms of evolution (like genetic drift and natural selection) work with random variation generated by mutation.

Not all mutations in DNA affect evolution. Large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring which can result in small changes in phenotype or big changes in phenotype, or no change in phenotype at all when the germ line mutation is passed on.

I dunno if you confusing evolution with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

[MG Man]

evolution has stopped?????
this is why I see no point having a rational debate with these tuntuns