"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky wrote: »

1. It has been shown multiple times in this thread that almost everything J C says is untrue, occasionally because he doesn't know what he's talking about, but mostly because he alternates between misrepresenting the truth and outright lying. Not to mention the constant inability to counter any points made by such learned individuals as oldrnwisr.

2. Friends react poorly to constant lies and non-joking accusations of being Nazi sympathisers. These are things that cause friends to stop being friends.

3. Friendship requires trust, honesty, a certain amount of respect between individuals. Such qualities in a person make them good friendship material.

4. J C does all of the things in 2. He displays none of the qualities from 3.

5. The last logical step is left as an exercise to the reader.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

sarky,
a very unscientific answer there. it could be said you're hiding from the question.

whats ur scientific proof nobody will be j.c.s friend.

its not so hard.

robindch wrote: »

If somebody had written around a 2,000 word essay for somebody else's sole benefit, the very least that that person could have said is "thanks". Or if not that, at least to move one's hand the half inch required to click on the "thanks" button. And if that was too much trouble, at least they might have avoided saying they didn't even bother reading it.

As an example of the forlorn lack of interest in reality that props up creationism, that attitude is simply unbeatable.

robindch wrote: »

Why bother? JC has said that life was too short to read oldrnwsr's excellent, clear and informative posts.

robindch wrote: »

JC hasn't apparently been able to retain so much as a single fact since he began posting on boards in 2005 on the topic of creationism. I'm inclined to believe at this point, and with the support of thousands of posts and against my better hopes for mankind in general, that JC is fully incapable of learning.

robindch wrote: »

As is your belief that effectively saying "I couldn't be bothered even reading your reply to my question" is a nice thing to say to somebody who clearly put in a lot of time and effort into composing a first-class reply. It's simply not a nice thing to do.

robindch wrote: »

And a happy religion-free Paddy's day to you too

Sarky wrote: »

So we can expect a full apology from you today, then? Or are you going to keep to your standard method of ignoring all evidence posted in favour of cheap insults and blatant ignorance and disrespect?

koth wrote: »

maybe you should raise your standard of posts to that of oldrnwrs then. maybe people would be more receptive then

koth wrote: »

you have been thanked on this thread. and people have been plenty courteous to you, sadly the same can't be said of you. it's discourteous to state that you won't waste your time on well thought out posts if the are too long.

koth wrote: »

hope you have an excellent Paddys day, JC:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm.


oldrnwisr
Sure. No problem.
Thanks.

You seem to think, JC, that this hasn't already been posted by multiple posters on multiple occasions but since you insist on responding with this mindless reference to W2M evolution I'm going to deal with it because it's getting on my f*cking nerves.
... it hasn't been addressed ... but I thank you for addressing it.

The article that koth posted refers to a recent discovery of a specimen of one of the earliest chordate species, Pikaia gracilens. P. gracilens is thought to date to approx. 530 mya. As a primitive chordate it developed a notocord, a proto-spinal cord running the length of it's body which it retained throughout it's life (as opposed to other species who only retained a notocord for a short period). It was first discovered and described in 1911. This is a picture of the little fella as recovered from the Burgess Shale:



and how he would have looked in his Sunday best:


OK ... so here is a fossil and artists impression of this particular worm-like creature ... that was fossilised in Noahs Flood 6,000 +/- 1,000 yrs BP.
Now, chordates are a subgroup of deuterostomia (to which we belong, obviously), a group characterised by the anal end of the digestive tract opening before the mouth during development. Chordata is distinct from the other branches of deuterostomia, namely echinodermata and hemichordata because of the development of a persistent spinal cord for at least some portion of its life.
... and there were many radically different chordates Created during Creation Week ... along with creatures that are classified as echinodermata and hemichordata.

Now that I have explained who P. gracilens is and how it fits within chordata and chordata within deuterostomia, now we can see how the ongoing divergence of features leads us from chordata through a gradual filtering process to reach homo sapiens.

Chordata is split between tunicata (previously known as urochordata), hemichordata and craniata. The differentiation is the degree to which the notocord is retained throughout the life of the organism. Craniata, the subset of chordata whose brain is enclosed inside a skull is the one of interest to us.
These are just a classification keys for identifying / describing / classifying organisms by their common physical characteristics ... and not some kind of Evolutionary sequence.

Craniata is then divided between vertebrata and myxini or hagfish. Here we see the increasing development of calcified tissue being realised through the introduction of a vertebral column, a bony support structure for the spinal cord.
Yet an other classifcation diagram ... but no proof that these organisms share a common ancestry.

Vertebrata continues the development of calcified tissue and is split into many subgroups: Conodonta, Cephalaspidomorphi, Hyperoartia, Pteraspidomorphi and finally and most importantly, Gnathostomata. This is important since it marks the first appearance of David Coulthard the jawbone. Gnathostomata first appears in the Ordovician period approx. 450 mya and as a group includes 99% of all the vertebrates alive today.
Again your interpretation that "Vertebrata continues the development of calcified tissue" (within the fossil record) is the imposition of your Evolutionist worldview on the fossil record ... an at least equally logical conclusion is that it is a record of catastrophic burial of different contemporaneous creatures ... with different characteristics ... just like living creatures today have calcified tissue in their bones ... and 'soft-bodied' creatures that are also alive today don't .

The next major difference we see emerging is between cartilagenous and calcified skeletons. Here, gnathostomata splits between placodermi, chondrichthyes and teleostomi. Teleostomi, the group to which we belong, is distinguished by the development of a bony skeleton and an operculum (the structure in a fish which covers the gills).

Next we move on to the divisions in teleostomi between acanthodii and osteichthyes. Osteichthyes are differentiated from acanthodii by their increasing development of a bony skeleton including cranium, pelvic girdle and dermal bones while acanthodii retained a skeleton comprised of a bony infrastrucutre supported by cartilage. Also osteichthyes lacked the placoid scales seen in acanthodii.
There are living examples of most these Classes alive today ... and they appear to an objective observer to be totally distinct creatures ... with no identifiable intermediates between them ... indicating that they are examples of Created Kinds.


From here osteichthyes splits between acinopterygii and sarcopterygii. The key difference here is the diverging fin development between the ray-finned fishes (acinopterygii) and the lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii). The ray-finned fishes can be seen in modern fish like the herring or bluefin tuna. The lobe-finned fishes show the start of the development of proto-limbs and lungs which would lead to the development of all four-limbed creatures (including us).
Once again your interpretation is loaded with Evolutionary assumptions ... but no evidence that any of these creatures evolved into each other over millions of years ... indeed the fossil evidence is that they were contemporaneous with each other ... and were largely fossilised in a single worldwide water-based mass extinction event.

The next major development is the transition that is now (i.e. 345 mya) occurring as previously aquatic creatures move on to land. Of interest to us here is an offshoot of sarcopterygii called stegocephalia where the lobed fins of sarcopterygii have begun to develop digits on the end of the fins along with further development of the limbs themselves and an increased development of lungs at the expense of gills. Another subset of stegocephalia is tetrapoda, four-limbed land-based air-breathing creatures with a fully adapted quadripedal skeleton.

Tetrapoda is one of the most important developments after gnathostomata since it is one of the most easily recognisable supergroups to which we belong and includes most of the animals that are familiar with. However, before we move on, I want to include a cladogram so we have a visual representation of what we've covered so far.




The most pronounced divergence within tetrapoda occurs in the split between amphibia and amniota. Here the difference between the groups is developmental rather than morphological as we have seen previously, specifically in the emergence of the amnion or placenta to protect the young in the now (300 mya) rapidly changing environment.
... once again you are making evolutionist assumptions that these dead creature were fossilised over millions of years ... when the evidence is that they were fossilised instanteously ... and certainly within weeks/months of death such is the perfection of the preservation of their bodies.

As we move on through the development of amniota we return to morphological differences as a means to distinguish between the groups. In particular, the primary split in amniota between synapsida and sauropsida. The key feature here is the temporal fenestrae or, more correctly, the number of temporal fenestrae (the openings in the skull). Synapsids have just one pair of fenestrae while sauropsids are split between anapsids (e.g. turtles) which have none and diapsids (e.g. crocodiles, lizards, snakes) which have two. This is also where we part company with, among other groups, birds and dinosaurs.
This is not 'where we part company with birds and dinsaurs' ... this is where different designs were employed in creating Turtles, Crocodies, Birds and Mammals.
As we move from synapsids towards our next major milestone, mammalia, the distinguishing characteristics between sister groups tend to be the result of ever increasing refinements of key features such as the brain and the skeleton as well as other changes related to diet and environment.

Synapsids split into eupelycosauria and caseasauria. Eupelycosauria then splits into edaphosauridae and sphenacodontia with sphenacodontia further splitting into sphenacodontidae and therapsida. The main change within this set of divergences is related to the development of dentition and associated changes in the skeleton and musculature.
Once again your conclusions are deeply coloured by your Evolutionist assumptions ... and your claims of 'divergences' is just wishful thinking based on an examination of the Flood Burial Record that is the so-called 'Fossil Record'.
Therapsids represent another important milestone on the road to mammals and eventually humans. Many of the characteristics that we tend to think of as unique to mammals originated here. These include body-wide hair follicles, lactation and new posture orientations.

Continuing with the development of skeleton and dentition refinements we can see that therapsida splits between eutherapsida and biarmosuchia. Eutherapsida then splits between neotherapsida and dinocephalia. Neotherapsida splits into theriodontia and anomodontia. Then, theriodontia diverges between eutheriodontia and gorgonopsia. It is interesting to note that each fork in the road can lead to an entirely different lineage being traced as we saw earlier in the split between amphibia and amniota, although here, each of the alternate branches biarmosuchia, dinocephalia, anomodontia and gorgonopsia are all extinct with no modern examples.

Following on from eutheriodontia we can see it splits between cynodontia and therocephalia. Cynodontia is another minor milestone since it sees the development of canine teeth among the improving dentiary features. This is especially important for tucking into a nice rib-eye. Cynodontia then splits into dviniidae, procynosuchidae and epicynodontia. Epicynodontia then splits between thrinaxodon and eucynodontia. Eucynodontia then splits into cynognathus and probainognathia. Then around 170 mya we see the emergence of mammaliaformes the progenitor of modern mammals as probainognathia diverges between tritheledontidae, chiniquodontidae and mammaliaformes.

Before we move on to the last leg of the journey from mammals to humans here's another cladogram so no-one loses their place.
Yet another evolutionist assumption based on the belief that evolution over millions of years happened in the first place ... and therefore circular reasoning being employed.




The first major divergence following the emergence of mammals is that between monotremata and theriiformes (theria). It is here where we part company with modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna. The difference here is that monotremes give birth to their young as eggs while theria give birth to live young. Theria is then further divided between metatheria (marsupials) and eutheria (placentals).

Eutheria then splits between epitheria and xenartha with one of the key distinguishing features being the development of external testicles (in males obviously). Here we part company with armadillos, sloths and anteaters.
... so armadillos, sloths and anteaters have internal testicles ... and other mammmals have external ones ... sounds like separate creation to me ... and not something that spontaneous Evolution did ... because whether they are in or out doesn't seem to confer any particular adavantage as evidence by the survival of both types of creature ... while having them neither in or out or a mix-up between in and out usually results in all kinds of nasty complications ... which would likely kill or make sterile any intermediates thereby ruling out the so-called 'split' or 'divergence' that you are talking about.


The next important division is between euarchontoglires and laurasiatheria. This is one of the first examples of a split based on genetic evidence and as a result, here, we part company with giraffes, shrews, hedgehogs, pangolins, whales and bats.

Next euarchontoglires, around 90 mya split into glires and euarchonta. Euarchonta ("true ancestors") is then split between primatomorpha, dermoptera and scandentia. Here we lose treeshrews and colugos and we see an increasing development toward the kind of creature that we would begin to recognise as our distant ancestor.

Finally around 85 mya we see the split in primatomorpha between primates and the now extinct pleisadapiformes. Given the considerable volume that has been posted about primates on thread recently I think I'll leave it there. Finally one last cladogram (from the Ancestor's tale) to recap the relationships between modern mammals.




So you can see JC, that we can trace our lineage from worms to man and we have a mountain of evidence from fossils, genetics and a multitude of other fields to support it.
What I see is a whole series of different contemporaneous creatures classified on the basis of increasing complexity at the time of Noah's Flood ... just like anybody could do with the array of different contemporaneous creatures that are alive today.
The great thing about this is that we can use this lineage to build up an increasing set of characteristics which we can use to define a particular term. For example, we can describe craniates as a metazoic, nucleic, bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome coelamate with a spinal chord and a brain encased in a skull. As we move down through time towards the present we keep adding features so that by the time we get to primates we have a more precise and robust definition. We can define primates as:
... but all these terms describe different distinguishing characteristics of creatures that are alive today ... so why do you think that it is a historical series over millions of years?
"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."

You can even get have it on a t-shirt if you want.
I must go out and buy one ... it's a good reminder of the amazing CFSI diversity created during Creation Week!!!

My apologies to anyone who thinks this explanation is a little light on detail, well, because it is. Tracing over 500 mya of our ancestry is no small task and any description must be necessarily summary in detail.
No need to apologise ... trying to find a continuum defeated Darwin ... because that's not how it actually happened!!!
Quote:-
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species).

I have included as many wiki links as I could find so that anyone interested in finding out more (obviously not JC) can do some further reading. I would also recommend the Tree of Life Project as an excellent taxonomic resource.

Had a look ... well presented information.
... suggest that you also look here
[/FONT]

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Before I get into details, some general points. I already posted a link to the ICR article in my post so that anyone interested could read it for themselves. Cutting and pasting the entire article into your post while highlighting some random sentence fragments doesn't add anything to the discussion. Anyone else could do the same. You made no comment except for the one above about the content of the ICR article.
I also posted a link to PZ Myer's analysis of the ICR article which you also failed to comment on (probably because you couldn't be bothered to read it). In fact commenting on PZ's article would have been infinitely more useful to this discussion than the ICR one.

Sarky wrote: »

So your full detailed response is to rehash and selectively quote all the crap you've posted before despite its having been torn apart long ago?

Is that really the best you can do? Really? I suppose life is too short to back up your ridiculous claims with evidence?

And then you whinge about people not respecting your views? Ha!

Evade wrote: »

My point still stands. How do you explain anything radiocarbon dated to before 8000BCE?

Evade wrote: »

My memory only goes back about 23 years, does that mean the world didn't exist before I can recall it's existence?