Hagfish Haunts Darwin. A zombie hagfish rises from the dead, and scares Darwin from two directions.

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 1-24-19 | David F. Coppedge

[fishtank]

Hagfish Haunts Darwin

A zombie hagfish rises from the dead, and scares Darwin from two directions.

January 24, 2019 | David F. Coppedge

Hagfish are eel-like fish that look like creatures from a horror movie. Their tapir-like snouts are scary enough, but when threatened, they have a unique weapon: slime! They can spread a net of sticky slime around them that can clog the gills of an attacker. And they have been doing this for at least 100 million Darwin Years, perhaps 300 million.

[Carriage Hill]

The contents are; I’ve had it. The name’s a turn-off, and belongs in a hospital’s isolation ward. heh.

[NorthMountain]

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth. Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!

The language reminds me of that employed by the flat-earth, fake-moon-landing crowd. I'll try to give the actual articles a fair reading. Advice from one scientist to another, though: Lay off the sensationalist language. It makes you look like a kook. The global-warming crowd should also follow that advice.

[Pontiac]

Somehow, they seem to believe that every time the theory of evolution is challenged to account for something that it bolsters the arguement for Creation.

Evolution does not account for anything. It proposes to account for variations in species.

See the above logic diagram of the Scientific Method.

As I understand Darwin’s theory the question he set out to answer was how biodiversity came about.

His research concentrated on birds of similar appearance and differences in beak structure that facilitated different feed habits.

Darwin’s hypothesis boils down to natural preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations.

Unfortunately, Darwin’s theory never makes it any farther than this. His theory can not be tested. No one has to my knowledge ever been able to induce a successful mutation. Most natural mutations are fatal. Those natural mutations that are not fatal are for the most part detrimental. Those that are not fatal or detrimental are simply cosmetic and do not increase the survivability of the mutant.

With no experimental testing possible and no observable natural phenomena supporting the hypothesis the theory remains unproven and unprovable.

In other words, Darwin’s theory is on a par with Intelligent design.

[sparklite2]

Well, no. The theory is an effort to explain the fact of evolution. Religionists skip over the part.

[marktwain]

Darwinian theory predicted that transitional fossils should exist.

That is a prediction that has been tested, and found to be true, repeatedly.

Creationists say there are no transitional fossils. Then another transitional fossil is found.

Then they say, well, there is no transitional fossil between the last two that were found!

Creation and Darwinian evolution are in conflict only if creationists insist they are. The conflict is in the minds of the creationists.

Darwinian theory makes no statement on the existence of God.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Not quite.

Nothing in science is ever "proven". A scientific theory needs to be tested (and the more tests it passes, the better) -- but, the best that can be said about any theory is that it's "not yet disproven" (or falsified). It's a subtle; but, very important distinction.

A scientific theory must be capable of being falsified. The Theory of Evolution can be falsified (Darwin even stated ways that could be done) -- therefore it's a scientific theory. It's considered a rigorous theory, because it has survived many attempts to disprove it. It will never be considered proven.

OTOH, as a counter-example, the "theory" of anthropogenic climate change cannot be falsified -- therefore, it is most certainly not a scientific theory.

[freedumb2003]

Of course it can be tested. And falsified. Your 1st grade flow chart works for elementary school. Not for grown-ups.

The entire field of Immunology is based on TToE.

Viruses and bacteria that EVOLVE resistance to medicine are immediate examples. There are also many examples of TToE in action such as flies in NY subways that cannot breed with flies above ground (species differentiation).

Or you want to apply your simple flowchart to say Astronomy? Geology? (and I can define WHY AGW is not science — can you?)

I am used to simpletons not understanding science so don’t feel bad.

[freedumb2003]

>>And Christianity and Creationism explain a lot.<<

Bizarre mix.

Creationism explains nothing scientifically. It just posits KABOOM.

[freedumb2003]

>>A theory has to be proven. <<

No it doesn’t. Thanks for telling everyone how ignorant you are.

You must be one of the people who think a “theory” is a “guess” all growed up.

it isn’t.

[freedumb2003]

People who don’t know science think a “Scientific Theory” is a guess.

We should be kind to them since they are frequently unteachable as they get their “science” from ICR and/or AIG.

I guess I need to bow out as I do not want to re-fight the CREVO wars.

[Pontiac]

Do you have examples?

[gundog]

Darwin’s work was necessarily limited by a lack of knowledge of DNA. The origin of species via natural selection is a fairly limited part of the overall theory of evolution. Intelligent design? As you say, it can’t be proven. My main quibble is with the Noah’s ark crowd that look to threads like this and say “See?”

[Pontiac]

Because they call a biological process evolution does not make it so.

An ecoli bacterium that develops resistance to a drug is still an ecoli bacterium.

It can still mate with other ecoli, it is not now a different type of bacterium.

[marktwain]

The most obvious was Archaeopteryx.

Over the years, I have noticed others. Whales were another, as I recall. The linked site has a good discussion of all the whale "intermediate" fossils.

There have been a number of "links" in human fossils.

But creationists that resist fossil evidence just ignore them, or claim they were simply co-existent species that died out in the flood.

If you do not wish to believe in fossils and the fossil record, you won't.

There is always a way to make miracles work to explain anything.

Just assume that God created the world with all the fossil evidence in place.

I reject that, because I don't believe God is a liar.

I am a Christian believer.

Did God use evolution in the creation process? That is the way it looks to me, but I am not God.

[Stepan12]

Doesn’t this Helen Thomas fiosh aka hagfish throw a moonkey wrench in this evolution theory? And what mutation has been beneficial? Dr. Banner turning into the Incredible Hulk? The Hulk may bevery strong, but he isn’t that smart.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I’ve wished I could burst out of my clothes and smash things, much more frequently than I’ve wanted to be smarter.

[freedumb2003]

your bacteria mate? Remind me to stay away from your pkace.

I am picturing a microscopic bacteria singles bar, bacteria all dressed up to find mates, etc.

[Pontiac]

Yes, interestingly enough bacteria can reproduce sexually or asexually.

And bisexuals thought they had something going.

Hah!

[BroJoeK]

drpix: "The hagfish poses very little challenge to Darwin/Evolution compared to the gaps in the fossil records for many creatures that could/should have left transitional fossil records."

Sorry, but no species "should have" left fossils, transitional or otherwise.
All fossils require very unusual conditions and estimates are that fewer than 1% of species left any fossils.
Those fossils we do have are heavily weighted towards marine species with shell bodies.

All told, billions of individual fossils have been collected world-wide representing circa 250,000 species alive over the past ~500 million years.
Do the math -- that's about one fossil species of some type preserved somewhere in the world every 2,000 years, that's been found.
So, 250,000 sounds like a lot of species, and it is, but for every species found so far, somewhere between a hundred and a thousand species either left no fossils or they haven't been found, yet.

As for "transitional" species, this site lists not species, but genera, a total of 178 in 25 categories, including insects & mammals.

Of course people who deny evolution also deny, by definition, "transitional fossils".
But the fossil records show some remarkable sequences whose only natural explanation is: transitional forms.

[BroJoeK]

Pontiac: "Unfortunately, Darwin’s theory never makes it any farther than this.
His theory can not be tested.
No one has to my knowledge ever been able to induce a successful mutation.
Most natural mutations are fatal.
Those natural mutations that are not fatal are for the most part detrimental.
Those that are not fatal or detrimental are simply cosmetic and do not increase the survivability of the mutant. "

That's all nonsense.
First of all, humans have been successfully modifying domesticated animals and plants for many thousands of years, through human (not natural) selection.
Some modern species are so different from their wild ancestors they are classified as separate species -- i.e., modern cows vs. ancient aurochs.

Second, of course, most mutations are harmless or harmful, not helpful, but in the wild the vast majority of young creatures never make it to full adulthood anyway -- in some species it's over 90% die young.
They die from any combination of bad luck and bad genes, no way to tell which in most cases.
Those who make it have better luck and maybe a little better genes too.
Of course luck can't be inherited but a new allele which works a bit better than the old one can be.

And, as for "testing" Darwin's theory, it's predictions are tested and confirmed daily by thousands of people who work in evolution related fields.
Those test results have provided many new insights into nature's operations, but the basic theory has never been falsified.