The evidence that legs were created is the lack of evidence that legs evolved. We simply see creatures w/ legs appearing suddenly in the fossil record. The evidence for leg evolution is missing.
If you cannot see degradation in the loss of leg function, then it is no surprise that you merely require a complete absence before you accept degradation. Stopping early is a loss of the information necessary to complete the formation.
However, a complete absence (as you require) would lead you to the conclusion that they never existed. In short, you merely require a definition that you would never accept were it true.
Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things. This relationship is also explained by a common designer.
It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined. Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there. This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.
I explained why speciation was not evidence in support of evolution. Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
I think it is you who does not understand evolution and that ridicule is your only defense. Congrats.
The evidence for the fish to amphibian evolution, *including the development of legs* is well documented in the fossil record.
The process of developing novel features through gene duplication and/or modification of regulatory genes has been reproduced in the lab.
"If you cannot see degradation in the loss of leg function, then it is no surprise that you merely require a complete absence before you accept degradation. Stopping early is a loss of the information necessary to complete the formation.
Wasn't it you that was complaining about the use of DNA to explain all features and functions? Now you invoke the dreaded 'information' canard? Try to be more consistent.
And all the while ignoring mophology.
"Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Your argument was predicated on our inability to test the ability of a long extinct population to breed successfully with an extant population. Your argument is based on a false concept of evolution, a false concept of speciation, a false concept of genomic evidence and a false concept of common descent.
"Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
They are attempting to classify organisms based almost exclusively on differences. This will lead to completely arbitrary classes (baramins).
Introductory Baraminology.
The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed. This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur. This is just one example of a poorly placed organism, there are many more.
Further more, EM is prone to pre-judgements because of the application of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory requires that certain organisms be placed in specific groups to 'prove' that it (evolution) is a viable theory. This means that there is a tendency to 'fudge' the interpretation of features. Because there is an associated theory and it has difficulty placing certain organisms EM needed to be replaced by a theory-free scientific method of classification, thus the develpment of Baraminology.
Baraminology is not based on any theory; therefore creation scientists will have no pre-conceptions of where to place an organism, as EM does, and uses a system of selection designed to more accurately place those organisms. The system of selection Baraminology uses is called 'Discontinuity Systematics' (DS). The combination of the two is referred to as 'Baraminic Systems' (BS). With BS there is no gray area between classes of organisms, each organism can be placed relatively easily into its proper class, thus preserving the obvious gaps between classes. It also becomes obvious that using BS enables us to correctly place humans outside the class that contains apes.
Since EM's clades are visually represented by a tree with a single trunk containing many branches it fails to show the multiple kinds originally created by god. It would seem that the correct non-theory based scientifically designed visual representation of god's creation should be a forest of trunks filled with branches. This is exactly what happens when BS is used.
Unfortunately the word 'kinds' has a bad connotation in scientific circles so the term Baramins was developed.
HOLOBARAMIN
The basic grouping of organisms is the Holobaramin which roughly conforms to EM's class/family. The holobaramin consists of all the organisms in a god created grouping. A good example would be humans, Homo sapiens. The holobaramin containing humans would not contain any apes - gorillas, chimpanzees or any other monkey. The holobaramin containing gorillas would contain the different species of gorillas and chimpanzees.
MONOBARAMIN
Holobaramins can be further broken down into Monobaramins. Using the previous example, each race of human would be placed in its own monobaramin. Each genetically variant type of gorilla would be placed into its own monobaramin. The same applies to chimpanzees. It must be noted that chimpanzee placement is not yet finalized; they may eventually be placed in their own monobaramin. To facilitate the division of organisms into their correct monobaramin, two more baramins have been developed, the Apobaramin and the Polybaramin.
APOBARAMIN
The apobaramin is comprised of any number of holobaramins and is used during the separation process. This makes it easier to compare two or more baramin.
POLYBARAMIN
The polybaramin is comprised of any grouping of organisms, holobaramins and monobaramin and/or apobaramins.
SELECTION PROCESS
The process proceeds as follows:First a polybaramin is created containing any number of classified and unclassified organisms. Each one is compared using DS and roughly assigned a holobaramin within the polybaramin. Once all the loose organisms are assigned to a holobaramin a group of holobaramins are placed in an apobaramin for further study. They are analysed for differences to verify that all the organisms are placed correctly. If they pass the inspection each holobaramin is examined to determine the correctness of organisms within each monobaramin. This guarantees that there are no borderline or amorphous organisms such as can occur when using EM.
The method used to place each organism into its monobaramin is called discontinuity systematics (DS). Rather than using comparative methods which are based on similarities of DNA and other observations, DS uses a method which uses the relative difference between organisms. Generally computer programs are used to give 1D, 2D or 3D visual representations of the differences between the genetic code of organisms. The greater the visual difference, the farther apart the two organisms. This is quite reliable in discerning the original group god created. Determination of correct baramin is based on strict scientific guidelines as follows:
1. Scripture claims. This has priority over all other guidelines.
2. Hybridization. Judged by viable offspring obtained from a cross of two different forms.
3. Ontogeny. Development of an individual as it matures.
4. Lineage. Direct observed or inferred between extinct and extant forms.
5. Morphology and physiology.
6. Stratigraphic arrangement of fossils.
7. Ecology.
Talk about modifying evidence to fit a theory. This is a far from science as you can possibly go.
Just as a note to all:Linnaean taxonomy was developed long before Darwin released 'The Origin of Species' (more than 100 years) and before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. It could not possibly be based on Evolution.
Just one more creationist source of misinformation.
Did you fail logic 101? The lack of evidence is not the proof for some other line of reasoning. First, a whole lot of trees died to make the tonnes of paper used to print the scholarly articles on this very subject. So there is ample evidence. Secondly, even though you do not believe this evidence, does not make manifewst evidence supporting a spontaneous, anonymous creation. You have no evidence for this 'creation' aside from a generic 'look around you' comment. Ever consider actuallty spending some time with real archeologists? They tend to be very pleasant people who love to share their interest in very old, dead things. Or are you too easily distracted with somehting like ADHD to be able to concentrate on the great detail in these subjects.
Wow, just how grossly ignorant of biology and paleontology does someone have to be to say something this blatantly wrong?
Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things.
Wrong again.
This relationship is also explained by a common designer.
No, it isn't. Try reading some science journals for a change instead of Jack Chick cartoons. There is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines which match, in very specific details of both the similarities and the differences between species, at everything from the molecular level to the contents of DNA to morphological similarities to biogeography to the fossil record, which match to a very detailed degree the exact and specific features which would be produced by evolutionary common descent, and do NOT match the kinds of features which would be expected due to just a "common designer".
Run off and learn something about this topic before you spew any more complete nonsense about it.
It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined.
Uh huh. Sure. You betcha. That's pretty funny coming from the guy who hasn't a clue as to the actual nature of the evidence, apparently because he's been sticking *his* head in the sand.
Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there.
Wrong again. Go learn something about how hypotheses are tested and validated, then try again when you aren't so clueless on the topic.
This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.
Oh, the irony.
Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
ROFL! Sorry, but hand-waving and force-fitting square pegs into round holes in order to try to pretend that the Bible is some kind of science textbook just doesn't cut it.
As for "baraminology", b_sharp's quotes from the baraminology charlatans pretty much says it all:
The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed."First major scientific advancment to occur in science in the last 100 years in science [sic]"? Just how ignorant *are* these yahoos? How about Einstein's General Relativity, for just one example? E=mc2? The discovery of DNA? The invention of the transistor? The sequencing of the genome? The discovery of the atomic nucleus? The discovery of continental drift? Most of the discoveries of quantum physics? How many more would you like? Just how stupid are these folks to be able to think that farting around by reclassifying animals into "Biblical groups" is the first "real" scientific advance since 1906? Oh, right, stupid enough to say things like:
This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur.PLATYPUS FEATHERS? Yup, these creationists are complete idiots. Platypuses don't have feathers, sorry.
Nor does the rest of their idiotic rambling make any sense. And no, evolutionary biology has no "grave difficulty", or any problem at all, placing platypuses in the proper group. They're mammals. Period. They're not birds, as these dolts are apparently clueless enough to conclude, and THEY DON'T HAVE FEATHERS.
Here's what I wrote in reply to the last creationist moronic enough to think that platypuses had "bird" features just because their bill and a few other features VERY SUPERFICIALLY resemble features on some birds:
The duckbill platypus stands as a case in point. This creature possesses a combination of mammalian and avian (bird-like) features.And remember, *these* are the clueless folks who want to dictate how science is taught to America's kids... "Teach the controversy -- platypuses have feathers, that's what our 'Biblical groups' curriculum says, and nothing else major has been done in science in the past 100 years!"Just how stupid and grossly ignorant does someone have to be to claim that the platypus has "avian (bird-like) features"? Oh, right, stupid enough to be an anti-evolutionist.
Hint: While the platypus's "bill" may superficially *look* like a duck's bill at first glance, due to general shape, no one who has ever actually bothered to compare them could possibly say something as stupid as calling it an "avian feature". Structurally it's entirely different. Furthermore, the platypus's bill even generates an electric field and is a very sensitive electric sensor -- it uses electric fields in the same way that dolphins use echolocation and bats use sonar. How "avian" is that?
And the platypus's webbed feet are no more "avian" than the otter's. The webbed foot of an otter or platypus or seal could not possibly be mistaken for anything other than a mammal's foot, and only an idiot would call it an "avian feature", since it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the foot of a duck. Even the webbing itself is different.
As for egg-laying, the platypus's eggs are far more similar to the eggs of reptiles (to which they are far more closely related than birds) than to the eggs of birds. Other semi-reptilian features of the platypus (being more basal to the reptilian/mammal split than eutherian mammals) are using the same opening for reproduction and eliminating waste products, cervical ribs, local Vitamin-C synthesis in the kidney, and legs that extend outward from the body instead of extending downard under the body (playtpuses walk with a shuffling motion more like an reptile's than like most other mammals).
And that's even apart from all the DNA evidence clearly establishing that platypuses are basal mammals and not any close relation to birds.
Yet, evolutionists do not propose that mammals evolved from birds with the duckbill platypus representing a transitional form between these two groups.
Because they're not as stupid as the anti-evolutionists, and not ignorant enough to mistake a platypus's bill or foot or eggs for any kind of "avian" feature, because they very clearly aren't.
Only the anti-evolutionists are such shallow "thinkers" as to be fooled by the most superficial of appearances. Real biologists sit down and have an actual look.
I've got an idea -- why don't you anti-evolutionists try some arguments that aren't completely retarded for a change?