Friday, 30 May 2014

What Is A TRUE Transitional Species?


I think logically, evolutionists must qualify a true-transitional. The claim everything alive is a transitional. This is a claim. We can't 'grant' their claim, without posing some very honest and objective questions. To merely assume we are transitional because that's, "what the science shows", for example, would be vague. If we truly see transitionals, then logically they have nothing to be afraid of if we define them, and evaluate the evidence.

I would post that is is possible to give examples of true transitionals, because they would be strikingly different to the animals we see in existence.

To give such an example, imagine an ape-like organism was trying to exist, more and more, in the open plains. Not only would such an animal observably be out-of-place, but the transition to biped would be marked by these species, because they would have an ungainly, crude and unbalanced gait. They would rock and roll their hips and shoulders. You could qualify them as true-transitionals, by showing that a real-life animal such as a horse or human, walks with complete grace, they are designed to walk. But this ape-man would not be designed to walk, his feet-hands, that are made for the trees, would be in 'transition'.

Other true transitionals can be IMAGINED. Think of something on it's way to becoming a bird or bat. Now we only pretty much see, full birds or bats, whether extinct or extant. But imagine how crude their transition might appear, while their limbs become wings. They would stick out like a sore thumb. The same could be said of a creature such as Ambulocetus, the drawings of him are so striking, he looks basically like some kind of monster or freak, if anyone came upon such a creature, they would be amazed by how crude and half-designed it appeared. (It should be noted, that the actual skeletal remains were few, and so the drawings are of course, artwork)

Logically I have established that a true-transitional, between environments, is pretty obvious, because we see from every creature alive, that they are designed to do what they do. Every single species just happens to be perfect, in the present. so the next question is, logically;

Why should we regard every extant animal as being a transitional, when logically it can be shown that they are designed for the environment they are in?

The reason we knew the ape-man was "crude" on land was because we compare him with true species that exist. So then logically, true species can't be transitional, if they highlight one by comparison!

Evolutionists say that we don't have to evolve. But they also say that lots of micro = macro, which is a contradiction, because obviously lots of micro can = nothing of interest, if things don't have to evolve. So naturally they will say that we shouldn't necessarily "see" the route of evolution extant species are walking the path of.

1. Extant species don't show what they are transitioning into.
2. Every extant and extinct species, are "complete" designs for their environment.
3. All forms to have ever actually proven to exist, make true-transitionals, "strikingly" obvious.

CONCLUSION;

It is perfectly rational to conclude that evolutionary philosophy is at play. There are no facts that have ever shown the existence of actual transitional creatures, only a handful of negligible candidates. Every organism on the planet is a marvel of engineering excellence to an off-the-scale degree.

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Homology Of Vertebrates, Or Design Constraints?


With designed-things, sometimes there are design-constraints depending upon what the designer intends to achieve with a particular design.
   Bones, could be said to be, "God's Girders". The vulture has a bone structure that is not homologous in that the structure within a bone on it's wing incorporates a Warren's Truss.

Often homologous bones among vertebrates, are touted for the case of common ancestry, but upon investigation it can be shown that bones have to be in place for certain organisms. Of course, there are examples of invertebrates with exoskeletons, such as crustaceans like crabs. But for things that have to fly, for example, it makes sense to have lightweight feathers, and to have a lightweight frame (vertebrate). Largely if you look at the surface area of a bird's wing, those bones take up very little area, yet are strong and light. It wouldn't make much sense to have some kind of exoskeleton-type heavy structure. Also bats have a very thin layer of skin, both feathers and skin, respectively, are excellent designs. How the feathers grow and how they stick is incredible, the anterior and posterior barbules are an amazing locking system, you can actually see the hooks under the microscope.

We are commonly shown diagrams of comparisons, but usually the focus is upon the blueprint or plan for vertebrates. It can seemingly go something like this, generally, "One large, two large, lots of little, then five digits". (In regard to the forelimb)

But notice we are never shown something that breaks that plan completely, such as a snake. Since function would necessitate God's girders in particular places, it seems unreasonable to ignore the fact that a snake is an exception. Should it not simply be the "remains" of an ancestry? Yet if you look at the snake's skeleton, it is an amazing thing, all on it's own, as a singular design for it's job.

The common design-plan is there among those vertebrates that have the job of grasping, flapping or grabbing or digging in some fashion. Logically it can be shown that this design is by necessity. Evolutionists would argue that analogous features necessitate convergence, so it is a double standard to then complain if we say that certain designs work best, so we would expect them to be shared. For example, a bat's. "fingers", for want of a better word, are a frame for a wing, like a frame in some planes. However a horse would not have the five-digit "plan" incorporated, because there isn't a necessity. Nor would the snake, again, no necessity.

Here is a diagram I have drawn, to show a different way of seeing things. (Please notice, that if a limb has a similar design-constraint, we should expect more similarity. Different design-necessities, are written in different colours.)

So we would expect the bones of animals that trot, to look more similar than the bones of animals that flap wings, and we would expect flappers to looks similar, in turn.



Notice that humans and monkeys have a somewhat similar design-constraint, so we would expect them to look more similar to each other, like we might expect similarities between pigs and horses or dogs, etc....

(The pteroid bone is a rod-like element found only in pterosaurs)

Lampshades are logically homologous, by necessity, not relationship. They all necessitate a space for a lightbulb, generally a lampshade will have one large hole at the bottom, and one smaller hole at the top, for obvious reasons. Generally this is the plan, even though we see a very diverse range of colours and shapes/styles.

Logically bones are needed, for a certain weight/gravity ratio. We would not argue that a butterfly needs bones but we would argue that a vulture does. It makes sense that God's girders are strong but light, as shown with various different designs. Hollow, spongy, and the Warren's Truss type. Those are just three types.

Also bones, with joints, are basically going to be the same if limbs have similar jobs, whether they be arms or legs, we need to swing and retract the leg or arm. A hinge of some sort, is expected, unless there is no necessity, such as with snakes.


As we can see in this diagram, "convergence" is based upon a very narrow "scope". Clocks can be digital or analogue. Wheels all have to be round. But toys have a wide scope, there are limitless different toys. The designer of organisms, made organisms so precisely for certain jobs, that sometimes only one type of design seems possible, such as eyes for sight.

In the same way, fingers that can all touch, are very different in purpose than fingers that need to be fixed apart. A bats fingers are like a fixed-pitch rotor blade, if they change position, flight is lost.

Am I a Creationist? ( For D.Hew)


I must say I don't really think much about the term Young-Earth Creationist, and you got me thinking about it. (D.Hew). I've debated creation for about 10 years on and off, and I usually find it to be a useless and futile endeavor, but I must say Daren, your comments make me almost want to say of you, "Here is Daren, a man in whom there is no deceit". (Like Jesus said to Nathaniel)

In regards to my own belief system, you shown an acknowledgement of a logical inference, which was pleasing to me, that a person that strongly believes X to be the case, to be consistent, naturally would believe in all of the implications that X brings.

 There must be an ultimate source of truth to an ideology, and our basis for living according to what God has said, is by believing everything He has said (being consistent). If He hasn't said those things in His word, then why obey any of it? What, "God says" would be down to opinion.

I am a creationist, in the sense that I believe by faith that the statement in the New Testament is true, "we believe by faith the worlds were framed by God, the invisible created the visible" (paraphrase)

But I would describe myself as a, "bible-believing Christian". To call myself a YEC would also be deceitful, as it might imply that I claim some sort of scientific background. It would FAVOUR anti-theists to call me a YEC, because then they can claim I am a pseudo-scientist if I mention science.

For these reasons I usually use such phrases as, "creation-accepter" or, "designist", in reference to myself.

I see the statement "YEC", as problematic because it focuses on the age of something, which is historical science.

How can I then describe myself as a YEC when age doesn't even interest me? I believe the bible indicates an inference of about 6,000 years, I don't have any scientific validity for that belief, but that's okay, that doesn't mean that assigned evolutionary-dates are true anyway, for all I know, the earth might be 174.3 million years old. :-) If Noah built the boat 10, 000 years back, would it really bother me? ;-)

So I am a Creation-by-faith, bible-believing, Christian. :-) (although I think the creation is there for everyone to see, which is why I sometimes call myself a creation-accepter, because I accept creation as a reality, rather than reducing it to material causes.)


Friday, 23 May 2014

The Evidence Contradicts Darwin's Tree


I have drawn a diagram showing the beginning of Darwin's Tree, the first common ancestor in the past, then mathematically, that would lead to an increase in numbers, as gene pool/s diversify, populations split, and so forth. At the top we see 9 lifeforms.

According to evolution, as we go further back in time, there comes a time when the numbers MUST decrease until you get one ancestor. If I continued to draw the phylogenetic tree, 9 forms would lead to more branching, and more, until we end up with billions of species in the present day.

Mathematically and logically, this PROVES that Darwin's tree should show less and less diversity, as we go back in time, less and less branches, until there is a trunk. There is no escaping that there is a finite scale. If evolution is true, then this is what we would expect to see;


The blue branches show an increase in information that would allegedly be because of mutations adding information, so we would expect as we go further back in time, less and less information. Again, mathematically, this is inescapable, and evolutionists cannot argue that limitlessly diverse forms could exist, as we go further back in time. It's like adding, you start with 1, and go to a 100, you cannot, mathematically state that as we reverse the count, we would not expect numbers to be smaller. (Reductio ad absurdum)

The Cambrian explosion, the actual evidence, shows the opposite to the phylogenetic tree, Darwin's tree MUST decrease in branches, but the Cambrian shows a VAST scope of diversity. The Cambrian would represent a very bushy, diverse, information-rich, branching. We also see that gene pools, when they branch, become more homozygous. That is to say, they sacrifice information for the sake of survival;

-->(Group A) Species with eyes --> leads to two separate species, one with eyes(Group B), one without(Group C).
-To increase information in group C, you have to go back in time or reintroduce the genes from another population, (gene flow).

CONCLUSIONS:

We should see less and less forms in the past, as we go back further in time, with less information, as the numbers dwindle, as we count down to 1. Mathematically it is an inescapable inference. But the Cambrian, as old as it allegedly is, represents an exceedingly diverse, bushy branching. But Darwin's tree MUST show less branching as we go back in time, mathematically. It's not something that is down to opinion, because otherwise you have to argue that lifeforms have always existed. (Reductio ad absurdum) Eventually, numbers have to diminish.

We see the opposite to what evolution must state.

Post-hoc excuses can in no way represent a rebuttal of falsification evidence. If you are scientific, this evidence will mean more to you than making excuses for the evolution theory.



The below diagram shows what the actual evidence indicates. (although I have GRANTED common ancestry for the sake of argument.)