Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

What verifiable data? First show this mysterious data and then show the evidence it is scientific. I'll wait.

 

[h=1]Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules[/h]Mary Higby Schweitzer
, Wenxia Zheng
, Timothy P. Cleland
, Marshall Bern

Received: August 24, 2012; Received in revised form: October 5, 2012; Accepted: October 6, 2012;
Edited by: J. Aubin

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010

• Abstract
• Full Text
• Images
• References
• Supplemental Materials

[h=2]Highlights[/h]

• Multiple lines of evidence support endogeneity of osteocyte-like microstructures in two dinosaurs.
• We show the first binding of bone-specific monoclonal antibody to ‘cells’ of these dinosaurs.
• Four independent lines of evidence support the presence of a component chemically consistent with DNA.
• We propose a novel mechanism for the preservation of these materials over geological time.

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The discovery of soft, transparent microstructures in dinosaur bone consistent in morphology with osteocytes was controversial. We hypothesize that, if original, these microstructures will have molecular features in common with extant osteocytes. We present immunological and mass spectrometry evidence for preservation of proteins comprising extant osteocytes (Actin, Tubulin, PHEX, Histone H4) in osteocytes recovered from two non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. We propose mechanisms for preservation of cells and component molecules, and discuss implications for dinosaurian cellular biology.

 

I will merely present a very partial list of quotations from these paleontologists:

• "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." (Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager)
• "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki)
• "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George)
• "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts – Paleontologist)
• "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – (Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard)
• "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." (Stephen J. Gould, Harvard,Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46)
• "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." – (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University)
• "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Robert L Carroll – Paleontologist)
• "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9)
• "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". (David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History)

The fossil record provides us with no more reason to suppose Darwinian evolution, no more than to suppose that placing teeth under pillows brings the good tooth fairy. Perhaps it is due time to question the theory of evolution!


Meanwhile, theists are accused of believing “creation myths.” However, can the evolutionist say this with a straight face while they have their own creation myth – that everything sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing? Some do!

http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2013/05/darwin-and-growing-gaps-in-fossil-record.html

 

You exist. QED.

 

There are lies, damned lies,statistics, and then way further on, far beyond honesty, there are the quote mines. Like the above.

 

So, 778 posts and NaturalBorn has failed to post any scientific theories to support the model of how he believes the universe came into being and life exists as we observe it today. I'd say this thread was a bust.

 

[h=1]Vital Function Found for Whale 'Leg' Bones[/h][h=2]by Brian Thomas, M.S. *[/h]Resources › Life Sciences Resources › Problems with Evolution

Few animal traits are trotted out as illustrations of evolution as often as the whale’s supposed vestigial hip bones. Defenders of evolution ask why else would a whale, which has no hind limbs, have hip bones unless they are all that remains of an ancient, land-walking, whale ancestor? Recent research has uncovered new details about the critical function of whale hips—details that undermine this key evolutionary argument and confirm divine design.1
Vestigial organs originally referred to useless body parts left over from some ancient evolutionary ancestor. The human appendix has served as a textbook example of a vestigial organ thought to have no current function. Research has since shown that it serves multiple uses in the human digestive and immune systems. A perfectly useful appendix clearly nullifies this argument for evolution.
One by one, researchers have described impressive uses for all of the organs that 19thcentury naturalists thought were vestigial. Will whale hip bones also be erased from evolution arguments?
In the words of a USC news release, researchers from the University of Southern California and others have turned “a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head.”2 The journalEvolution published their new analysis of whale hips, led by USC’s Jim Dines.3
Mark Ridley summarized this long-accepted evolutionary assumption in his college-level textbook Evolution writing, “Why, if whales originated independently of other tetrapods [i.e., if whales were created], should whales use bones that are adapted for limb articulation in order to support their reproductive organs?”4
But this assumes the point in question. Are whale hips indeed adapted—or, rather, designed—for limb articulation and not as support for their reproductive organs? Since the whale “pelvic girdle” does not even link to its spine, legs attached to a whale’s pelvis would only get in the way. This new research shows that whale hips are not designed for limb articulation at all, but for another important job involving God’s command from Genesis to “fill the earth.”
Publishing in the journal Evolution, evolutionary biologists analyzed the sizes of whale reproductive organs, comparing them to whole body and pelvic girdle sizes. They wrote, “Whatever the underlying cause, we hypothesized that species with relatively large [male sexual organs] must have relatively large ischiocavernosus muscles..., which in turn require relatively large pelvic bones to serve as anchors.”3
Scientists have not yet observed how these colossal creatures reproduce, but it stands to reason given the great distance between their eyes and reproductive organs that male whales likely need an extra measure of control during the mating process—and bigger pelvic bones lead to increased control. Mathew Dean, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, co-authored the Evolution report.
Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?
These results show that male whales use pelvis bones that were well crafted for anchoring reproductive organs—not for anchoring limbs. Whale hips are not vestigial.
References

1. Thomas, B. 2012. Ways That Whales Display Their Creator. Acts & Facts. 41 (: 18-19.
2. Perkins, R. Whale Sex: It’s All in the Hips. USC News Release. Posted on pressroom.usc.edu September 8, 2014, accessed September 30, 2014.
3. Dines, J.P. et al. Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones. Evolution. Published online before print, September 3, 2014.
4. Ridley, M. 2004. Evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 60.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on October 6, 2014.

 

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

 

Your quote-mined "evidence" is demonstrablty a tissue of lies.

 

It doesn't matter if someone disproves evolution or not. The bottom line is that there are NO credible theories to take its place. Disproving evolution does not mean God exists.

 

I appreciate your candor, finally. As I have been demonstrating for 32 pages in this thread and a few hundred in the other is evolution can be disproved. It can not be proved

Creation on the other hand can not be disproved and there are scientific evidences that do not verify evolution but do fit into a Creation model. Sheer logic and common sense (or as my Grandmother used to say, "Use the brains God gave you.) make evident which model can not be true.

 

Why use the word "creation" You are putting bias in already. Use intelligent information. Now, the reason there is no data, is simply because materialism denies it as a first step, and sure would ignore anything that smelled like it, for they have already assumed chance, and a great number of them are involved. So intelligence is not accepted, from the get-go. This is what is going on, for its based upon materialism. Yet we have already seen that in physics, they had to leave materialism to classical physics, and discovered something beyond materialism in order to understand as much as they do about the quantum level. Materialism would not work there. But biologists refuse to leave materialism, for atheism is tied at the hip with it. This is the big picture. For this is so imbued, with academic politics that it is holding back science. The good news is, with time, they will move away from a strictly materialistic comprehension, but given the politics of this, it might take a long, long time.

 

His theory, which even some scientists hold is simple. Intelligence and intelligent information was involved not only in the creation of the universe but also life and its evolution. Wait, that may be the theory I feel is not utter nonsense and more sensible than the purely materialistic view of creation and evolution.

 

I have no intention of explaining this for the third time, as you are obviously incapable of understanding and little more than a troll.

 

Like I said...waste of time.

AboveAlpha

 

It is fine for you to "feel" this way...but supplying a minimal level of data to back up the feeling is expected when debating.

 

I.D. is not accepted because there is no possible means of expanding upon it for lack of Data. As with any discarded hypothesis, it fails to meet a minimum required criteria to be studied. Hell...you guys cannot even put a damn name on the subject in order to search for it.

 

There never is scientific evidence from you that has not long been refuted from 25 to 150 years ago. Whatdyagot?

- - - Updated - - -

Where does intelligent information come from in your religious theory of evolution?

 

BTW, I posted a scientific rebuttal to your fairy tale about whales and vestigial pelvis and leg bones. In a debate, you make a claim, then we debate the merits of that claim. What is your response to the fact that they are not vestigial and that there is no scientific proof or logic for a land animal to return to the sea? Your reply is what?

 

had to click view post ...hopefully you know what that means.

 

I have no idea.

 

How about three lines of evidence:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

That vestigial hip bones have acquired a new function in whales does not invalidate the fact that prehistoric whales had hips and legs.

http://www.livescience.com/7564-early-whales-legs.html

 

I believe this should solve any questions:

Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Tribe: Hominini, Genus: Homo, Species: H. sapiens, Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

Can you explain this piece to me or is it just a cut 'n paste? What is a nested hierarchy without Googling it? I doubt it. I'll read it, but you don't even know if it is an opinion piece or a hoax.