Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity


(George) #401


There must be some confusion here… one generated completely by you.

I have NEVER said that mammals dont exist as fossils.

I have said, and have said frequently:

There are ZERO fossils of large mammals (i.e. lions, tigers, bears [oh my!], elephants, buffalo, zebra) in any of the same rock levels Evolutionist predict would be empty of them - - because dinosaurs had to go extinct before large mammals could evolve to populate the ecological niches left empty by dinosaur extinctions!

The corollary to this irrefutable truth is that large mammals appear relatively suddenly in the fossil stack!..preceded ONLY by smaller and less well adapted versions of the mammals we know today!

(Greg) #402

That was not AIG. that was kurt wise. I would never expect to find a horse like the one today in the fossil record from over 4000 yrs ago. Neither would wise. We both believe that animals created by God change and adapt rapidly by design…eg. new species of finch in galapagos in last 30 yrs. You continually apply judgement upon me using the measure that you and not i abide by. You are a naturalist. I am a creationist. All Christians are creationists.


The point is that those aren’t real fossils according to your model. They were rocks made to look like animals and plants by God.

Rocks are old and young since geology is continuous. There are old people and young people. Old rocks that are reheated and reworked can have polonium move through them and create polonium halos, which appears to be the mechanism at work in those examples.


If our fossil collections are complete, why are people finding new fossil species every year?


Because they are looking for them?

(Greg) #406

I never accused u of this. I was not even addressing you unless you are the one speaking words by another name which i have a hunch is very possible.
This hour long seminar by wise addresses the fossil record. I dont think it answers all questions to satisfy a creationist model, but sure does throw a whole lot of water on the naturalistic macro evolutionary fire. It seems that mainstream scientists are so busy proving what they assume in naturalistic evolution while writing off all creationists that they never bother to hear out great thinkers like Wise on certain details of things like the fossil record that may be damaging to the accepted norm. The question becomes, "Are people interested to truly discover an alternative point of view that may have some common sense truth that counters their view or are we all set to believe what we want to believe and nothing more. I watched this several wks ago and can only assume that the research by wise is good:

(Timothy Horton) #407

You linked to an AIG web page. That means AIG endorses the claim.

(facepalm) The Wise article you provided said 99% of living mammal species are found in the fossil record. Now you are directly contradicting yourself and saying you would never expect to find that.

You want to think on it for awhile and come back when you make up your mind?


The problem is that what Wise claims simply isn’t true.

Let’s just look at our Hominidae branch of the tree of life. We have Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A. anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo naledi, and probably more that I am forgetting elsewhere in the ape branch. There are only 8 living species in Hominidae, and we are already well above that in fossil species. How do you explain this?

(Timothy Horton) #409

Sorry but from the huge amount of disinformation Wise is providing he’s either hopelessly incompetent or deliberately lying. The fossil record shows a clear branching nested heirarchy over deep time indicitaive of common descent. The same pattern is independently confirmed in the genetic record. For almost every mammal species alive today we can trace its ancestry back many tens of millions of years through dozens of transitional species. Here is a partial tree of elephant ancestry known from the fossil record

For extinct lineages of dinosaurs we can build a tree spanning over a hundred million years. Here is one for sauropods

Wise / YEC can’t explain ANY of the patterns seen in the physical evidence. That makes his claims wrong.


like this finding?:

“The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #411

Perhaps new ones are being put into the ground for us to find?

(Greg) #412

That is REALLY easy. God created man in His image. And God created apes and monkeys that are not in His image. He drew a fine line between the ape family and human family where, surprise, those on that side of the line are apes and those on the other are human. We dont have the grounds to say which ones God considers human and ape minus archaelogical evidence associated w certain groups such as ceremonies, burials, high intelligence and communication skills, use of fire etc.

You assume they are all related bc u presuppose human evolution fr monkey like creatures.

If humans where 99.9 percent like an Ape in genetics which they are not…but lets assume this be the case- This does not give one single shred of legitimate grounds to proclaim that they both evolved from some lower species. I dont have grounds in and of myself to proclaim that they did not evolve either. But I trust Another who says that human kind was created By Him in His image, male and female! You have faith that they evolved. I have faith that Humans were created directly by God. We are all quite religious whether we think of ourselves in this way or not!

I will add: the greatest form of human decency is honoring all people from all races as equals. Equally human, equally loved by God, and all family members from a single pair of human beings, Adam and Eve.

The creationist belief that undergirds such a value system does not compare to a belief system that the human race evolved from ape like creatures. Evolutionary beliefs first dont substantiate the level of value on human kind…yeah, one can spin it and all but humans see thru spin. And if we evolved via mutation, then there is always an excuse lingering for looking down ones nose at another for the color of their skin…or to give self a pass for irresponsible behavior in thoughts like,“my genetic make up made me do it.”

I believe we are all made in God s image with value. We are all subjects of the fall of man where we are bent towards bad not good. And God who created us under Adam offers recreation in the “better Adam” Jesus Christ and all we have to do is admit our imperfection and bend towards disobeying Him, agree to a battle against such disobedience and receive the greatest gift of salvation from the penalities of sin and the greatest gift of God Himself, God who is,best defined as “Love.”

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #413

Please tell us what the fine line between the ape family and the human family is.

Human or Ape?



How do you explain the numbers of transitional fossils?

Then what genetic evidence would you need to see to accept common ancestry between humans and other ape species? Or is your belief impervious to scientific evidence?

I fully agree that the theory of evolution can’t tell us how to be moral or treat others. Neither can the theory of gravity. I don’t see how that changes the veracity of either theory.

There are people who believe the Earth is flat. Stubbornly, the Earth remains round.

(Greg) #415

How can one truly decipher from some fossil fragments the intention of God? Do you understand what i suggest? If one finds a skull that looks to be a predecessor of humankind that is slightly different than humans today, how do you say science tells you that God s intention was that this is not fully human, a fully created being in the image of God? You might BELIEVE that this is below human, a sort of prehuman ape, but science cannot declare Gods intention. I fully embrace micro adaptation of kinds that God created. I fully expect even human form to change where if i see a human form in the fossil record in a community where there is use of fire and burial of their dead, i assume human.

And i have read the studies on genetic similarities and differences betw ape and human. This does not give the grounds to suggest that the are related in the evolutionary tree. Constrast the average ape in its scope to humans today. Humans went to the moon. Monkeys use sticks to pic termites out of tree stumps to eat. Humans write poetry and see beauty in things. Monkeys like bananas and will fight for domain of groves of banana trees.

Ive said this before many times: i have heard it over and over that God is not allowed into historical science bc we cannot decifer the nature of God, therefore leave Him out. However, at the same time, the scientist chooses a just as subjective philiosophy in the history of existence in abiding by naturalism that MUST always conclude that man evolved fr ape like creature.
There is no other choice…right? Historical science has been so overcome by the church of darwin that the average scientist today cannot even recognize that this subjective stance is not really truly interested to arrive at determining objective truth of our existence but rather to prove what was already predetermined and indoctrinated into our minds that materialistic naturalism is ultimate.

So you seem to lean towards the church of darwin.

I choose to lean towards the church described by Scripture that describes a single God with a triune nature.

With your belief, you will have to scratch your head about how the universe got its start because mass energy has to have a beginning.

I know the Cause of the arrival of mass energy, our Creator who exists outside of the natural.

Neo darwinian universal common decent evolutionism fully embraces full throttle hyper atheism without one single doubt in my mind. You are not an atheist in the full sense of this description, so logically you should allow intelligence to remain an option in conclusions by historical science about our existence and when and if you do, you will be amazed about what you will see!

(Greg) #416

Is that your baby pic? Sorry, could not resist


If I am reading this correctly, it doesn’t appear that any scientific evidence will change your mind. Is that correct?

Then what would?

There is nothing in science that forces us to conclude common ancestry no matter what the evidence looks like. It just so happens that there is mountains of evidence for common ancestry.

What makes it subjective? Why use the phrase “Church of Darwin”?

No more so than every other theory in science, most of which you accept.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #418

No, but it is a baby picture of someone in your genealogy.

(Timothy Horton) #419

As I know I’ve pointed out to you before, humans and chimps are more genetically close to each other than tigers are to house cats. Yet Creationists have no problems accepting tigers and house cats share a common feline ancestor. You love to ignore evidence you don’t like.

(Greg) #420

And i hear evolutionists say that they believe that natural selection of random mutations over millions of yrs can result in the construction of radically complex bio machines. So before such a scientist calls me out for my beliefs that God created humans in his image on a single day and on another day created ape like creatures that are not in His image, first i ask them to look in the mirror at how subjective belief guides them.

The belief system that a materialistic evolutionist carries is that it is possible that nature can take randomness and ultimately result in humankind that has blood circulation systems, nervous systems, digestive systems, and a mentality that longs in appreciation of beauty, song, poetry, love.

The belief system that creationist carries is that the end result of such humankind is as designed and created by God who made them like Him in the ways that appreciate beauty as if reflects His glory!

You choose the former belief. I choose the latter. You see common genetics between chimps and humans as proof that we are related in a tree. I see common genetics between chimps and humans as the way God intended them to be created.

As far as similar genetics betw chimps and humans, i have heard it said of theistic evolutionists that God would be a deceiver if such evidence is available and chimps and humans are not related in an evolutionary tree. I have demonstrated from the very texts of scripture that this judgement is completely unjustifiable as Scripture clearly teaches that God has given words to describe things and has clearly used circumstances whereby He tests His people to see how much they trust Him at His Word or trust subjective accessment that counters Him. Even the gospel itself totally caught God’s people, the Jews, largely off guard because of false expectations . The Messiah they expected was determined in their minds to be of a type most immediately politically beneficial to them for their difficulties w the Romans. They took a handful of verses out of context to build a case that the Messiah would arrive on earth as a conquering King…And He will be at His second coming…but first as prophecied by prophets Isaiah and David and others, He came as a suffering servant to save the world from our sin problem and to be an example of humility.

Was God deceitful to His people to have created such a layout of history. NO! His people deceived themselves by cherrypicking scripture to adapt to their sense of things and it caused them to miss the most important treasure in all of life, their Messiah! I would suggest that just as the Israelites missed the One sent to recreate them by grace, so theistic evolutionists miss the Creator by the same set of false assumptions.