Jump to content


Photo

Science 101


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

1. Archeopterix has not been debunked. It is certainly not just a bird.

2. Also I don't know why you think Tiktaalik has been debunked. Tiktaalik isn't even the only organism in the land-animal evolution sequence.

3. No sequences are completely smooth because fossilization is not near perfect, which is why I said generally smooth,

4. however that might be unrealistic for most transitional records if they only include a few fossils.

5. Also evolution is not a line of fossils, but really a bush

6. so while there is a general trend to one kind of form to another, if we discover side branches instead of the trunk, the transitions will look less smooth.

7. So what we should find is a strong correlation between the strata a fossil is found and how similar it is to the recent form that exists today.

8. The best examples are horse evolution and human evolution.

9. Below we see the smooth correlation between brain size and time in human evolution. Posted Image http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2201 Posted Image http://www.geo.arizo...4/00lect13.html



1. Considering that in first year we had an evolutionist lecturer claim that Archopteryx was great evidence of evolution, and then on the last lecture we had a scientist that studies birds for a living come and say that recent evidence has now shown that Archeopteryx is not a transitional, rather a offshoot (dead end) species.



2. Fossil footprints depicting a reptile like gait that are dated millions of years earlier than the earliest Tiktaalik fossil debunks it.. How? It totally mucks up the transition timeline, meaning Tiktaalik and all the other fossils that neatly fitted with Tiktaalik are now out of place... Additionally if land based animals existed before Tiktaalik then the "new niche habitat" selection pressure is waived, as well as the risk of predators which can feast on the struggling transition, (which would not be in the optimal form to resist predators).
Now you could take a positon of blind faith and claim that perhaps they existed earlier than the fossils. Firstly there is no evidence for that, we try and not delve into hypothetical imagination land here so if that is the best evolutionists have to keep Tiktaalik in the game then I can't see how that is science...

3. Care to show some?

4. So you agree they are not smooth or generally smooth?

5. Yet each species does leave "line" of transitional fossils. As per your post #17

"I am talking about where we find a string of fossils that are similar and are on adjascent layers of the fossil record, and form a general smooth continuum from one kind of form to another."

A string of fossils and a general smooth continum can be likened to a "line" yes?

6. Assuming that evolution is true and that there are "side branches" to begin with

7. That is what evolutionists hang their hopes on

8. Really... Horse "evolution" is plagued with problems. First the fossils are located all over the world, meaning either the transitional forms could fly / teleport or that the evolutionist is being really hopeful with his / her data. Secondly each of the transitions have different rib counts sometimes the amount increases between "transitions" sometimes it decreases... Such is not what would be observed if these all came from one another.

9. Brain size doesn't demonstrate a change from chimp-ancestor to humans.

#22 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

The best examples are horse evolution and human evolution. Below we see the smooth correlation between brain size and time in human evolution.


But our brains compared to any other brain on this planet is extremely different.

Humans, for example:

appreciate humor

appreciate beauty

We have self conciousness

Have awareness of death

Have an understanding time

Can make connections between words

Contemplate the meaning of life

We are malleable (wear clothes, build shelters, etc. to suit our needs)

Have a sense of morality (right from wrong)


There are others. I got these from http://realtruth.org...02-science.html

Now without derailing my own thread here, I'd like to get back on topic.

Can you use post #1 (The scientific method) and fit it into your horse brain vs human brain explanation? How about Archeopterix and Tiktaalik?

I

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:25 PM

Can you use post #1 (The scientific method) and fit it into your horse brain vs human brain explanation? How about Archeopterix and Tiktaalik? I


+1

#24 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:50 AM

Hi usafjay ...

There appears to be serious confusion over what "empirical" means compared to "experimental." They are not the same thing.

Empirical evidence is knowledge that we can acquire through the use of our senses. It can involve experimentation or observation. Thus, an Empiricist is someone who believes that the only knowledge we can use to construct reality is that which we derive from our senses - or in other words, the only things that really exist are those we can discover with our senses ... or empirically. This is opposed to Rationalism which contends that our senses can be deceived and therefore the only things that we can confidently use to construct our reality are those that we rationalize or logically deduce in our minds.

Empirical evidence is not the same as experimental evidence but they are often mistakenly considered to be synonymous. The empirical method is the process of collecting data and using that empirical data to create and verify theories. Empirical data can be obtained from observations or from the results of experimentation. I posted a rather lengthy discussion about how observational science works here and apparently it got overlooked.

Experimental evidence is a part of empirical evidence but is much more rigorous in its collection. This is the scientific method of which you refer to in your OP. It is generally used to establish causation. Without experimental evidence causation is difficult to establish conclusively (and even with experimental results causation is still somewhat tentative). However, to repeat, it is not the only reliable way to collect data.

Our senses can deceive us and observational sciences need to recognize this. One way to ensure that a conclusion is justified using observational data is to collect data from multiple sources or approach a problem from different directions. If multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusion is supported. Another important point is that conclusions based on observations should agree with previously established theories until enough evidence is accumulated to require adjustment to the established theory. As a simple example ... are you familiar with Criss Angel? So when I observe him levitate there is no reason to conclude that gravitational theory needs to be re-thought. There is no reason to conclude there is some magical force behind his defiance of gravity. Gravity is so firmly established that even though we observe him defy gravity we know it must be our senses that have been deceived. However, if we observed many people levitating, in all kinds of situations, we may need to rethink the theory and come up with a viable explanation for the phenomenon.

The conclusion of the matter is this: If you think there is insufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution, that is a reasonable position. If your premise is that the evidence for evolution is purely circumstantial, I can understand that. But to say that it is not scientific because it is not experimental science is not a tenable position. I also find it inconsistent that because evolution cannot meet the unrealistically high level of empirical evidence that is demanded, that it should be replaced with theories that have even fewer examples of empirical evidence. Personally, I see this as a matter of where a person sits on the continuum between empiricism and rationalism ... too far towards the empiricism end and one denies the reality of anything outside of our senses; too far towards the rationalism end and one denies the reality of our senses. To find a place somewhere close to the middle of this spectrum is to have the best chance of constructing an accurate view of reality.

HBD

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

Hi usafjay ... There appears to be serious confusion over what "empirical" means compared to "experimental." They are not the same thing. Empirical evidence is knowledge that we can acquire through the use of our senses. It can involve experimentation or observation. Thus, an Empiricist is someone who believes that the only knowledge we can use to construct reality is that which we derive from our senses - or in other words, the only things that really exist are those we can discover with our senses ... or empirically. This is opposed to Rationalism which contends that our senses can be deceived and therefore the only things that we can confidently use to construct our reality are those that we rationalize or logically deduce in our minds. Empirical evidence is not the same as experimental evidence but they are often mistakenly considered to be synonymous. The empirical method is the process of collecting data and using that empirical data to create and verify theories. Empirical data can be obtained from observations or from the results of experimentation. I posted a rather lengthy discussion about how observational science works here and apparently it got overlooked. Experimental evidence is a part of empirical evidence but is much more rigorous in its collection. This is the scientific method of which you refer to in your OP. It is generally used to establish causation. Without experimental evidence causation is difficult to establish conclusively (and even with experimental results causation is still somewhat tentative). However, to repeat, it is not the only reliable way to collect data. Our senses can deceive us and observational sciences need to recognize this. One way to ensure that a conclusion is justified using observational data is to collect data from multiple sources or approach a problem from different directions. If multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusion is supported. Another important point is that conclusions based on observations should agree with previously established theories until enough evidence is accumulated to require adjustment to the established theory. As a simple example ... are you familiar with Criss Angel? So when I observe him levitate there is no reason to conclude that gravitational theory needs to be re-thought. There is no reason to conclude there is some magical force behind his defiance of gravity. Gravity is so firmly established that even though we observe him defy gravity we know it must be our senses that have been deceived. However, if we observed many people levitating, in all kinds of situations, we may need to rethink the theory and come up with a viable explanation for the phenomenon. The conclusion of the matter is this: If you think there is insufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution, that is a reasonable position. If your premise is that the evidence for evolution is purely circumstantial, I can understand that. But to say that it is not scientific because it is not experimental science is not a tenable position. I also find it inconsistent that because evolution cannot meet the unrealistically high level of empirical evidence that is demanded, that it should be replaced with theories that have even fewer examples of empirical evidence. Personally, I see this as a matter of where a person sits on the continuum between empiricism and rationalism ... too far towards the empiricism end and one denies the reality of anything outside of our senses; too far towards the rationalism end and one denies the reality of our senses. To find a place somewhere close to the middle of this spectrum is to have the best chance of constructing an accurate view of reality. HBD


The scientific method requires experimentation, check it out in the OP... This is where the requirement of experimentation comes from.

Biology is an experimental science and this is why it has a higher reputation of "correctness" as opposed to (what I call) "social sciences" like psycology, astronomy etc.

If evolutionists wish to claim evolution as a part of Biology then it needs to fit the rigours that other "theories" and hypotheses of Biology are required to follow. You cannot ask for special circumstances, either its in or its out.

#26 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

The scientific method requires experimentation, check it out in the OP... This is where the requirement of experimentation comes from.


The OP is not the authority on what science requires. I am challenging that position on the grounds that it is incorrect.

Biology is an experimental science and this is why it has a higher reputation of "correctness" as opposed to (what I call) "social sciences" like psycology, astronomy etc. If evolutionists wish to claim evolution as a part of Biology then it needs to fit the rigours that other "theories" and hypotheses of Biology are required to follow. You cannot ask for special circumstances, either its in or its out.


Wrong, for two reasons.

1) Evolution is multi-disciplinary. It draws from disciplines such as paleontology, geology, biology, molecular genetics, cellular biology, developmental biology and ecology. It does not claim to be "a part" of biology but draws from lessons learned in the biological discipline.

2) Observations are can be made in biology that provide viable data. For example, Epifagus americana (beech drops) is found growing on the roots of American beech trees. It can be studied and found that it contains no chlorophyll. It can also be observed growing into the roots of the beech and invading the vascular tissue. The life cycle of the plant can be observed and tissue organization can be observed and it can be determined that this is a angiosperm saprophyte. No experiment needed to draw that conclusion. In order to determine that E. americana grows only on beech roots, one needs to observe many, many instances of E. americana growth and note that it is only found on beech roots.

So it is wrong that experiment is the only way to obtain reliable data.

HBD

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:03 PM

1.The OP is not the authority on what science requires. I am challenging that position on the grounds that it is incorrect.

2. Wrong, for two reasons. 1) Evolution is multi-disciplinary.

3. It draws from disciplines such as paleontology, geology, biology, molecular genetics, cellular biology, developmental biology and ecology.

4. It does not claim to be "a part" of biology but draws from lessons learned in the biological discipline.


5. 2) Observations are can be made in biology that provide viable data. For example, Epifagus americana (beech drops) is found growing on the roots of American beech trees. It can be studied and found that it contains no chlorophyll. It can also be observed growing into the roots of the beech and invading the vascular tissue. The life cycle of the plant can be observed and tissue organization can be observed and it can be determined that this is a angiosperm saprophyte. No experiment needed to draw that conclusion. In order to determine that E. americana grows only on beech roots, one needs to observe many, many instances of E. americana growth and note that it is only found on beech roots. So it is wrong that experiment is the only way to obtain reliable data. HBD


1. The OP gives a diagram stating the scientific method which incorporates its requirement of experimentation, if you disagree with this, (as you have stated) where is your evidence that the scientific method doesn't require experimentation.... In other words can you show a diagram or something which allows the scientific method to contain no experimentation.... Considering that experimentation is key in establishing the falsifiability criteria that is required by science I doubt you could do such a thing...
I am asking you for your evidence, your mere opinion cannot contest the diagram which is something tangible.

2. And?

3. Shakes head.... What do you think Biology is? Genetics is a subset of Biology, ecology is a subset of Biology etc etc etc..

4. Really.... Then why is it cited as a "theory" of Biology... You're in denial if you claim its of Biology but yet not a part of it.

5. ........ Yes observations lead to data, however it doesn't lead to "theories" which is what is being discussed here... You've inadvertently admitted that evolution is not a theory since you've basically claimed it as being interpretations from the observations (which is what it is), such a thing is a hypothesis, (go look at the scientific method, what comes after observation???). It is when the hypothesis is tested via experiment THEN it can be a supported hypothesis, which can then lead on to become a theory.

#28 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

Hi herebedragons,

So are you saying there is no experimental data that proves evolution?

Let's go with observational data. What has been observed in evolution? We don't see it now. We obviously can't see 15 billion years ago. If you want to bring up the fossil record, how does one simply observe the fossil record and come up with, "yep, this evolved into that".? If you say one animal is similar to another, that's mighty big conclusion when it comes to belief in God or evolution.

Your example of Epifagus americana can't be compared to evolution. You can witness (or observe) its current state and draw those conclusions. Was any type of experiment done to find there was no chlorophyll or by mere observation can you tell these beech drops don't contain it?

I'm not arguing that certain aspects of science can be proven with observation. However, evolutionists (not all, mind you) tout evolution as fact. Is everything in evolution based off observation? If not, please provide an example and how it has been proven.

#29 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:33 PM

usafjay, thanks for the reply ...

Your example of Epifagus americana can't be compared to evolution



It wasn't meant to be compared to evolution. It was meant to demonstrate that it was not necessary to use the scientific method to obtain reliable data. Biology is an empirical science but that is different from experimental science and there seems to be confusion about that. That is the first thing that needs to be cleared up is that an experiment is not required to obtain empirical data. Empirical data can be derived through other scientific methods.

Was any type of experiment done to find there was no chlorophyll or by mere observation can you tell these beech drops don't contain it?



Well, yes you can look at them and see that they have no green pigment. You can also cut the tissue into thin enough slices to observe under a microscope. Chlorophyll can be extracted using a solvent like an acetone/ether solution and the pigments analyzed. You could also use molecular techniques like probe for proteins that are involved in chlorophyll. And while these may be referred to in general as "experiments" they are not experiments in the sense of the scientific method or experimental evidence. They fall under the category of observation. Now, if I wanted to demonstrate that beech drops caused the beech trees to grow slower or not as vigorous, then I would need to conduct an experiment. Demonstrating causation is the key to an experiment.

Let's go with observational data. What has been observed in evolution? We don't see it now. We obviously can't see 15 billion years ago.



No, obviously we can't directly observe what happened millions of years ago, so we have to rely on indirect observation. What we need to rely on is that things that have happened in the past left evidence of their existence. Fossils are evidence of creatures that have lived in the past.

how does one simply observe the fossil record and come up with, "yep, this evolved into that".?



That is nothing like how it is done. At best that is an extreme oversimplification of the process.

However, evolutionists (not all, mind you) tout evolution as fact.



Now this part is a bit sticky. You need to understand what most scientists mean when they say "evolution is a fact." The theory of evolution itself is so widely accepted and so strongly supported by evidence that it can be consider a fact. (I am not stating that as a fact, but that is what is meant by "evolution is a fact") Just as the germ theory of disease is considered a fact. However, individual details are NOT considered to be fact. So most evolutionary scientists would not say that whale evolution is a fact, or the transition from fish to reptiles is a fact, etc... Those details are held tentatively as the explanation that best fits the available evidence. Of course there are those that will claim that the whole evolutionary tree is a fact and that every series proposed is a fact - but that's just foolishness.

Is everything in evolution based off observation? If not, please provide an example and how it has been proven.



Here again you are thinking that the only way to prove something scientifically is by experimentation and this is just not the case. First off even with experimentation, proof is elusive. Science doesn't usually consider things to be absolutely proven, but supported by evidence. Observation means more than just looking at something, it means studying it and analyzing it. It is just not experimental science.

I am not trying to be evasive by not giving specific examples of evidence for evolution. This thread is Science 101 or basic science, and I am mainly concerned with clearing up the misconceptions that I have already pointed out. Without clearing those up, there is no way you could accept any evidence for evolution or even understand why scientist accept it as such. I am not really trying to convince you that evolution is true, but maybe after some honest discussion you can at least understand why scientists accept evolution. You seem to me to be genuinely questioning how anyone could believe such unsupported nonsense. And there are good reasons people do, but first ... Science 101 Posted Image

HBD

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:58 PM

usafjay, thanks for the reply ... [/font][/color] It wasn't meant to be compared to evolution. It was meant to demonstrate that it was not necessary to use the scientific method to obtain reliable data. Biology is an empirical science but that is different from experimental science and there seems to be confusion about that. That is the first thing that needs to be cleared up is that an experiment is not required to obtain empirical data. Empirical data can be derived through other scientific methods. Well, yes you can look at them and see that they have no green pigment. You can also cut the tissue into thin enough slices to observe under a microscope. Chlorophyll can be extracted using a solvent like an acetone/ether solution and the pigments analyzed. You could also use molecular techniques like probe for proteins that are involved in chlorophyll. And while these may be referred to in general as "experiments" they are not experiments in the sense of the scientific method or experimental evidence. They fall under the category of observation. Now, if I wanted to demonstrate that beech drops caused the beech trees to grow slower or not as vigorous, then I would need to conduct an experiment. Demonstrating causation is the key to an experiment. No, obviously we can't directly observe what happened millions of years ago, so we have to rely on indirect observation. What we need to rely on is that things that have happened in the past left evidence of their existence. Fossils are evidence of creatures that have lived in the past. That is nothing like how it is done. At best that is an extreme oversimplification of the process. Now this part is a bit sticky. You need to understand what most scientists mean when they say "evolution is a fact." The theory of evolution itself is so widely accepted and so strongly supported by evidence that it can be consider a fact. (I am not stating that as a fact, but that is what is meant by "evolution is a fact") Just as the germ theory of disease is considered a fact. However, individual details are NOT considered to be fact. So most evolutionary scientists would not say that whale evolution is a fact, or the transition from fish to reptiles is a fact, etc... Those details are held tentatively as the explanation that best fits the available evidence. Of course there are those that will claim that the whole evolutionary tree is a fact and that every series proposed is a fact - but that's just foolishness. Here again you are thinking that the only way to prove something scientifically is by experimentation and this is just not the case. First off even with experimentation, proof is elusive. Science doesn't usually consider things to be absolutely proven, but supported by evidence. Observation means more than just looking at something, it means studying it and analyzing it. It is just not experimental science. I am not trying to be evasive by not giving specific examples of evidence for evolution. This thread is Science 101 or basic science, and I am mainly concerned with clearing up the misconceptions that I have already pointed out. Without clearing those up, there is no way you could accept any evidence for evolution or even understand why scientist accept it as such. I am not really trying to convince you that evolution is true, but maybe after some honest discussion you can at least understand why scientists accept evolution. You seem to me to be genuinely questioning how anyone could believe such unsupported nonsense. And there are good reasons people do, but first ... Science 101 Posted Image HBD


What are these other "scientific methods" that lead to empirical evidence? And what are their falsification critera?

(Also why is it that only you have the knowledge of these other methods when no-other person I have come across here or elsewhere or at uni has never mentioned such a thing)

#31 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:46 PM

1. Considering that in first year we had an evolutionist lecturer claim that Archopteryx was great evidence of evolution, and then on the last lecture we had a scientist that studies birds for a living come and say that recent evidence has now shown that Archeopteryx is not a transitional, rather a offshoot (dead end) species.


First, archeopterix does not have be an exact ancestors of birds, it just has to be closely related to an exact ancestor of birds. The evolution of a species is like a bush with many branching species that do not lead to the final form. The below image shows such a model.
Posted Image
What really matters is that there is a general progression from primitive to advanced forms in the general groups of forms. In this bush will be a direct line of species that are direct ancestors of birds. Evolution predicts that among those species in this line and species closely related to the line (species close to this line in branches projecting from this line), there will be a general progression from primitive to advanced forms. So Archy does not have to be a direct ancestor of birds.

2. Fossil footprints depicting a reptile like gait that are dated millions of years earlier than the earliest Tiktaalik fossil debunks it.. How? It totally mucks up the transition timeline, meaning Tiktaalik and all the other fossils that neatly fitted with Tiktaalik are now out of place... Additionally if land based animals existed before Tiktaalik then the "new niche habitat" selection pressure is waived, as well as the risk of predators which can feast on the struggling transition, (which would not be in the optimal form to resist predators). Now you could take a positon of blind faith and claim that perhaps they existed earlier than the fossils. Firstly there is no evidence for that, we try and not delve into hypothetical imagination land here so if that is the best evolutionists have to keep Tiktaalik in the game then I can't see how that is science...


Wait, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik is the first land animal. It could have been descended from the first land animal.

3. Care to show some?


Human evolution fossil record.

4. So you agree they are not smooth or generally smooth?
5. Yet each species does leave "line" of transitional fossils. As per your post #17 "I am talking about where we find a string of fossils that are similar and are on adjascent layers of the fossil record, and form a general smooth continuum from one kind of form to another." A string of fossils and a general smooth continum can be likened to a "line" yes? 6. Assuming that evolution is true and that there are "side branches" to begin with


It depends on the fossil record. Really good fossil records are very smooth although not perfect (human evolution record, horse evolution record). Most other records only have a strong correction between advanced and primitive forms found in the fossil record like in the image:
Posted Image


8. Really... Horse "evolution" is plagued with problems. First the fossils are located all over the world, meaning either the transitional forms could fly / teleport or that the evolutionist is being really hopeful with his / her data. Secondly each of the transitions have different rib counts sometimes the amount increases between "transitions" sometimes it decreases... Such is not what would be observed if these all came from one another.


There are these fossils all over the world because there was a land bridge from Asia to North America. Rib count difference doesn't say nothing much. There is nothing unexpected that a few traits of an organism might vary as it evolves. Also, remember that evolution is like a bush, so they might not be directly related to each other.

9. Brain size doesn't demonstrate a change from chimp-ancestor to humans.


When we see these brain size changes along with skulls that become more and more human-like, then there is almost no doubt that they evolved.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:19 AM

1. First, archeopterix does not have be an exact ancestors of birds, it just has to be closely related to an exact ancestor of birds. The evolution of a species is like a bush with many branching species that do not lead to the final form.

2. What really matters is that there is a general progression from primitive to advanced forms in the general groups of forms. In this bush will be a direct line of species that are direct ancestors of birds.

3. Evolution predicts that among those species in this line and species closely related to the line (species close to this line in branches projecting from this line), there will be a general progression from primitive to advanced forms.

4. Wait, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik is the first land animal. It could have been descended from the first land animal.

5. There are these fossils all over the world because there was a land bridge from Asia to North America. Rib count difference doesn't say nothing much. There is nothing unexpected that a few traits of an organism might vary as it evolves.

6. Also, remember that evolution is like a bush, so they might not be directly related to each other.


1. Really, so you admit that its an offshoot dead end species.

"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have hadtremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11) becauseof a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact thata ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysicalimpossibility (12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorialorigin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic,temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occursome 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliestknown bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and moresuperficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous.There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical featuresused to ally birds and dinosaurs have beendisputed."- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.


2. Such as? Since archeopteryx started the entire line of thinking about dinosaur to bird transitions therefore if the foundation of that idea is demonstrated to be false then on what grounds is it still perpetuated?

3. So what is this progression? It should also be able to demonstrate the processess of adaption that lead from one form to another, something that is being increasingly difficult regarding the avian lung design. If you cannot demonstrate how it changes, or if the complexity of the changes render it impossible by what logic can evolution be claimed to have occured?

4. Did you not say this

"Also I don't know why you think Tiktaalik has been debunked. Tiktaalik isn't even the only organism in the land-animal evolution sequence." - posst #20


Talkorigins claims its a transitional form meaning it descended from FISH not the first land animal.. The Polish footprints demonstrate that its not a transitional form since land dwellers existed before it. You're now positing that somehow life "evolved" out of the ocean went up onto land and then started to evolve back to dwelling in the ocean resulting in Tiktaalik?

5. And? Doesn't it strike you as suss that bones used from different localities are used to claim a progression from one to the other? Actually how can it be logically claimed that one progressed from the other when they live in totally different areas? As I said, you'd need to assume that these animals could fly or teleport or something.

What this is an example of is enthusiastic evolutionist trying to "find" evidence which just isn't there. You cannot claim that one form progressed to another since there is just too much distance, additionally over time the continents would not be joined.

The different rib numbers indicate that these fossils are actually individual species rather than a transition from one to another, since if they were related then a benign trait such as rib count shouldn't change since therewould be no environmental selection for such.... Just hand waving the contradictory evidence away isn't being scientific.

6. So this allows for the contradictions seen?

#33 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

1. Really, so you admit that its an offshoot dead end species.


I never claimed that archy was an exact ancestor of birds, only that it is closely related to them. Where is the problem?


"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have hadtremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11)


Well, at least 16 years ago they did.


becauseof a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact thata ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysicalimpossibility


What exactly is a ground-up origin of flight?

(12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorialorigin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic,temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occursome 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliestknown bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and moresuperficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous.


Any examples?

There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical featuresused to ally birds and dinosaurs have beendisputed."- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.


Like what?

2. Such as? Since archeopteryx started the entire line of thinking about dinosaur to bird transitions therefore if the foundation of that idea is demonstrated to be false then on what grounds is it still perpetuated?


Why do you say it is false? If archy is closely related to the ancestors of birds, then what exactly is false here?


3. So what is this progression? It should also be able to demonstrate the processess of adaption that lead from one form to another, something that is being increasingly difficult regarding the avian lung design. If you cannot demonstrate how it changes, or if the complexity of the changes render it impossible by what logic can evolution be claimed to have occured?


So what? We do not have to show how every single body part of an organism evolved to know that it did evolve.

4. Did you not say this "Also I don't know why you think Tiktaalik has been debunked. Tiktaalik isn't even the only organism in the land-animal evolution sequence." - posst #20 Talkorigins claims its a transitional form meaning it descended from FISH not the first land animal.. The Polish footprints demonstrate that its not a transitional form since land dwellers existed before it. You're now positing that somehow life "evolved" out of the ocean went up onto land and then started to evolve back to dwelling in the ocean resulting in Tiktaalik?


What if it was descended from both? Tiktaalik is closely descended from the first land animals, which was closely descended from fish, therefore tiktaalik was descended from fish.

5. And? Doesn't it strike you as suss that bones used from different localities are used to claim a progression from one to the other? Actually how can it be logically claimed that one progressed from the other when they live in totally different areas? As I said, you'd need to assume that these animals could fly or teleport or something. What this is an example of is enthusiastic evolutionist trying to "find" evidence which just isn't there. You cannot claim that one form progressed to another since there is just too much distance, additionally over time the continents would not be joined.


Give me an example in horse evolution where one species is claimed to have been descended from another where one lives in a totally different location from the other.


The different rib numbers indicate that these fossils are actually individual species rather than a transition from one to another, since if they were related then a benign trait such as rib count shouldn't change since therewould be no environmental selection for such.... Just hand waving the contradictory evidence away isn't being scientific. 6. So this allows for the contradictions seen?


When an animal evolves, this does not mean everything in its body is evolving in one direction. Some body parts are evolving in one constant direction, while others vary.

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:02 PM

I never claimed that archy was an exact ancestor of birds, only that it is closely related to them. Where is the problem?




Well, at least 16 years ago they did.




What exactly is a ground-up origin of flight?



Any examples?



Like what?



Why do you say it is false? If archy is closely related to the ancestors of birds, then what exactly is false here?




So what? We do not have to show how every single body part of an organism evolved to know that it did evolve.



What if it was descended from both? Tiktaalik is closely descended from the first land animals, which was closely descended from fish, therefore tiktaalik was descended from fish.



Give me an example in horse evolution where one species is claimed to have been descended from another where one lives in a totally different location from the other.




When an animal evolves, this does not mean everything in its body is evolving in one direction. Some body parts are evolving in one constant direction, while others vary.


Then it's not a transition fossil.

Actually the difficulty is quite recent, when I get home to my computer it will be easier to get examples.

You don't know? I suggest you do some homework first. Perhaps this is why you don't realise it's been debunked.

Examples will be given when I get home.

Because you are assuming a link who,h is now not there. Pray tell what these other transitions are aside from Archy.

One would be more than what you have now, it would be a start at least

Sigh, in order to claim that you are presupposing evolution is true...

Examples will be given

You are missing the point, there is no selection pressure for the ribs to change therefore under the tenets of evolution there shouldn't be any change, unless you make additional assumptions forcing me to use occams razor.

#35 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:33 PM

Then it's not a transition fossil.


"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group." - Wikipedia

There is no reason the fossil has to be directly ancestral to the modern forms.

You don't know? I suggest you do some homework first. Perhaps this is why you don't realise it's been debunked.


I am not the one who posted the quote, it was you. When giving me am argument, please use words I understand, so I don't have to search the internet for every reference you make. I am not the brightest guy in the world.

Because you are assuming a link who,h is now not there.


The problem here is the archy is older than birds, and has transitional feature, therefore it is a transitional form.


Pray tell what these other transitions are aside from Archy.


Well, there is also micro-raptor.

One would be more than what you have now, it would be a start at least


I can show that all of them evolved. I do this by showing that evolution's predictions are confirmed in our genetic code and the fossil record, so therefore evolution is most likely true. Therefore, our organs evolved.

Sigh, in order to claim that you are presupposing evolution is true...


I am not presupposing evolution is true. All I am saying is that IF Tiktaalik descended from the first land animals, and IF the first land animals were descended from fish, Tiktaalik descended from fish.

You are missing the point, there is no selection pressure for the ribs to change therefore under the tenets of evolution there shouldn't be any change, unless you make additional assumptions forcing me to use occams razor.


How do you know there are no selection pressures for the ribs to change? That is an assumption.

#36 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

First, archeopterix does not have be an exact ancestors of birds, it just has to be closely related to an exact ancestor of birds. The evolution of a species is like a bush with many branching species that do not lead to the final form. The below image shows such a model. Posted Image What really matters is that there is a general progression from primitive to advanced forms in the general groups of forms.


You don't even have that much. Here's why:

Posted Image

(A thru F) are Australopithecines. (D thru F) are classified as Habilines, but the taxonomic classification is tentative. Faulty and biased reconstructions gave them a more human-like flat face, which also placed them in the genus Autralopithicus (htt://www.trueoriging.org/skull1470.asp) (G) is H. georgicus. It has no characteristics that can placfe it in the genus homo, although paleoanthropologists are cherry picking features to try and place it as intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. (H thru N) are conclusively in the genus Homo and included Homo sapiens neanderthelensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens, all of which are variations within our own species.

#37 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

You don't even have that much. Here's why: Posted Image (A thru F) are Australopithecines. (D thru F) are classified as Habilines, but the taxonomic classification is tentative.


Yes it is. It is difficult to divide a general continuum of skulls into two distinct groups: homo and autralopithecus.

Faulty and biased reconstructions gave them a more human-like flat face, which also placed them in the genus Autralopithicus


Which species exactly are being given faulty facial constructions?


(htt://www.trueoriging.org/skull1470.asp) (G) is H. georgicus. It has no characteristics that can placfe it in the genus homo, although paleoanthropologists are cherry picking features to try and place it as intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus.


Then why do creationists argue that it is human? Gish, a creationist author accepted this fossil as human but later reversed his opinion. The braincase is 750 ccs, far too large to be an ape. It is also far too rounded. Creationist, Lubenow claimed that it was fully human.
http://www.talkorigi.../a_habilis.html

When you provide long sources, please provide a bit more detail so back up your claims a bit more in writing.

(H thru N) are conclusively in the genus Homo and included Homo sapiens neanderthelensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens, all of which are variations within our own species.


Here is a homo Hedelbergensis skull:
Posted Image

Are you sure this is human?
here is homo Rhodesiensis:
Posted Image
Here is a neanderthal skull:
Posted Image
This face is a lot more human-like than the last two, but still not quite human.
Just compare these to a human skull:
Posted Image
Even aboriginese with extreme skulls are more human-like than any of these:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Another point is that we actually have neanderthal genes and they are way different than human DNA.
Posted Image
The Green is human human differences, the red is human neanderthal differences, and the blue is human chimp differences.
http://www.talkorigi...homs/mtDNA.html

#38 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:53 AM

There is quite some variety among humans, just like other species. Broader variety in the past should be considered a possibility.

#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:51 AM

There is quite some variety among humans, just like other species. Broader variety in the past should be considered a possibility.


Exactly, its the same with dogs, they have many different shapes and sizes. What are the odds that if these different skulls were put to evolutionary standards that they would show "many different species" despite only being the one.

There is no way that an evolutionist can claim for sure that each is not just a variant of the same species

#40 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:53 AM

Actually dogs and modern humans have very low genetic variability compared to other species.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users