Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


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

#161 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

Why does a transitional fossil have to fully formed to be evidence for evolution? The process of fossilization is imperfect and must of the time most or part of a fossil will degrade. In fact fully formed fossils are pretty rare. We do see a lot of fossils that are 80%, 90%, 95%, or 99% complete.


Let me be more specific. I'm looking for something that scientifically proves evolution occurred in regards to the fossil record. If it has been proven, I would like to know how. Was it just observation? Were experiments conducted? If so, what kind? Have tests been conducted? What kind of tests?

#162 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:20 PM

Let me be more specific. I'm looking for something that scientifically proves evolution occurred in regards to the fossil record. If it has been proven, I would like to know how. Was it just observation? Were experiments conducted? If so, what kind? Have tests been conducted? What kind of tests?


If you are looking for proof of evolution through the fossil record, you are going to be disappointed. In fact if you exclusively look for proof in science in general you are going to be disappointed. Science involves collecting evidence that increases your confidence that a scientific idea is true. So while theory A may not be proven by its evidence, its evidence allows us a 99% confidence the idea is true. In fact, it is rare that any one piece of evidence will make us very highly confident that a theory is true. It is the accumulation of evidence that increases this confidence.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and makes predictions about the natural world. If we confirm these predictions, the theory is strengthened. Now sometimes these predictions are confirmed in such as way with such specificity that it makes us almost 100% confident the theory is true, and is almost like a proof, but these cases are rare. Usually we have to accumulate confirmed predictions. The theory of evolution predicts a general continuum of fossils from primitive to more advanced forms. When the fossil record does this, fossil by fossil, this only increases our confidence in the theory of evolution, but does not prove it.

#163 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

If you are looking for proof of evolution through the fossil record, you are going to be disappointed. In fact if you exclusively look for proof in science in general you are going to be disappointed. Science involves collecting evidence that increases your confidence that a scientific idea is true. So while theory A may not be proven by its evidence, its evidence allows us a 99% confidence the idea is true. In fact, it is rare that any one piece of evidence will make us very highly confident that a theory is true. It is the accumulation of evidence that increases this confidence. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and makes predictions about the natural world. If we confirm these predictions, the theory is strengthened. Now sometimes these predictions are confirmed in such as way with such specificity that it makes us almost 100% confident the theory is true, and is almost like a proof, but these cases are rare. Usually we have to accumulate confirmed predictions. The theory of evolution predicts a general continuum of fossils from primitive to more advanced forms. When the fossil record does this, fossil by fossil, this only increases our confidence in the theory of evolution, but does not prove it.


What PREdictions are made by evolution? Keep in mind that a prediction is made before the discovery


(Most of the "predictions" I hear evolutionists touting are made ad hoc, meaning they are not predictions, rather just observations that have been assimulated by the evolution paradigm)

#164 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:31 PM

Without sounding like a broken record, I would also like to hear what predictions have been made.

I disagree about what you said regarding science. you stated

In fact if you exclusively look for proof in science in general you are going to be disappointed


There are plenty of laws and facts that support science. However, evolution defies laws in regards to abiogenesis (something came from nothing, that something somehow exploded, and 15 billion years later, here we are).

No instances of life coming from non life. The evidence in the fossil record is disappointing (your words). However, you then state that evidence gives us 99% confidence that it is true. If there is no proof or explanation for abiogenesis, no explanation to why the big bang decided to 'boom', and the fossil record is disappointing (I'm assuming you mean as evidence for evolution), then what is the kicker that makes evolutionists stick with the theory?

#165 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 06:40 PM

Without sounding like a broken record, I would also like to hear what predictions have been made. I disagree about what you said regarding science. you stated There are plenty of laws and facts that support science. However, evolution defies laws in regards to abiogenesis (something came from nothing, that something somehow exploded, and 15 billion years later, here we are). No instances of life coming from non life. The evidence in the fossil record is disappointing (your words). However, you then state that evidence gives us 99% confidence that it is true. If there is no proof or explanation for abiogenesis, no explanation to why the big bang decided to 'boom', and the fossil record is disappointing (I'm assuming you mean as evidence for evolution), then what is the kicker that makes evolutionists stick with the theory?


Abiogenesis also defies the character of molecules, that being chriality. Chriality essentially destroys any hope of DNA / Proteins / RNA forming naturally.

#166 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:28 PM

What PREdictions are made by evolution? Keep in mind that a prediction is made before the discovery (Most of the "predictions" I hear evolutionists touting are made ad hoc, meaning they are not predictions, rather just observations that have been assimulated by the evolution paradigm)


I know we are discussing a prediction in another thread all ready. Another prediction evolution makes is that we should find hominid fossils, and that is something that is confirmed.

#167 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:30 PM

Without sounding like a broken record, I would also like to hear what predictions have been made. I disagree about what you said regarding science. you stated There are plenty of laws and facts that support science. However, evolution defies laws in regards to abiogenesis (something came from nothing, that something somehow exploded, and 15 billion years later, here we are). No instances of life coming from non life. The evidence in the fossil record is disappointing (your words). However, you then state that evidence gives us 99% confidence that it is true. If there is no proof or explanation for abiogenesis, no explanation to why the big bang decided to 'boom', and the fossil record is disappointing (I'm assuming you mean as evidence for evolution), then what is the kicker that makes evolutionists stick with the theory?


Abiogenesis and the big bang are not evolution. I never said that the evidence in the fossil record is disappointing. In fact there is a lot of it.

#168 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 05:24 AM

Abiogenesis and the big bang are not evolution. I never said that the evidence in the fossil record is disappointing. In fact there is a lot of it.


Umm isn't it a popular evolutionist claim to state that "everything in Biology makes sense in light of evolution"... Isn't abiogenesis a part of Biology???.... Oops

#169 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:52 AM

Umm isn't it a popular evolutionist claim to state that "everything in Biology makes sense in light of evolution"... Isn't abiogenesis a part of Biology???.... Oops

Yeah, "oops"... if "makes sense in light of" meant "is part of the theory of", which it doesn't so maybe not.
Abiogenesis is in the gray zone between biology and chemistry, whether one considers it part of biology or chemistry would depend on one's point of view and the specific study under consideration.

#170 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 12:04 PM

Yeah, "oops"... if "makes sense in light of" meant "is part of the theory of", which it doesn't so maybe not. Abiogenesis is in the gray zone between biology and chemistry, whether one considers it part of biology or chemistry would depend on one's point of view and the specific study under consideration.


As Ron would say without abiogenesis then evolution has no begining meaning its actually moot. Well at least for the naturalist / atheist evolutionists, they'd simply posit magic caused life to form, whereas at least the Religiously inclined evolutionists can claim God (or similar) as creating life.

#171 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:08 PM

As Ron would say without abiogenesis then evolution has no begining meaning its actually moot. Well at least for the naturalist / atheist evolutionists, they'd simply posit magic caused life to form, whereas at least the Religiously inclined evolutionists can claim God (or similar) as creating life.

Exactly. Abiogenesis can be an issue for atheism, but it isn't an issue for evolution.

#172 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

Exactly. Abiogenesis can be an issue for atheism, but it isn't an issue for evolution.


Then as an atheist you have an issue

#173 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:22 AM

The bat video he provided is a fully developed ('evolved') bat! At least from his perspective. Not only so but the question about nourishment for the bats offspring BEFORE the mammary glands developed goes unanswered. But that problem goes for all other mammals that provide milk for their young. How did the offspring possibly survive before those mammary glands supposdedly evolved? So we have bats in the fossil record. We have rats in the fossil record; but no bat/rats! ....


They try to solve (get around) the problem in this way:

The oldest fossilised bats ever discovered have given palaeontologists an unprecedented insight into the flying mammals' evolution. The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation.

"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said Dr Nancy Simmons at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was part of the team. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."

Scientists have wrestled with three alternative theories for the evolution of bats: flight evolved before echolocation; echolocation came before flight; or both happened in parallel. The new pair of fossils - which date from around 52.5m years ago - resolve the issue.

"There has been much debate about how bats evolved, because there were no specimens to address this issue," said Dr Kevin Seymour at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. "Now the combination of features seen in this species finally gives us an answer: that flying evolved first and echolocation must have evolved later."

Fluttering and gliding

The wing bones clearly show that the animal was capable of a combination of fluttering and gliding flight. But its ear bones are not enlarged like those of modern bats, which use them as part of their echolocation system.

The first fossil was discovered in August 2003 in a quarry in Lincoln County, Wyoming, but the full scientific description appears for the first time in tomorrow's issue of Nature. The species (dubbed Onychonycteris finneryi) is so odd that it has been placed in a new taxonomic family. Its name means "clawed bat" with a nod to the fossil's discoverer Bonnie Finney.

O. finneryi - which is around 12 centimetres from nose to tail - has claws on all five of its fingers. Modern bats have claws on only one or two digits of each hand. Its limb proportions are also unusual, with longer hind legs and shorter forearms than other bats. The researchers believe it was well adapted for climbing in the canopy.

One unanswered question is how O. finneryi could have flown without being able to echolocate. Also writing in Nature, physiologist Prof John Speakman of the University of Aberdeen speculates that the earliest bats were day-fliers who used their eyes to navigate.

"[They] were perhaps forced to become nocturnal by the appearance of avian predators, shortly after the dinosaurs became extinct around 65m years ago. Some then evolved echolocation, whereas others became nocturnal vision specialists."

http://www.guardian....3/bat.evolution



#174 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:01 AM

I just found this LOL thing typed in 'evolution valinomycin' and this came up

Was almost crying with laughter at it ahahahahahaha

http://www.ncbi.nlm....books/NBK26849/

#175 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:07 AM

Sorry cant edit post for some reason


The early fermentation processes would have provided not only the ATP but also the reducing power (as NADH or NADPH) required for essential biosyntheses. Thus, many of the major metabolic pathways could have evolved while fermentation was the only mode of energy production. With time, however, the metabolic activities of these procaryotic organisms must have changed the local environment, forcing organisms to evolve new biochemical pathways. The accumulation of waste products of fermentation, for example, might have resulted in the following series of changes:


  • Stage 1. The continuous excretion of organic acids lowered the pH of the environment, favoring the evolution of proteins that function as transmembrane H+ pumps that can pump H+ out of the cell to protect it from the dangerous effects of intracellular acidification. One of these pumps may have used the energy available from ATP hydrolysis and could have been the ancestor of the present-day ATP synthase.

  • Stage 2. At the same time as nonfermentable organic acids were accumulating in the environment and favoring the evolution of an ATP-consuming H+ pump, the supply of geochemically generated fermentable nutrients, which provided the energy for the pumps and for all other cellular processes, was dwindling (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH WHY?????) . This favored bacteria that could excrete H+ without hydrolyzing ATP, allowing the ATP to be conserved for other cellular activities. Selective pressures of this kind might have led to the firstmembrane-bound proteins that could use electron transport between molecules of different redox potentials as the energy source for transporting H+ across the plasma membrane. Some of these proteins would have found their electron donors and electron acceptors among the nonfermentable organic acids that had accumulated. Many such electron-transport proteins can be found in present-day bacteria; some bacteria that grow on formic acid, for example, pump H+ by using the small amount of redox energy derived from the transfer of electrons from formic acid to fumarate (Figure 14-65). Others have similar electron-transport components devoted solely to the oxidation and reduction of inorganic substrates (see Figure 14-67, for example).

  • Stage 3. Eventually some bacteria developed H+-pumping electron-transport systems that were efficient enough to harness more redox energy than they needed just to maintain their internal pH. Now, bacteria that carried both types of H+ pumps were at an advantage (lmao). In these cells, a large electrochemical proton gradient generated by excessive H+ pumping allowed protons to leak back into the cell through the ATP-driven H+ pumps, thereby running them in reverse, so that they functioned as ATP synthases to make ATP. Because such bacteria required much less of the increasingly scarce supply of fermentable nutrients, they proliferated at the expense of their neighbors.


#176 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:50 AM

Exactly. Abiogenesis can be an issue for atheism, but it isn't an issue for evolution.


Evolution is just as big a problem for atheists as Abiogenesis because NEITHER has a logical materialistic origin. They BOTH beg the question "From WHERE did they come?
  • MarkForbes likes this

#177 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:55 AM

Abiogenesis and the big bang are not evolution. I never said that the evidence in the fossil record is disappointing. In fact there is a lot of it.


Nor is evolution abiogenesis or the big bang, just as the big bang is not evolution or abiogenesis (etc...) but they ALL have the same materialistic logical and scientific problem: From where did they come? Atheistic reasoning has NO explanation that leads to a logical OR scientific answer. Therefore ALL THREE are conundrums!
  • gilbo12345 and MarkForbes like this

#178 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

What PREdictions are made by evolution? Keep in mind that a prediction is made before the discovery (Most of the "predictions" I hear evolutionists touting are made ad hoc, meaning they are not predictions, rather just observations that have been assimulated by the evolution paradigm)


The meaning of "prediction" is mostly twisted. The prediction the evolutionists talk about on a daily basis has almost nothing to do with the true predictability of science. Science has the characteristic of predictability is all because the subjects of scientific research are repeatable behaviors. They are repeatable behaviors such that they can be predictable. For example, you can always predict that water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, because first this is a repeatable behavior, and second this behavior is governed by a formula. Science in a stricter sense, is always about something repeatable while following a set of rules (i.e. a formula) to repeat. It's because the repeating behavior following rules, that we can apply the rules before hand to foretell how the behaviors repeat. This is the predictability of science. At the same time, it comes with the falsifiability of science. That is, if you follow your developed set of rules to try to predict a repeating behavior but failed, it then simultaneously means that there's a problem in your set of rules. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

All in all, they have nothing to do with the prediction of what fossils you are going to dig up. This kind of predictions (i.e., the prediction of whatever related to fossils) has nothing to do with the predictability of science. What the evolutionists applied is a completely twisted version of predictability.
  • gilbo12345 and MarkForbes like this

#179 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:46 AM

The meaning of "prediction" is mostly twisted. The prediction the evolutionists talk about on a daily basis has almost nothing to do with the true predictability of science. Science has the characteristic of predictability is all because the subjects of scientific research are repeatable behaviors. They are repeatable behaviors such that they can be predictable. For example, you can always predict that water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, because first this is a repeatable behavior, and second this behavior is governed by a formula. Science in a stricter sense, is always about something repeatable while following a set of rules (i.e. a formula) to repeat. It's because the repeating behavior following rules, that we can apply the rules before hand to foretell how the behaviors repeat. This is the predictability of science. At the same time, it comes with the falsifiability of science. That is, if you follow your developed set of rules to try to predict a repeating behavior but failed, it then simultaneously means that there's a problem in your set of rules. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science. All in all, they have nothing to do with the prediction of what fossils you are going to dig up. This kind of predictions (i.e., the prediction of whatever related to fossils) has nothing to do with the predictability of science. What the evolutionists applied is a completely twisted version of predictability.

Exactly!! That is why evolution fails since it is based on randomness (mutations) meaning it has no rules to follow and therefore literally anything can be made to fit within it.

#180 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:46 AM

Evolutionist:"We predict something random" - so if something random occurs that confirms EvolutionPosted Image .
  • gilbo12345 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users