Jump to content


Photo

Macro-evolution


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 April 2011 - 07:07 PM

gilbo12345: the mechanism as I understand it is:

Step 1: add a part

Step 2: make the part necessary.

As an example, lets say people want to make a bridge to cross a ravine from point A to point B, as shown here: http://www.img861.im...s/i/step1q.jpg/

The first effort is rather crude, just one part is used. It is the simplest possible solution: http://img859.images...s/i/step2v.jpg/

The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:
http://img140.images...s/i/step3m.jpg/

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img508.images...s/i/step4r.jpg/

The bridge builders then add a top layer to the bridge. This makes the bridge easier to sue, as people no longer have to step over the gaps in the blocks. http://img508.images...s/i/step5q.jpg/

Finally, with the top layer in place, the bridge builders realize that the middle blocks are unneccesary and they remove them in order to get a refund ont he material. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img571.images...s/i/step6w.jpg/

The system is now irreducibly complex. Removing any of the 3 remaining blocks will render it useless. It was, however, produced by gradual processes which added no more than 1 change every time.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 April 2011 - 08:03 PM

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

View Post


Did anyone see this happen? You see saying it happened this way, and observing it are two different things. Because if it's that easy to prove something then I claim God created everything because you cannot explain how the laws of physics cam into being. Same logic. Same conclusion using that logic.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 April 2011 - 08:22 PM

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

View Post


Want to convince me of evolution:
1) Show me an observable "process" of macro-evolution. All evos here are avoiding it.
2) Show me a living fossil found in any other layer than it's lowest one proving it survived without change to this point and time. Just one living fossil.
3) Show me that all lifeforms in the lowest layer have no complexity. Which would prove evolution is from simple life to complex life.
4) Prove the change in my life upon getting saved was my imagination.
6) Prove that people at my church are not getting healed. That they just evolved what they needed when they prayed with the church.
7) Explain how a woman at my church had bones so brittle that just lifting her arm would break it. Doctors gave her no hope, 2 weeks ago she walked out of the hospital and into church and doctors cannot explain it. You can actually see the scars from the bones broken that actually stuck through her skin.
8) How another woman who had bleeding on her brain so bad, there was no hope. They told her that an operation would give her a slight chance, but they said she would probably die on the table. So she refused the operation and said she would rely on God. The MRI showed she had blood all over one side of her brain. They gave her hours or days to live. 30 days later more than half the blood is gone as seen through another MRI, and they want to do another later to see if it all goes away unexplainable. TBN was there to record this testimony and show the MRI pics. I hope to get a copy of them and display them here and on my site.

How does evolution explain sudden healing in the face of death? Spontaneous generation in seconds, hours, or even days? I think you know the answer, though I doubt you will admit it.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 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 April 2011 - 08:29 PM

gilbo12345: the mechanism as I understand it is:

Step 1: add a part

Step 2: make the part necessary.

As an example, lets say people want to make a bridge to cross a ravine from point A to point B, as shown here: http://img861.images...s/i/step1q.jpg/

The first effort is rather crude, just one part is used. It is the simplest possible solution: http://img859.images...s/i/step2v.jpg/

The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:
http://img140.images...s/i/step3m.jpg/

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img508.images...s/i/step4r.jpg/

The bridge builders then add a top layer to the bridge. This makes the bridge easier to sue, as people no longer have to step over the gaps in the blocks. http://img508.images...s/i/step5q.jpg/

Finally, with the top layer in place, the bridge builders realize that the middle blocks are unneccesary and they remove them in order to get a refund ont he material. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img571.images...s/i/step6w.jpg/

The system is now irreducibly complex. Removing any of the 3 remaining blocks will render it useless. It was, however, produced by gradual processes which added no more than 1 change every time.

View Post


Oranges and apples dude...

You have simplified it to the point whereby it can be (somewhat) explained..

Using your example, how did you get the bricks / materials... Since in this analogy the materials represent proteins... Considering that proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin.

If it were this simple then why have you chosen an analogy that has nothing to do with what is claimed? I ask you to show an actual example of this process, rather than defering to an imaginary hypothesis and posit it as proof.

#25 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 April 2011 - 09:51 PM

Ron: gilbo12345 is not the "die-hard evolutionist" I was referring to, I don't even know him aside from the few posts of his I have read here. I was actually referring to a real life conversation I had with a friend of mine.

As for the evidence, the case for terrestrial mammals evolving into whales comes from several areas of science. Firstly there are several fossils bridging the gap from land mammals in the early Eocene to modern whales. In order, they are:

Pakicetus (~53 Mya) – This was a carnivorous ungulate. Going by its genera morphology, it is a land animal. It is also found alongside fossils of other land animals as well as some of amphibious or water animals such as crocodilians and turtles. This indicates that pakicetus lived a wet terrestrial environment, probably along coastlines the banks of rivers, as these environments can have all of these other animals present. The shape of the ear bones, however, is highly unusual. The only living animals with this ear structure are whales, which is what first lead scientists to believe that Pakicetus was and ancestor to them. In modern whales, the joint between the malleus and incus is oriented between the side and front of the head, whereas in land animals it is between the middle and the front. In pakicetus it is intermediate between the two. Its teeth are also much more like whales than like those of modern terrestrial carnivores.

Ambulocetus (~50Mya) - This creature was somewhat mammalian crocodile. It was amphibious, but the size of the muscle attachments on its hind limbs indicate that the muscles themselves were quite small, and walking on land would have been rather awkward, probably like modern seals. Its ears and teeth were also more like those of modern whales than those of pakicetus were. The toes of the back feet ended in hooves, which are believed to be a leftover from the terrestrial ungulates from which it evolved. It's skull was more elongated than the skull of pakicetus. It's fossils are found in association with marine mollusks, indicating that it lived in shallow seas.

Rhodocetus (~47 Mya) - this was more whale like still. Although a fossil has not yet been discovered with the tail preserved, the size of the muscle attachment points indicate the presence of powerful tail muscles, and by extension a powerful tail for swimming. The pelvis of the animal was smaller than those of pakicetus and ambulocetus, and was still attached to the spine, and the leg bones were shorter. This would have made movement on land more difficult. It's skull was again more elongated than ambulocetus'. The nostrils had also began to move backward along the snout to where modern whales have a blowhole. The ears are also even more whale-like. Rhodocetus fossils are found in the type of sediments laid down in deeper seas rather than coastal environments, as would be expected if the animals were adapting to deeper and deeper water, and becoming less and less dependent on the land.

Dorudon – (~40 Mya) – this animal was now fully aquatic. It had very small hind limbs that would have only just projected beyond the body wall. The nostrils were further back on the head and the muscle attachments on the spine indicate an even more powerful tail for swimming (the actual tail flukes are not made of bone and are therefore unlikely to be fossilized). Its fossils are found in a wide range of ocean envoronments, as would be expected givent hat these creatures were now fully aquatic, they had a much greater range than their predecessors.

Finally, we have modern whales. These we know to have large tail flukes and a blowhole which is on top of the head. Their teeth and ears are similar to Dorudon’s, and they are of course fully aquatic.

Another interesting point is that the genetic evidence agrees with the fossils. Based on the theory that pakicetus is the ancestor of modern whales, we would expect a modern whale’s DNA to be more similar to other modern ungulates (hoofed animals) than to any other animals. Studies have confirmed that this is the case.

Then there is the vestigial evidence – whales have several features which seem like leftovers from a terrestrial past. Modern whales often retain vestiges of pelvic and hind leg bones. These are entirely internal and so can’t really benefit the animal. The openings which connect ears to the outside world are closed in whales, sometimes the canal is “pinched off” halfway through, so it seems that they are in the process of closing. Whales also retain the muscles which are used in land animals to move their ears. Most land mammals use these for directing their ears toward sources of sound, but of course whales have no external ears so these are useless.

Some of the vestiges show during the embryological development of the whale. Many embryonic whales develop body hair, proving that they have the genes to grow fur, however no whales actually have fur. This makes sense if they descended from other animals who also had the genes for growing fur but makes little sense otherwise. Also, some embryonic whales develop external limb buds which then disappear as the whales get larger. Evolution also predicts that because whales evolved from toothed, carnivorous land animals, even baleen whales might still possess the genes for making teeth, and this is in fact the case. Embryonic baleen whales sometimes develop teeth which then disappear before birth, proving that they still have the genes for teeth. Again, this makes sense in conjunction with the evolution, but is difficult to explain otherwise.

Finally, there is chronological evidence from the order the fossils were found in. If Dorudon was found below ambulocetus, for example, the entire sequence would be thrown out. The fact is, however, that they are found in this order.

On that subject, a quick question to creationists here: how do you account for the order of these fossils? The usual explanation for fossils is that there were laid down by the genesis flood, and that the order of the fossils was essentially a combination of hydrological sorting and ecological zonation, i.e. clams are near the bottom because they live on the sea floor and can’t exactly get out of the way of rising floodwaters, and humans are at the top because we are extremely resourceful and would have gotten to high ground quickly. In this case however, wouldn’t we expect t find the land dwelling pakicetus above the rest? And things like dorudon and rhodocetus nearer the bottom?

Anyway, there you have a sequence of fossils showing morphological intermediates. Predictions were made based on the intermediates and these turned out to be true, i.e. the genes carried by modern whales. Is this enough evidence?

#26 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 April 2011 - 10:46 PM

Want to convince me of evolution:
1) Show me an observable "process" of macro-evolution. All evos here are avoiding it.

2) Show me a living fossil found in any other layer than it's lowest one proving it survived without change to this point and time. Just one living fossil.

3) Show me that all lifeforms in the lowest layer have no complexity. Which would prove evolution is from simple life to complex life.

4) Prove the change in my life upon getting saved was my imagination.

6) Prove that people at my church are not getting healed. That they just evolved what they needed when they prayed with the church.

7) Explain how a woman at my church had bones so brittle that just lifting her arm would break it. Doctors gave her no hope, 2 weeks ago she walked out of the hospital and into church and doctors cannot explain it. You can actually see the scars from the bones broken that actually stuck through her skin.

8) How another woman who had bleeding on her brain so bad, there was no hope. They told her that an operation would give her a slight chance, but they said she would probably die on the table. So she refused the operation and said she would rely on God. The MRI showed she had blood all over one side of her brain. They gave her hours or days to live. 30 days later more than half the blood is gone as seen through another MRI, and they want to do another later to see if it all goes away unexplainable. TBN was there to record this testimony and show the MRI pics. I hope to get a copy of them and display them here and on my site.

How does evolution explain sudden healing in the face of death? Spontaneous generation in seconds, hours, or even days? I think you know the answer, though I doubt you will admit it.

View Post


1) - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The E.Coli long term evolution experiment - http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment - has produced noticeable change. I don't see any barrier to these small changes adding up to bigger changes, do you? If so, what is it? If not, here is your observable process.

2) - Crocodiles

3) - How do you define complexity in this case? Obviously things like worms and algae are not as morphologically complex as people or modern flowering trees. Is this what you mean?

4) - No, because I don't think it was. Even if Jesus wasn't divine (something I am still researching so I don't really have an opinion on that) he was certainly awesome and his teachings are bound to make someone's life better. Whether this is just a psychological change or there are other forces at play here is something I can't answer, but I'm glad it has worked for you in any case.

6 trough 8) As in the previous answer, perhaps something really is happening here. I don't claim to know the answer to that. Maybe there's a perfectly rational scientific explanation, maybe there isn't.

#27 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 April 2011 - 10:58 PM

Oranges and apples dude...

You have simplified it to the point whereby it can be (somewhat) explained..

Using your example, how did you get the bricks / materials... Since in this analogy the materials represent proteins... Considering that proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin.

If it were this simple then why have you chosen an analogy that has nothing to do with what is claimed? I ask you to show an actual example of this process, rather than defering to an imaginary hypothesis and posit it as proof.

View Post


You asked me to show you a mechanism, so I showed you a mechanism. I didn’t say it was proof, I just thought it was useful to illustrate the sort of processes by which an irreducibly complex system can be formed by gradual steps. Is there any reason we can’t apply the same sort of process to biology?

#28 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:28 PM

As for the evidence, the case for terrestrial mammals evolving into whales comes from several areas of science. Firstly there are several fossils bridging the gap from land mammals in the early Eocene to modern whales. In order, they are:

How do you know that they are transitional fossils? Just by looking at them?

Pakicetus (~53 Mya) – This was a carnivorous ungulate. Going by its genera morphology, it is a land animal. It is also found alongside fossils of other land animals as well as some of amphibious or water animals such as crocodilians and turtles. This indicates that pakicetus lived a wet terrestrial environment, probably along coastlines the banks of rivers, as these environments can have all of these other animals present. The shape of the ear bones, however, is highly unusual. The only living animals with this ear structure are whales, which is what first lead scientists to believe that Pakicetus was and ancestor to them. In modern whales, the joint between the malleus and incus is oriented between the side and front of the head, whereas in land animals it is between the middle and the front. In pakicetus it is intermediate between the two. Its teeth are also much more like whales than like those of modern terrestrial carnivores.

Uhh...The first time that they found pakicetus they found fragments of its skull and some teeth along with part of the jawbone.

They found a more complete fossil years later and it looked nothing like the reconstruction that was made out of the few fossil fragments, it turns out that it was a dog like creature that walked on land. Despite this, they are still showing their original depiction of this fossil in museums and textbooks.

Ambulocetus (~50Mya) - This creature was somewhat mammalian crocodile. It was amphibious, but the size of the muscle attachments on its hind limbs indicate that the muscles themselves were quite small, and walking on land would have been rather awkward, probably like modern seals. Its ears and teeth were also more like those of modern whales than those of pakicetus were. The toes of the back feet ended in hooves, which are believed to be a leftover from the terrestrial ungulates from which it evolved. It's skull was more elongated than the skull of pakicetus. It's fossils are found in association with marine mollusks, indicating that it lived in shallow seas.

View Post

The fossil for this was also incomplete. There was no pelvis girdle that was found along with the fossil and since soft tissue wasn't found on the fossil there is no way to depict webbed feet except by pure imagination.

I'm just going to stop here. The other ones are fallacious as well. >.> No offense, but many of the fossils you are showing us are from imagination.

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:49 PM

1) - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The E.Coli long term evolution experiment - http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment - has produced noticeable change. I don't see any barrier to these small changes adding up to bigger changes, do you? If so, what is it? If not, here is your observable process.


Did the E.Coli become something else like a flu virus? You see as long as it stays within a kind, it's micro-evolution.

2) - Crocodiles


And which 2 layers would that be?

3) - How do you define complexity in this case? Obviously things like worms and algae are not as morphologically complex as people or modern flowering trees. Is this what you mean?


1) No complexity in the lower layers because evolution is about simple life evolving into complex life. But we do not see that.

Also, if the fossil record supports evolution, there should not be any complexity in the lowest layer. Yet the trilobite has fully formed organs.

Posted ImagePosted Image

And so does the nautilus which is also found in the lowest layer and is a living fossil.

Posted Image

Being found in the lowest layer means there is no evolution tree going to these sea creatures. So the question of how they evolved complex, can never be answered. But if you use deductive logic, creation is the only answer.

2) Living fossils such as the Sea Pen and the Coelacanth should have should have time-lines in the fossil record that prove they survived until now, and did not change.

Attached File  living_fossil_record.jpg   22.49KB   1 downloads

Every living fossil found has this problem. It would be explainable if one or two were found in other layers. But that is not the case.

If the fossil record supports the flood:

1) There would be no problem with complexity in the lower layers. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep were broken up, which means the burying process started at the bottom of the oceans. Which means bottom dwellers first, both complex and simple, got buried first. Which is what we see.

Then as the sand and silt rose from the floor of the ocean, the ocean dwelling animals there would get buried and that is what we see in the fossil record. Then land animals were next, which is what we see.

2) Living fossils would not be a problem because the fossil record was not laid over time. It was laid during the flood which makes it to where it was every animal got caught in it. Not the amount of time they lived and died off. So time-lines of survival would not be an issue.

4) - No, because I don't think it was. Even if Jesus wasn't divine (something I am still researching so I don't really have an opinion on that) he was certainly awesome and his teachings are bound to make someone's life better. Whether this is just a psychological change or there are other forces at play here is something I can't answer, but I'm glad it has worked for you in any case.


Agreed.

6 trough 8) As in the previous answer, perhaps something really is happening here. I don't claim to know the answer to that. Maybe there's a perfectly rational scientific explanation, maybe there isn't.

View Post


Science does not venture into the supernatural because it's taboo, and the people who make it tick are not really interested. Which by the way, breaks a rule that says: Follow the evidence where ever it leads. In this case, if it points in a certain direction you don;t go there. So science is not about finding actual truth where ever it may lead, only a preconceived truth that conforms (conformism is not science) to a naturalistic view only.

Example:
Empirical:
1) Something that can be tested and retested in a lab with same results.
2) Something that can be observed.
3) Something that can be experienced by the individual.

1) Millions of people have been saved and have felt a change. Even those around them can contest to that. So it's testable and repeatable.
2) Because others can observe the change, it's observable.
3) And many have experienced it on an individual bases.

So supernatural salvation meets the criteria of being empirical. But because it does not meet the criteria of being all natural only, it "never" will be accepted as such. So when someone who loves science tells me they cannot find God, I tell them that it's not my fault that you guys make rules to make sure that you never will. It's like knowing there is a fossil at a certain place, but your group rules say you cannot dig. So the fossil is never found just like God is never found for the same reason.

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 April 2011 - 03:11 AM

You asked me to show you a mechanism, so I showed you a mechanism. I didn’t say it was proof, I just thought it was useful to illustrate the sort of processes by which an irreducibly complex system can be formed by gradual steps. Is there any reason we can’t apply the same sort of process to biology?

View Post


If you were not using it as evidence, then why say it?

Irreducibly complex by definition means it cannot come about via a gradualistic approach, hence it wouldn't be IC if it could "evolve"... All you have shown is an analogy which has no relevance to the topic at all.. In response to your question, first tell me why you think using an analogy which has no relevance and also makes no consideration for the specifics of the Biology behind it... How does your analogy factor in random mutation, selection, DNA coding etc etc... Hence why I said that you have simplified it to the point where you can make your claim, (whilst ignoring the specifics of what you are trying to claim)

Darwin admitted that if there was a structure that could not be explained by evolution then his theory is debunked!

Inter-dependant systems in nature are one such example of complexity that cannot have occurred via a gradualist, (step by step), approach. Let’s take a simplistic look at the digestive system of humans. Food chewed in the mouth is taken to the stomach where acid breaks down the chewed food. Chewing the food increases the surface area for the acid to break down the food to its constituent molecules. This is then passed through the duodenum on its way to the intestine. When this occurs a signal is passed to the pancreas for it to produce sodium hydroxide which is used to neutralize the acid in the digesting food before it reaches the intestine. Once inside the intestine the nutrients are absorbed. These nutrients, (mainly glucose), are transported to the liver where they are stored for use, (glucose as glycogen), and is slowly seeped out into the blood to replace lost blood glucose. The reason for this storage is due to the homeostatic processes of the brain that keep the body in balance.

Now imagine this process without a stomach. We chew the food and it is then transported to the intestine. However this is detrimental as the food has not been processed properly and the intestine will be unable to absorb the nutrients sufficiently.

Now imagine this process with no pancreas. We chew the food, and it is broken down in the stomach, yet when the food is passed to the intestine it still contains the acid from the stomach. This results in a burnt out intestine, (very quickly due to the thin walls of the intestine...also how the pancreas “knew” to “evolve” sodium hydroxide is another discussion).

Now imagine this process without an intestine. The food is digested via the mouth and stomach yet there is no organ capable of absorbing the nutrients of the processed food, thus resulting in no energy in the organism.

Now imagine this process without a liver, the food is processed and the nutrients are absorbed yet, there is no organ to facilitate the nutrients release into the blood stream. This will result in a breakdown of homeostatic processes and thus detrimental to the organism.

Now imagine this process without a brain..... The system wouldn’t work at all.

All these hypothetical situations have the same end, the death of the organism. Yet this is just removing one organ from the full system. Hence an inter-dependant system cannot have “evolved” via a gradualist approach as all parts are all needed at the same time for the system to fulfil its function. Furthermore, not one organ could “evolve” in this fashion as the increase in fitness required for natural selection to occur to select that organ, would not occur until the system is complete. What this means is that inter-dependant systems must have appeared fully formed. This style of thinking can be applied to almost any system that requires multiple parts that are unique and fulfil a specific role.

However what remains an even bigger challenge to evolutionists are cellular processes. Glycolysis, citric acid cycle, electron transport chain all work together, (including the gamut of enzymes and regulatory proteins), how did all these parts / functions "evolve"... Despite that these are required for the first cell to be able to utilise energy, hence there is no time for them to "evolve" anyway.

#31 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 20 April 2011 - 04:26 AM

ikester7579: No, they remained E.Coli, albeit with some changes. Among s*xually reproducing organisms, speciation has been observed in several experiments, for example with fruit flies. After separating a population and applying a different selective pressure to each half, after some generations the 2 populations became unable to breed with one another. According to most definitions of species, animals are considered a single species if they can interbreed, which these could not. They are therefore a new species. Does this mean a new "kind"? Also regarding the question of wether they became influenza, that would be absurd because these are 2 different species that exist now. That would be like asking if chimpanzees evolved into humans. No evolutionist i know would support that idea. Neither would they support the notion that by taking a breeding population if chimps and applying selective pressure one would arrive at humans. What they would say is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In the same way, E.Coli and influenza might have a common ancestor too, I don't know a great deal about bacteria and viruses. It was just a way of showing that selective pressures result in changes in populations. You said this was micro-evolution, however regarding the fruit flies, when biologists talk about macro-evolution it means change at or above the species level. The change in fruit flies was at the species level, so technically this is an observed example of macro-evolution, unless your definition is somehow different.

If you don't agree that this constitutes macro-evolution, what exactly is the difference between so called micro- and macro-evolution? Is there an empirical definition (other than that of speciation which I gave above) that says how big a change has to be before it is classed as macro evolution? What if an animal's genome changes by 0.1%, which is less than the difference between a dog and a wolf, surely that's still micro evolution right? There would have been an original dog/wolf kind? How about 1%? 2%? Where do we draw the line?

Regarding living fossils, crocodilians have been found in the jurassic (Goniopholis, for example) and the cretaceous - you can even buy one here: http://www.paleodire...t2/mv10-019.htm - I don't really understand the purpose of this point though. We know they are alive today and their fossil remains are found amongst those of dinosaurs, therefore they must have existed in the gaps between.

Evolution isn't necessarily about simple evolving into complex - its about your species surviving into the future, wether that means getting more complex or not. I don't know exactly how the diversity associated with the cambrian explosion came into being, i will read some more on the subject after this post, but for the moment, you should not say that "creation is the only answer". There might be other answers neither of us know about yet. Also, creation isn't a scientiffic explanation because it cannot be falsified - anything can just be explained by saying "God did it".

You claim: "There would be no problem with complexity in the lower layers. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep were broken up, which means the burying process started at the bottom of the oceans. Which means bottom dwellers first, both complex and simple, got buried first. Which is what we see.

Then as the sand and silt rose from the floor of the ocean, the ocean dwelling animals there would get buried and that is what we see in the fossil record. Then land animals were next, which is what we see."


Sorry, but this explanation does not fit the evidence at all. Why do we find grasses only in relatively recent layers? The evolutionary answer is that they evolved only 40 Mya, a small time compared to the whole geological column. What is the creationist answer? It's not like grasses only live at high elevations, and obviously they could not have ran away from the rising flood waters. Why don't we find them lower down? What about the faster and more agile animals? Couldn't we have expected one velociraptor to make it to higher ground? Or one pterosaur? They could fly after all, and if birds flew high enough to make it into more recent geological layers, why didn't they? Why do whales appear much later than fish, despite sharing a common habitat? Why do dinosaurs consistently appear before modern animals in all strata? If they coexisted, wouldn't we expect maybe one horse to be buried at a similar level to grazing dinosaurs or something? Why are corals and clams found in practically all layers? They have no capacity to escape floodwaters, and corals in particular can only grow in the one habitat - shallow seas. As an ex-creationist myself I can honestly say that this was one of the points that moved me on the issue - the geological column absolutely does not fit a global flood.

It's also worth noting that if the fossil record wasn't laid down in a flood, and instead represents the slow deposition of sediments over a long time, then it gives a powerful testimony to evolution.

Regarding this:

"Example:
Empirical:
1) Something that can be tested and retested in a lab with same results.
2) Something that can be observed.
3) Something that can be experienced by the individual.

1) Millions of people have been saved and have felt a change. Even those around them can contest to that. So it's testable and repeatable.
2) Because others can observe the change, it's observable.
3) And many have experienced it on an individual bases.

So supernatural salvation meets the criteria of being empirical"

As I said, I don't really know whats going on here, there might be a scientiffic explanation, there moght not. The point is though that we can't repeat the flood to see what would happen. We can't just ask God "hey would you mind awfully re-flooding the world while we watch" in order to compare the results to what we see today.

#32 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 20 April 2011 - 05:06 AM

gilbo12345 - You specifically asked “show me a mechanism or process that allows for complex inter-dependent parts and systems to "evolve"” and so I provided the mechanism as you asked. And “irreducibly complex” means that if any part is removed, from the irreducibly complex system it will be non functional. It does not necessarily mean that it cannot be produced by step by step means – if some redundancy was used along the way it can be produced by such means. That was the whole point of my poorly drawn bridge example, to show that just because something is irreducibly complex does not mean it cannot have evolved.

I don't have time to answer the digestive system questions at the moment, I will try to get back to you tomorrow, but in the mean time I will leave you with a question about cellular complexity and the associated design argument. It is this: If the evidence really indicates that biochemical systems could not have evolved, as Michael Behe would have us believe, why has mainstream science not accepted it? Is there a conspiracy?

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:00 AM

gilbo12345 - You specifically asked “show me a mechanism or process that allows for complex inter-dependent parts and systems to "evolve"” and so I provided the mechanism as you asked. And “irreducibly complex” means that if any part is removed, from the irreducibly complex system it will be non functional. It does not necessarily mean that it cannot be produced by step by step means – if some redundancy was used along the way it can be produced by such means. That was the whole point of my poorly drawn bridge example, to show that just because something is irreducibly complex does not mean it cannot have evolved.

I don't have time to answer the digestive system questions at the moment, I will try to get back to you tomorrow, but in the mean time I will leave you with a question about cellular complexity and the associated design argument. It is this: If the evidence really indicates that biochemical systems could not have evolved, as Michael Behe would have us believe, why has mainstream science not accepted it? Is there a conspiracy?

View Post


You didn't provide the mechanism, since it doesn't refer to evolution at all... Its about building a bridge.. If I was asking about bridges then great... unfortunately for you I wasn't.

As I said before you have simplified it to the nth degree so that it isn't evolution anymore... What you said was a two step process, you must admit that that is simplified. I ask you again, why do you think that your bridge analogy has any relevance to evolution of interdependant structures / systems / parts? and if so, what examples can you show in BIOLOGY that show this? (Or must we debate science with words and concepts, not factual data)

Until you show an evidence in BIOLOGY, (not philosophy), the null hypothesis says no.

"And “irreducibly complex” means that if any part is removed, from the irreducibly complex system it will be non functional."

(Yep got me there with the definition)

If it is non-functional then it cannot be selected for, since evolution is ONLY about the preservation of genetic material that is seen to give an advantage over its competitors. This was one of the things you skipped with your 2 step analogy. Evolution's own "mechanisms" mutation and natural selection are not incorporated into your analogy as well.

My talk on digestion / cellular processes wasn't a question. They were examples in BIOLOGY where it is illogical to assume that these things came about via a gradualistic process.. (Look up cellular respiration and ponder on this and you may begin to see what I mean)

I am still waiting for the evolutionist to show, (with empirical evidence), the mechanisms of how an inter-dependant system comes about- with specific parts working with each other..

Another example can be S@xual reproduction... How did the s@x organs "evolve", to fit like hand and glove?

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:48 AM

Ron: gilbo12345 is not the "die-hard evolutionist" I was referring to, I don't even know him aside from the few posts of his I have read here. I was actually referring to a real life conversation I had with a friend of mine.

View Post

Then your entire reply to me is a non sequitur because it does not follow from my rebuttal of your previous post. You really should stay on track with the conversation. Your post (#13) immediately followed Gilbo’s post (#12). And, as I pointed out in post # 15, you made nothing more than fallacious and fact-less assertions (as you do below). You really need to learn the difference between fact and opinion, and you either need to accurately reply to the rebuttals of your assertions, or admit your assertions are opinion driven and not fact driven.


As for the evidence, the case for terrestrial mammals evolving into whales comes from several areas of science.

View Post


No, these are the “opinions” of evolutionary scientists attempting to make a case via their positing these ‘a priori’ presuppositions as if they were fact. And, as the OP directed, “empirical” evidence was called for, not ‘a priori’ opinion. ALL of what you provided was pre-supposed opinion. You have totally failed to follow up on my assertion that you cannot “Provide the gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales!”


Firstly there are several fossils bridging the gap from land mammals in the early Eocene to modern whales.

View Post


First – how many ‘millions of years’ of gaps are there between these proposed evolutionary steps?

Secondly – These ‘millions of years’ are hardly “gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales”!

Thirdly – This creates massive gaping holes causing an “evolution of the gaps” scenario that puts a great bind in your hypothesis.

Fourthly – you have totally failed to tie any of your subjects together ‘empirically’; which is exactly what the OP called for. Therefore you have failed completely in not only the OP questions, but my refutation of your post as well.

Conclusion: Saying it’s so, doesn’t make it so…. If you make an assertion, it is YOUR responsibility to provide FACTS to support your assertions (not mere opinion). If you want to pursue the argument along these lines, YOU need to provide EMPIRICAL evidence and FACTS, not more mere opinion.

#35 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 20 April 2011 - 02:44 PM

...
The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:
http://img140.images...s/i/step3m.jpg/

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img508.images...s/i/step4r.jpg/
...

View Post


I don't know mate... to me, a "realizing builder" sounds a lot like an intelligent designer.... not the kind of thing you would want to asociate with an evolutionary process.

I think what you really need is a bridge that has an inherent ability to build itself irreducibly complex. ;)

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 04:36 PM


...
The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:
http://img140.images...s/i/step3m.jpg/

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:
http://img508.images...s/i/step4r.jpg/
...

View Post

I don't know mate... to me, a "realizing builder" sounds a lot like an intelligent designer.... not the kind of thing you would want to asociate with an evolutionary process.

I think what you really need is a bridge that has an inherent ability to build itself irreducibly complex. ;)

View Post


Oops… :o Once again the materialistic evolutionist is busted dilly dallying in creationistic science again! Attempting to use “design” as if its analogous to evolution gets them every time. And one day they will realize that it is self-stultifying to do so. Could this be assessed as a type of equivocation? :)

Nice catch Dragby!

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:51 PM

ikester7579: No, they remained E.Coli, albeit with some changes. Among s*xually reproducing organisms, speciation has been observed in several experiments, for example with fruit flies. After separating a population and applying a different selective pressure to each half, after some generations the 2 populations became unable to breed with one another. According to most definitions of species, animals are considered a single species if they can interbreed, which these could not. They are therefore a new species. Does this mean a new "kind"? Also regarding the question of wether they became influenza, that would be absurd because these are 2 different species that exist now. That would be like asking if chimpanzees evolved into humans. No evolutionist i know would support that idea. Neither would they support the notion that by taking a breeding population if chimps and applying selective pressure one would arrive at humans. What they would say is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In the same way, E.Coli and influenza might have a common ancestor too, I don't know a great deal about bacteria and viruses. It was just a way of showing that selective pressures result in changes in populations. You said this was micro-evolution, however regarding the fruit flies, when biologists talk about macro-evolution it means change at or above the species level. The change in fruit flies was at the species level, so technically this is an observed example of macro-evolution, unless your definition is somehow different.

If you don't agree that this constitutes macro-evolution, what exactly is the difference between so called micro- and macro-evolution? Is there an empirical definition (other than that of speciation which I gave above) that says how big a change has to be before it is classed as macro evolution? What if an animal's genome changes by 0.1%, which is less than the difference between a dog and a wolf, surely that's still micro evolution right? There would have been an original dog/wolf kind? How about 1%? 2%? Where do we draw the line?


Why give micro and macro different names if they are the same? You see you are not the first to try and say there is not difference, Or micro to infinity is macro. I realize that it is hard for you to admit that there is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. But facts are fact, and we may not like what the real reality points out to us,

Let's be honest and quit beating around the bush. There is not empirical evidence for macro evolution, or you would not be going to all the trouble to try to imply that there is,

Regarding living fossils, crocodilians have been found in the jurassic (Goniopholis, for example) and the cretaceous - you can even buy one here: http://www.paleodire...t2/mv10-019.htm - I don't really understand the purpose of this point though. We know they are alive today and their fossil remains are found amongst those of dinosaurs, therefore they must have existed in the gaps between.


Can you provide a link to said claim? I would like to study your claim and evidence of it.

Evolution isn't necessarily about simple evolving into complex - its about your species surviving into the future, wether that means getting more complex or not. I don't know exactly how the diversity associated with the cambrian explosion came into being, i will read some more on the subject after this post, but for the moment, you should not say that "creation is the only answer". There might be other answers neither of us know about yet. Also, creation isn't a scientiffic explanation because it cannot be falsified - anything can just be explained by saying "God did it".


With due respect, I had to laugh at the first sentence of your reply. Think about what you just claimed. Evolution is not about evolving simple to complex? So what and how does complexity just appear on the scene. You are basically implying something supernatural if you think complexity, in the evolution theory, just poofs itself into existence without being simple first.

You claim: "There would be no problem with complexity in the lower layers. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep were broken up, which means the burying process started at the bottom of the oceans. Which means bottom dwellers first, both complex and simple, got buried first. Which is what we see.

Then as the sand and silt rose from the floor of the ocean, the ocean dwelling animals there would get buried and that is what we see in the fossil record. Then land animals were next, which is what we see."


Sorry, but this explanation does not fit the evidence at all. Why do we find grasses only in relatively recent layers? The evolutionary answer is that they evolved only 40 Mya, a small time compared to the whole geological column. What is the creationist answer? It's not like grasses only live at high elevations, and obviously they could not have ran away from the rising flood waters. Why don't we find them lower down?


Simple, grass was up there with land animals, it did not exist in the ocean, so it got buried with land animals. My question to you is: Why did not grass exist earlier than it did? Grass like plants are needed to keep soil from washing away during the rain. And I hear it rained a lot during earlier times. No stationary soil = no plant being able to survive because they cannot take root.

What about the faster and more agile animals? Couldn't we have expected one velociraptor to make it to higher ground? Or one pterosaur? They could fly after all, and if birds flew high enough to make it into more recent geological layers, why didn't they? Why do whales appear much later than fish, despite sharing a common habitat? Why do dinosaurs consistently appear before modern animals in all strata? If they coexisted, wouldn't we expect maybe one horse to be buried at a similar level to grazing dinosaurs or something? Why are corals and clams found in practically all layers? They have no capacity to escape floodwaters, and corals in particular can only grow in the one habitat - shallow seas. As an ex-creationist myself I can honestly say that this was one of the points that moved me on the issue - the geological column absolutely does not fit a global flood.


Kinda like the question: How does T-Rex blood and tissue last for millions of years?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Can you make the evidence above conform to the evolution time-line?

Also about the flood:
1) It only lasted for a year.
2) the water for the flood has been found.
http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html
http://www.livescien...ered-earth.html
http://news.national...waterworld.html
There is more than enough water inside the upper mantle of the earth to flood the earth to the highest mountain. Here's the kicker. How does the water enter into the earth's upper mantle without boiling off? first understand that in order to flood the whole earth, there had to be at least 14-15 miles of water. The water pressure created at the bottom would raise the boiling point of that water high enough to go into the upper mantle without boiling off. There is no other mechanism to put that much water there.
3) Corals put out organisms that float in the water and attach to other things and grow. Even things that would float on the surface of the water during a flood. To grow later after the flood. So how do you know coral would not survive?

But since you think the flood would kill them off, raises another question. Why does the growth of corals only support 4400 years, and not millions of years? if coral were as old as claimed, there would be reefs a lot bigger then we currently have. Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes.5 At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years AIG.

Since you are an ex-creationists. then you know Genesis pretty well, right? In Geneisis, when did the first sin happen? Towards the end of the 6th day, right? So what is time minus sin? It's eternal. So if creation was done under eternal laws, how would we make sense of it trying to explain it using non-eternal laws? You cannot, So what evolutionist seem to easily look stupid is actually a total misunderstanding. For no one can prove that the laws of physics and time remained the same from the beginning, right? Heck they cannot even explain were matter come from, or how laws came into being perfectly balanced to work with one another.

So what has to be different to make eternity work? Remove the aging process and nothing dies or decays. Now if nothing ages, would you not have to create with age already added because the other laws of physics are in effect?

Example:
1) Do you create a new earth where the laws of physics would make it a molten rock, or do you create a 4.6 billion year old "aged" earth that is cool enough to contain life?
2) Do you create a new sun that is unstable and would not support life on this planet, or a sun aged to over 4 billion years old that would be stable and support life on this planet?
3) Do you create life as babies that cannot take care of themselves and die, or do you create life aged enough to take care of themselves and are able to reproduce?
4) Do you create dating markers showing that you aged everything as you created them, or do you create no dating markers to cause total confusion?
5) Do you allow the flood to create a geologic column to test a believers faith in what to believe, or do you never test them and allow their faith to never strengthen and allow most all of them to fall away? You see every faith test is going to have those who pass, and those who fail. But God always leaves an open door to come back.
James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

And sin is not sin unless you knew it was before you did it.
jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That is why erring from the truth is forgivable. We cannot know everything, so God leaves a little leeway for that. Because if perfection were required, we would all go to Hell because no one here can be perfect in knowledge and truth. A planted seed will grow, and those who have been shown truth and do nothing, there will be no excuse.

Do you know what kind of thought it would take to take three objects and place them in the vastness of space, and have them create this:

Posted Image

To give you some idea, here are the angles.

Posted Image

Both the sun and moon have to be certain sizes. And all 3 (earth, moon and sun) have to be set at exact distances to create the dot that ends up on the earth during a full eclipse. And to have all of this line up to do this after how many billions of year? Not possible. Created and placed fits. Not oh, that just happened to be this way.

And the most remarkable thing is how precise all these things are set to create this which can be seen by us:

Posted Image

So precise that it perfectly covers the size of our sun, so that we can see the sun's outer atmosphere. But there's more. Along with the sizes and direct placement to create what you see, the earth also has to be in what called the Habital Zone. Which means the earth has to be in the correct position in relation to the sun, so that it neither gets to hot or cold.

It's also worth noting that if the fossil record wasn't laid down in a flood, and instead represents the slow deposition of sediments over a long time, then it gives a powerful testimony to evolution.


1) Have you ever heard of "cross contamination"? It's not talked about much among people who do fossil and age dating research. This is because it would make the whole age dating process questionable and here's why. If you take a bone that is less than 100 years old, you dig into a 50 million year old layer and bury it there. Then you have someone else dig it up a thousand years later, how old will it date? It will date as old as the layer because the dating markers of the layer will cross contaminate the bone. This is why "all" fossils will date the layers, as well as the layers will date the fossils.

So it does not matter if the layers were put there by time or a world wide catastrophe. The fossils and layers will always date the same.

2) The Grand Canyon took 5 million of years to make from a river that flows through it, right? Then that would mean the top of the canyon has been exposed to weathering for that 5 million years it took, right? Then explain how the vertical wear at the top of the canyon is still visible when 5 million years of weathering should have worn away that evidence?

Posted Image

So do you actually think this evidence will be around for another 5 million years of weathering? It looks like 4400 years of weathering to me (since the flood).

Regarding this:

"Example:
Empirical:
1) Something that can be tested and retested in a lab with same results.
2) Something that can be observed.
3) Something that can be experienced by the individual.

1) Millions of people have been saved and have felt a change. Even those around them can contest to that. So it's testable and repeatable.
2) Because others can observe the change, it's observable.
3) And many have experienced it on an individual bases.

So supernatural salvation meets the criteria of being empirical"

As I said, I don't really know whats going on here, there might be a scientiffic explanation, there moght not. The point is though that we can't repeat the flood to see what would happen. We can't just ask God "hey would you mind awfully re-flooding the world while we watch" in order to compare the results to what we see today.

View Post


Someone attempted to repeat the flood.



The video above is a little over 30 minutes long. It's different from other ideas I have seen. And they are the only people I know that made a scaled down model of how the flood laid the layers. And their approach and ideas are totally different from the creation norm.

#38 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:59 PM

[quote name='Ron' date='Apr 20 2011, 05:36 PM']
I don't know mate... to me, a "realizing builder" sounds a lot like an intelligent designer.... not the kind of thing you would want to asociate with an evolutionary process.

I think what you really need is a bridge that has an inherent ability to build itself irreducibly complex. ;)

View Post

[/quote]

Oops… :o Once again the materialistic evolutionist is busted dilly dallying in creationistic science again! Attempting to use “design” as if its analogous to evolution gets them every time. And one day they will realize that it is self-stultifying to do so. Could this be assessed as a type of equivocation? :)

Nice catch Dragby!

View Post

[/quote]Yep, he's right. I pointed out this sort of flawed logic in this video as well:



#39 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:04 PM

Seems there has been quite the flood of replies in my absence, I wish I had the time to answer all of these but I will at least give some of them a shot.

First, ikester7579: you still have not told me what your definition of macro-evolution is. According to standard biology definitions, macro-evolution is when a new species evolves, i.e. two populations split and they are no longer able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This has already been observed, and I have even seen creationists claim it has happened. Indeed it must have for all the "species" we see today to have fitted on the ark, they must have diversified form the "kinds" which were taken aboard originally. Unless you can tell me another definition of macro-evolution then the OP's question has been answered by creationists themselves. I will ask you again: how do you define macro-evolution? Is there an empirical measure, or is it subjective?

You have also not answered why small changes cannot add up to large changes? What is the barrier?

Your claim about the fossil grass doesn't hold up either, and it contains a blatant error - grass is found above dinosaurs. Why? They are land animals after all, so according to you they should be found with the grass. Did they suddenly and mysteriously die out just before the flood and then grass grew over them, then the flood came and fossilized the whole lot? How did it work? And why are whales found above grasses? They are sea creatures so shouldn't they have been buried before the grass? Flood geology just leaves far too many questions about the fossil record unanswered.

And it is not at all "Kinda like the question: How does T-Rex blood and tissue last for millions of years?" I was asking you how a global flood could possibly account for the order in the fossil record, which you have not explained. That discovery of the T-Rex blood is a favorite of creationists, but it actually poses more of a difficulty for creationists. Scientists have extracted DNA and soft tissues from fossils or remains many thousands of years old. If dinosaurs are as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues or DNA on them should be pretty routine by now, but it isn't. They haven't found any DNA on the T Rex, and the soft tissue remains were absolutely minuscule.

"Since you are an ex-creationists. then you know Genesis pretty well, right? In Geneisis, when did the first sin happen? Towards the end of the 6th day, right?"

Actually, it doesn't give an indication of the time. The narrative goes from Eve's creation to sin and the fall, it may have been a matter of minutes, maybe days, who knows?

"So what is time minus sin? It's eternal. So if creation was done under eternal laws, how would we make sense of it trying to explain it using non-eternal laws? "


I can't answer that, maybe you can't make sense of it. In any case the debate is about science. I don't see how trying to make sense of genesis using non-eternal laws has anything to to with fossils, genetics etc. And what's with eclipses? I know the odds of them looking as cool as they do are pretty slim, you have to get the moon ans sun to appear more or less the same size from earth and everything, but what is your point? Eclipses don't really have anything to do with evolution.

I am also fully aware that we are in a "habitable zone" around the sun, and the rest of the associated "anthropic principal" argument, but that doesn't hold up either. We get exactly the same results if the earth was designed for life, or if life evolved to suit the earth. Either way it will be well suited to its surroundings.

"The Grand Canyon took 5 million of years to make from a river that flows through it, right? Then that would mean the top of the canyon has been exposed to weathering for that 5 million years it took, right? Then explain how the vertical wear at the top of the canyon is still visible when 5 million years of weathering should have worn away that evidence?"

This doesn't make any sense to me. For a start the estimated age of the canyon is 17 million years, so it seems your research is lacking, but in any case are you saying that the rock at the top should not show any vertical wear? Why not? Or are you saying that it looks like rock at the bottom, which has (according to evolution) been exposed for much longer? Because from the photos provided the top of the canyon looks much more weathered to me.


Regarding cross contamination - palaeontologists are well aware of the errors of cross contamination and take great care to avoid them. They choose bones which don't show the disturbance one associates with intrusive burial (a pretty rare thing in nature anyway) and they use several independent methods to verify the age. They take samples from deep within cliff faces rather than from the face to avoid the possibility that they are sampling from the wrong material, etc. Now I have an important question for you: What do you think is going on among palaeontologists it if they really and so consistently made this simple mistake? Do they all have an IQ of 60? Is there a conspiracy among them to brainwash us? If their methods were so flawed that you are able to debunk their entire field of work in one paragraph, why hasn't the rest of the scientific community noticed yet? Please tell me, this is something I have yet to see a creationist answer, and I am genuinely curious. What do you think is happening in the field of science for them to have gotten things so badly wrong for all these years?

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 April 2011 - 11:20 PM

Seems there has been quite the flood of replies in my absence, I wish I had the time to answer all of these but I will at least give some of them a shot.

First, ikester7579: you still have not told me what your definition of macro-evolution is. According to standard biology definitions, macro-evolution is when a new species evolves, i.e. two populations split and they are no longer able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This has already been observed, and I have even seen creationists claim it has happened. Indeed it must have for all the "species" we see today to have fitted on the ark, they must have diversified form the "kinds" which were taken aboard originally. Unless you can tell me another definition of macro-evolution then the OP's question has been answered by creationists themselves. I will ask you again: how do you define macro-evolution? Is there an empirical measure, or is it subjective?


So now you are trying to claim that macro evolution and speciation are the same thing? Why have to wrods that mean the same thing? In another thread someone's trying to claim micro and macro are the same. And I know micro is just a fancy word for a mutation. But let's use all the logic of you guys as presented.

1) Micro is basically a mutation.
2) Micro is the same as macro. Which makes mutation the same as macro.
3) Macro and speciation are the same. So mutation, micro, macro and speciation all mean the same thing.

So from that I understand that in order to prove "real" macro (change from bird to lizard) you have to blend all 4 terms together and claim that if you've seen one, you've seen them all, right?

You have also not answered why small changes cannot add up to large changes? What is the barrier?


The immune system. Why do evolutionist avoid addressing the immune system? Because it wuld make them look at real reality.

Your claim about the fossil grass doesn't hold up either, and it contains a blatant error - grass is found above dinosaurs. Why? They are land animals after all, so according to you they should be found with the grass. Did they suddenly and mysteriously die out just before the flood and then grass grew over them, then the flood came and fossilized the whole lot? How did it work? And why are whales found above grasses? They are sea creatures so shouldn't they have been buried before the grass? Flood geology just leaves far too many questions about the fossil record unanswered.


The video, if you looked at it, shows that the fossil record was not laid by time. So it does not matter where the grass is in what I believe, but it does in what you do. Nice try on reversing guilt of not being able to address the issue.

And it is not at all "Kinda like the question: How does T-Rex blood and tissue last for millions of years?" I was asking you how a global flood could possibly account for the order in the fossil record, which you have not explained. That discovery of the T-Rex blood is a favorite of creationists, but it actually poses more of a difficulty for creationists. Scientists have extracted DNA and soft tissues from fossils or remains many thousands of years old. If dinosaurs are as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues or DNA on them should be pretty routine by now, but it isn't. They haven't found any DNA on the T Rex, and the soft tissue remains were absolutely minuscule.


Nice try again. The blood and tissue was found inside the bone. The reason they found it was because they had to break the bone in order to move it. It's not a regular thing for scientist to break dino bones, is it? And is the reason it's not found more often. But one evolutionist made the comment that all the bones currently in museums mat contain blood and tissue. Which made on evolutionist made and he responded: What do you think we are going to do anyway, break them all open and see? I think not. You really should read more before respond. In case you don't believe me about this being in the bone, here is a video on it.

qG5B7x_uDlE?fs

"Since you are an ex-creationists. then you know Genesis pretty well, right? In Geneisis, when did the first sin happen? Towards the end of the 6th day, right?"

Actually, it doesn't give an indication of the time. The narrative goes from Eve's creation to sin and the fall, it may have been a matter of minutes, maybe days, who knows,

"So what is time minus sin? It's eternal. So if creation was done under eternal laws, how would we make sense of it trying to explain it using non-eternal laws? "


I can't answer that, maybe you can't make sense of it. In any case the debate is about science. I don't see how trying to make sense of genesis using non-eternal laws has anything to to with fossils, genetics etc. And what's with eclipses? I know the odds of them looking as cool as they do are pretty slim, you have to get the moon ans sun to appear more or less the same size from earth and everything, but what is your point? Eclipses don't really have anything to do with evolution.


Then I don't believe your claim about being a creationist. Or even being a Christian. This is basic stuff. Your inability to answer says a lot. And your choice to act stupid on slim chances just keeps adding up.

I am also fully aware that we are in a "habitable zone" around the sun, and the rest of the associated "anthropic principal" argument, but that doesn't hold up either. We get exactly the same results if the earth was designed for life, or if life evolved to suit the earth. Either way it will be well suited to its surroundings.


And this just adds to what I said above.

"The Grand Canyon took 5 million of years to make from a river that flows through it, right? Then that would mean the top of the canyon has been exposed to weathering for that 5 million years it took, right? Then explain how the vertical wear at the top of the canyon is still visible when 5 million years of weathering should have worn away that evidence?"

This doesn't make any sense to me. For a start the estimated age of the canyon is 17 million years, so it seems your research is lacking, but in any case are you saying that the rock at the top should not show any vertical wear? Why not? Or are you saying that it looks like rock at the bottom, which has (according to evolution) been exposed for much longer? Because from the photos provided the top of the canyon looks much more weathered to me.


And again the acting stupid just adds to what I said earlier.

Regarding cross contamination - palaeontologists are well aware of the errors of cross contamination and take great care to avoid them. They choose bones which don't show the disturbance one associates with intrusive burial (a pretty rare thing in nature anyway) and they use several independent methods to verify the age. They take samples from deep within cliff faces rather than from the face to avoid the possibility that they are sampling from the wrong material, etc. Now I have an important question for you: What do you think is going on among palaeontologists it if they really and so consistently made this simple mistake? Do they all have an IQ of 60? Is there a conspiracy among them to brainwash us? If their methods were so flawed that you are able to debunk their entire field of work in one paragraph, why hasn't the rest of the scientific community noticed yet? Please tell me, this is something I have yet to see a creationist answer, and I am genuinely curious. What do you think is happening in the field of science for them to have gotten things so badly wrong for all these years?

View Post


The "I don't understand" answer is a usual tactic. I don't buy it. And your lack of being able to show Biblical learning, but show the atheist opinion pretty much seals the deal in your claim to have been a creationist. I knew it would not take much of a test to see if you were telling the truth. Many atheists come in here claiming the same as you, and say it because they think it will give them an advantage in convincing people to their way of thinking.

Now since it has been revealed that you are here to waste time by claiming things that don't apply, and acting stupid and saying: But I don't understand. I know you are not that stupid. Doing this you waste my time, and everyone Else's. Be honest, you did not really come here to debate or find truth. You came here to show up the creationists and add a few marks to your ego. and when you found that you were debating people who knew something, you started doing the only thing you could. Dodge, act stupid, Reverse the burden of subjects you cannot address, and try to use logic instead of evidence as to why my answers don't work. You believe aht you like, but we don;t play time wasting games so you can entertain your lurker friends.

Keep it up and you will be gone. This is your only warning.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users