Jump to content


Has Time Ran Out?


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

#1 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 03:37 PM

There is really something that just doesn't sit right about time being the savior of NDT.

In the 7k years of recorded human history, there is not a single recorded observation of any life form changing into some other type of life. E.g. we don't know of any wolves climing into the water to turn into whales, or reptiles sprouting feathers, etc...

If you want to rely on a continuous but slow process, then there must still be obervable changes taking place all around us. Somewhere, someplace, there must be some life in the process of changing, and to use the argument that evolution is a slow process, then you have to produce such examples. Otherwise; you have nothing.

Terry

#2 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 05:59 PM

In the 7k years of recorded human history, there is not a single recorded observation of any life form changing into some other type of life.

View Post

Seven thousand years is a geological eyeblink. The resolution of the fossil record is at best perhaps five thousand years (and fifteen to fifty thousand is really more like it). The earliest recorded writing is also about five thousand years old. Given those constraints, we would not expect to have recorded observations of any such change.

If you want to rely on a continuous but slow process, then there must still be observable changes taking place all around us.

The science of genetics is younger than many of the participants in these discussions, myself included -- yet, even during this brief time, small changes in the genomes of many organisms have been observed. Why doesn't that count?

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 06:37 PM

There's a big difference in going from water to land, or the other way around. And a genome change is much smaller. So if this is a slow process, why don't we see something that's still in that process? Like a animal that is a land creature, but is growing gills? etc...

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2005 - 06:44 PM

We have only been a ‘serious’ scientific community since the renaissance, and evolutionary investigation for say, 200 yrs.
Also how many individuals are actively ‘looking’.

Bird ring species is a good example of the beginning of speciation.

Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory predicts sudden (relatively) appearance of species will not occur.

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 06:51 PM

Seven thousand years is a geological eyeblink.


Is it really? 700 million years divided by 7k is only 100kyrs. So, if evolution took place at the same pace we see it today, then you really only have 100,000 chances for large scale evolution to take place, and account for life as we know it. Somehow that seems a little absurd.

The science of genetics is younger than many of the participants in these discussions, myself included --  yet, even during this brief time, small changes in the genomes of many organisms have been observed.  Why doesn't that count?


A small change in a genome doesn't create the type of change that large-scale evolutoin requires. The science of genetics is besides the point. Humans have been around to watch billions upon billions of living things reproduce and die. Not one time has anyone ever seen evolution take place, not one.....

It doesn't count because evolution is supposed to be a continous process, not a discrete one. In that case, there should be thousands of observable lifeforms that are in the process of generating information that produces new body types, e.g. a worm that is sprouting a leg or something, right before our very eyes.

IOW, with the billions upon billions of "experiments" that have been observed by the human race, are "scientific" evidence that evolution is not taking place, and most likely never has.

Terry

#6 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 06:58 PM

There's a big difference in going from water to land, or the other way around. And a genome change is much smaller. So if this is a slow process, why don't we see something that's still in that process? Like a animal that is a land creature, but is growing gills? etc...

View Post


"LABYRINTH FISH
Labyrinth fish inhabit Africa, Asia,India, and Southeast Asia.

Their name is derived from the Labyrinth Organ that all the fish in the sub-order possess. This organ enables this fish to breathe in oxygen-deprived waters. This organ is located just above the gills and consists of folded skin tissues that are lined with numerous blood vessels. This accessory respiratory organ allows Labyrinth fish to breathe air from the surface of the water. Due to this advanced organ, some species such as Anabas testudineus are able to leave the water for extended periods in humid climates. This species moves about on land by using its pectoral fins."

http://fish.mongabay.com/labyrinth.htm

There are hundreds of species alive today that would be likely called "transitional species" if we could track them for a few million years. The genetics of the flying squirrel, for example, suggests it diverged about 1.2 million years ago from tree squirrels. If evolution had been on a steady rate for some odd reason, that would imply a 1% change every 12,000 years.

So let's say that over the next 2 million years, the fingers of flying squirrel evolve to provide greater support for their gliding flaps (as bats support their wings). And then in another 2 million years, they evolve the musculature for flight. We might then look back and see that the flying squirrel is a transitional species. And at every stage, we had only micro-evolution.

#7 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:01 PM

We have only been a ‘serious’ scientific community since the renaissance, and evolutionary investigation for say, 200 yrs. 
Also how many individuals are actively ‘looking’.


Oh, I think that's a little shallow. Scientific or not, mankind has been pretty good at describing things that goes on around it for at least 6~7k yrs.

Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory predicts sudden (relatively) appearance of species will not occur.


Every 100k years, every 50k years, how often? With all of the living things on planet earth now, then the time frame has to be reduced from a time when fewer things were alive, and supposedly much evolution took place.

Terry

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:36 PM

Oh, I think that's a little shallow.  Scientific or not, mankind has been pretty good at describing things that goes on around it for at least 6~7k yrs.

View Post


Precious little has survived however.
I’m no expert but if one were to record species to the extent need for comparison, you would need data something like a naturalist would record. Describing the animal, eggs, habits, and where you can find them


There is a famous example in USA, beautiful renditions all hand painted. It could be this one (from the wikipeidia)

In 1902, Florence Merriam Bailey, wife of well-known zoologist Vernon Bailey wrote a Handbook of Birds of the Western United States which was arranged by taxonomic order and had clear descriptions of species size, distribution, feeding and nesting habits, resembling the modern field guide.


Ancient historical records are more concerned with politics than nature.


Every 100k years, every 50k years, how often?  With all of the living things on planet earth now, then the time frame has to be reduced from a time when fewer things were alive, and supposedly much evolution took place.

Terry

View Post


By sudden I am assuming one is claiming that a new species should spring out of an existing species, like a dog giving birth to a cat. That's what I meant by evolution predicts this will not occur.
We like to pidgin hole animals into classifications for ease of understanding them, but in reality if one were to describe ourselves as a strange sort of fish, that would be accurate.

#9 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:19 AM

700 million years divided by 7k is only 100kyrs.  So, if evolution took place at the same pace we see it today, then you really only have 100,000 chances for large scale evolution to take place, and account for life as we know it.

View Post

You must have in mind a pretty crisp definition of 'large scale evolution' in order to calculate that one opportunity per year occurs. Can you share it?


A small change in a genome doesn't create the type of change that large-scale evolution requires.

"The temperature of a teapot on a stove rises degree by degree, but never is there a point at which it ceases to be cold, and becomes hot; therefore, it is impossible to make a cup of tea."


there should be thousands of observable lifeforms that are in the process of generating information that produces new body types, e.g. a worm that is sprouting a leg or something, right before our very eyes.

If our geologists are right, there should be thousands of mountains that are in the process of being washed to the sea, right before our very eyes. The intuitive expectation that the fossil record at least (if not our direct observation) should indicate the emergence of at least some new body types since the Cambrian seems reasonable enough, and the fact that none have has long been a puzzle for biologists. It might make an interesting enough topic for a separate thread. (I'm not sure if a worm sprouting a leg would count as an example of a new body type, tho).


mankind has been pretty good at describing things that goes on around it for at least 6~7k yrs.

If you'd care to provide an example of a description dating back that far, we might then discuss whether subtle differences between the forms as the ancients described them and the same ones as we observe them today might represent changes of approximately the degree we would expect during such a period of time. I was looking at some photographs of Paleolithic cave paintings, and my tentative conclusion is that bison heads have gotten smaller.

#10 futzman

futzman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Tulsa, OK

Posted 28 July 2005 - 05:05 AM

There is really something that just doesn't sit right about time being the savior of NDT.

In the 7k years of recorded human history, there is not a single recorded observation of any life form changing into some other type of life.  E.g. we don't know of any wolves climing into the water to turn into whales, or reptiles sprouting feathers, etc...

If you want to rely on a continuous but slow process, then there must still be obervable changes taking place all around us.  Somewhere, someplace, there must be some life in the process of changing, and to use the argument that evolution is a slow process, then you have to produce such examples.  Otherwise; you have nothing.

Terry

View Post


Here's a list:

http://www.holysmoke...ns/transfos.htm

I can't comment on it species by species, but I present it for your reading pleasure.

I will say being an amateur paleontologist that my feeling is you have to look at the extremes of each phyla to see "transitional forms". My particular area of interest is the Brachiopoda (brachiopods). There are 4500 genera of these little critters recorded in the fossil record and only about 100 genera recorded today. Now that's 4400 genera (not species) that have existed that no longer exist. Probably, most of these weren't in existance 7000 years ago either, but that's just a guess on my part since the 4400 are largely preserved in rocks. Now, if you look at the variety of brachiopods that exist in the fossil record, those at the extreme end morphologically do look as if they might belong to Mollusca (the molluscs) or even Gastropoda (snails). Of course, within Brachiopoda itself, the lines become even more blurry as you would expect. This is the case with other phyla I'm sure, although as I said I'm just an amateur paleontologist. What you also have to realize is that those "blurry" or transitional species of most animals are probably extinct, so living examples are probably hard to find (although not impossible I'm sure). For marine benthic animals like the Brachiopoda, they're pretty easy to find in the fossil record because of the fact they are marine and were easily covered by sediment and preserved in the fossil record.

#11 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 01:57 PM

hHere's a list:

http://www.holysmoke...ns/transfos.htm

I think you missed the point......, supposed transitional fossils are not in question.

What I'm saying is that if an evolutionist wants to proclaim time as its savior, then that pressuposes a continuous process. If the process is continuous, then there must at all points in time be transitions available, or the argument vanishes.

When I say available transitions, I'm not talking about small-scale evolution, e.g. buffalo heads getting smaller, which is an equivocation, but true novel changes, e.g. a buffalo growing a second head, or humans growing eye's in the backs of their heads, or some legless lifeform growing a single leg, or a single legged lifeform withuot joinnts in the process of forming a joint, etc.., etc....

Terry

#12 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 02:24 PM

You must have in mind a pretty crisp definition of 'large scale evolution' in order to calculate that one opportunity per year occurs.  Can you share it?


I didn't calculate anything an a per year basis, what I calculated was the number of windows that you have to generate a whole lot of something that has never been observed in the window or "time frame" of human history.

"The temperature of a teapot on a stove rises degree by degree, but never is there a point at which it ceases to be cold, and becomes hot; therefore, it is impossible to make a cup of tea."


Right... :D

If our geologists are right, there should be thousands of mountains that are in the process of being washed to the sea, right before our very eyes.


Well, I guess we agreee that mutation and natural selection can only degrade the information that produces life as we know it.... )

The intuitive expectation that the fossil record at least (if not our direct observation) should indicate the emergence of at least some new body types since the Cambrian seems reasonable enough, and the fact that none have has long been a puzzle for biologists.


I think you mean evolutionary biologists, because creationist biologists have no problem with this.

It might make an interesting enough topic for a separate thread.  (I'm not sure if a worm sprouting a leg would count as an example of a new body type, tho).


This is the right thread. Why shouldn't a worm sprout a leg, or a head or anything else? Why shouldn't everything we see around us constantly be growing novel body types, e.g. 6 fingers, or 12 toes, or fish feathers etc..... I'm not being sarcastic, evolution/NDT demands this type of world.

If you'd care to provide an example of a description dating back that far, we might then discuss whether subtle differences between the forms as the ancients described them and the same ones as we observe them today might represent changes of approximately the degree we would expect during such a period of time.  I was looking at some photographs of Paleolithic cave paintings, and my tentative conclusion is that bison heads have gotten smaller.


The exact number of years is not that important. Flood stories have existed for at least 3~4k yrs in many different cultures, so I think that if a flood was rembered for such a long time, then its highly likely that tales of snakes growing feathers would also have been carried along the way. You can pick how ever many thousands of years your happy with, I think at least 3k, and it doens't really change the situation.

Even some greeks believed that life came from the waters. Yes evolution is founded in greek mythology ,you can read about that here greek mythology and evolution), so don't you think people would have taken notice of a dog splashing around in the water and sprouting fins, or something?

Terry

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2005 - 02:35 PM

http://www.holysmoke...ns/transfos.htm

I think you missed the point......, supposed transitional fossils are not in question.

What I'm saying is that if an evolutionist wants to proclaim time as its savior, then that pressuposes a continuous process. If the process is continuous, then there must at all points in time be transitions available, or the argument vanishes. 

When I say available transitions, I'm not talking about small-scale evolution, e.g. buffalo heads getting smaller, which is an equivocation, but true novel changes, e.g. a buffalo growing a second head, or humans growing eye's in the backs of their heads, or some legless lifeform growing a single leg, or a single legged lifeform withuot joinnts in the process of forming a joint, etc.., etc....

Terry

View Post


One could not evolve a second head or third eye, it could however modify a fin to get a leg. These novel features you speak of start of at the very small scale e.g a single celled organism having a very small change that allows a small amount of calcium to form, once that has been established, modification of that theme, produces skeletons. In a very real sense there has been little change to the overall theme of life.



Transitional - At any given point the ancestor or child would still look like it’s parents with only small differences.

If we look at current life forms do you have an objection to claiming that the following are examples of ‘animals in transition’:

a. The tree kangaroo (to become something like a monkey)
b. Gliding squirrels (to become something like a fruit bat)
c. Mud skippers (to become something like an amphibian)

If we accept that change is happening, then every life form is transitional. To trigger the change on a faster time scale you need to put the life forms under environmental stress.

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 02:43 PM

One could not evolve a second head or third eye,


Why? Aren't 2 heads better than one.....

These novel features you speak of start of at the very small scale e.g a single celled organism having a very small change that allows a small amount of calcium to form, once that has been established, modification of that theme, produces skeletons.  In a very real sense there has been little change to the overall theme of life.


That's what you claim, but at any point in time, there must be thousands of snapshots of novel features being formed, ...... and none exist.

Terry

#15 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 03:42 PM

there must be thousands of snapshots of novel features being formed, ...... and none exist.

Terry

View Post


Evolution generally proceeds by very very minor modifications to existing structures. That is what the fossil record shows. Think of a 1% change every 10,000 years. Stop the clock at any given point in time, and most of the animals features will look perfectly functional. There are cases where we suddenly see extra fingers and toes, but these are more exceptional.
http://www.medterms....articlekey=7756

So all these novel features are all around us. However, for you to notice that they are novel, you will need to stick around for a few million years and watch where they are heading.

Flying squirrels may not be heading anywhere, but then again, they could be heading towards bird wings. Are the feet of otters moving towards the sort of feet found with dolphins? What will a Dugong be in another 10 million years?

Will the Labyrinth fish have lungs and feet?
http://fish.mongabay.com/labyrinth.htm

Where on earth is the star mole rat heading?
http://www.scienceda...50205092829.jpg

I think life today is as weird as it has ever been - if weird is what you are looking for.

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:27 PM

Evolution generally proceeds by very very minor modifications to existing structures. That is what the fossil record shows.


Supposedly....

Think of a 1% change every 10,000 years. Stop the clock at any given point in time, and most of the animals features will look perfectly functional.


But in order for the illusion to hold water, there must be thousands of identifiable new functions in the process of being created. Otherwise, its just a nice story with no scientific proof.

So all these novel features are all around us. However, for you to notice that they are novel, you will need to stick around for a few million years and watch where they are heading.


No they aren't. If they were, I would be able to take a walk in the woods, or a stroll in the park and see them. We don't see them, at all. All known examples of mutations and natural selection are in the wrong direction, i.e. they work from neutral or degraded information, not an increase in information that is needed to add information to the biosphere, e.g. at one point in time, there was no information to create a leg with a knee joint., but there is today.

Flying squirrels may not be heading anywhere, but then again, they could be heading towards bird wings. Are the feet of otters moving towards the sort of feet found with dolphins? What will a Dugong be in another 10 million years?


Seeing life as something like a morph program that just changes the way things looks is over simplifying the issue at hand, since something has to be there to work with in the beginning, and mutations are mostly harmful, and as previously mentioned, decrease the information in the biosphere.

Will the Labyrinth fish have lungs and feet?


Only if it has the information alread programmed, by a programmer, into it to develop them.

I think life today is as weird as it has ever been - if weird is what you are looking for.


I'm not looking for weird, evolution demands weird, if we are to accept the illusion of time.

Terry

#17 futzman

futzman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Tulsa, OK

Posted 28 July 2005 - 05:45 PM

http://www.holysmoke...ns/transfos.htm

I think you missed the point......, supposed transitional fossils are not in question.

What I'm saying is that if an evolutionist wants to proclaim time as its savior, then that pressuposes a continuous process. If the process is continuous, then there must at all points in time be transitions available, or the argument vanishes. 

When I say available transitions, I'm not talking about small-scale evolution, e.g. buffalo heads getting smaller, which is an equivocation, but true novel changes, e.g. a buffalo growing a second head, or humans growing eye's in the backs of their heads, or some legless lifeform growing a single leg, or a single legged lifeform withuot joinnts in the process of forming a joint, etc.., etc....

Terry

View Post


What about my post did you not understand and I'll try to explain it better. I was trying to explain that there ARE transitional fossils and there IS a gradual continuum of small changes that tend to blur classification of flora and fauna. I thought I presented this pretty clearly with Brachiopoda, but maybe not. Why do you think taxonomists argue so much about proper classification, particularly in the fossil record? It's because the "extremes" in the phyla (and genera for that matter) tend to blur together. I think that's very strong evidence of those transitions you are referring to.

#18 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 06:05 PM

What about my post did you not understand and I'll try to explain it better.


Maybe I should ask the same question. The fossil record means nothing to my point, absolutely nothing.

If evolution is a continual process, then there must be identifiable transitional forms all around us that are introducing new information into the biosphere, or new information into a species. In order for time to be used in the sense of "millions of years" illusion, then there must be a continum of relative changes to previous versions. And in the end, if we can identify the outcomes of evolution, then we ought to be able to detect the process in action.

Aristarchus wants to say that 10% change occurs every 10k years. Fine, then where are all of the 1 to 99% changes in all of life that should be there to use time as a factor. For all of the different species alive, we would have to be able to identify various parts of the process in action.

They don't exist, so the argument vanishes.

Terry

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2005 - 07:18 PM

Why?  Aren't 2 heads better than one.....

View Post


They would likely argue :D Actually I recently saw on TV a two headed tortoise, the owner was describing it’s behaviour as quite normal, however if one head spied some juicy morsel the other head could not see, two of the legs would try an walk in that direction, while the other head was dragged away from what is was eating.

That's what you claim, but at any point in time, there must be thousands of snapshots of novel features being formed, ...... and none exist.

Terry

View Post


I’m finding very difficult to understand this point. Is not the lowest/oldest representative of some life form, an example of some new feature?

e.g. there must be a fish that is currently ranked as the oldest known, or the oldest dinosaur, or the oldest bird. What exactly do you object to e.g. to in a lobed fin fish as being the precursor to limbs as we know them?

If one examines a bat or a birds wing you can find the analogue of our hand within a web of skin. Do you classify a wings as a new feature, or the degradation of a hand/arm? But most importantly, how can you tell?

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2005 - 09:40 PM

they work from neutral or degraded information, not an increase in information that is needed to add information to the biosphere, e.g. at one point in time, there was no information to create a leg with a knee joint., but there is today.
Only if it has the information alread programmed, by a programmer, into it to develop them.
I'm not looking for weird, evolution demands weird, if we are to accept the illusion of time.

Terry

View Post


I don’t pretend to understand most of this document but it lists 7 methods of creating new genetic structures.
LINK




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users