Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Macro-evolution

Recommended Posts

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.

71092[/snapback]

1) - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The E.Coli long term evolution experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71093[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71096[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The E.Coli long term evolution experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-...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.

 

post-44-1303282222_thumb.jpg

 

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.

71097[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

71098[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.paleodirect.com/pgset2/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

71104[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71096[/snapback]

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.

71096[/snapback]

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!â€ÂÂ

 

 

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

71096[/snapback]

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 whalesâ€ÂÂ!

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.imageshack.us/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.imageshack.us/i/step4r.jpg/

...

71086[/snapback]

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

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.imageshack.us/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.imageshack.us/i/step4r.jpg/

...

71086[/snapback]

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. ;)

71115[/snapback]

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.paleodirect.com/pgset2/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.org/deepwaters.html

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean...ered-earth.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...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.

71103[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

71115[/snapback]

 

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!

71117[/snapback]

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

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW4txyQI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

71126[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So now you are trying to claim that macro evolution and speciation are the same thing?"

 

The definition of macro evolution according to dictionary.com is "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. " If dictionary.com is wrong please give me your definition of macro-evolution and I will try to answer your OP. If you don't define it then how can anyone be expected to answer your question?

 

"Why have to wrods that mean the same thing? In another thread someone's trying to claim micro and macro are the same."

 

We have the terms "street", "road" and "highway" etc. - it is a question of scale. According to the definitions I read, micro-evolution is at the level below species, macro evolution is at or above that level. If I am wrong in thinking this then please give me the definition that I have asked for, in your own terms, of micro and macro 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 promise you what I said was true. I am an ex-creationist. I couldn't provide an answer, not because I didn't understand or because my biblical knowledge was lacking (neither of those is the case), but because I genuinely cannot think of a way to explain the concept of eternity using non-eternal things. I thought it was a rhetorical question which was meant to imply that the eternal cannot be explained using non-eternal things.

 

"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."

 

Again I promise you that is true. Where have I shown a lack of biblical learning? What have I said about the bible that isn't true?

 

Also, I did not show an atheist opinion. I even admitted that the change in people when they are saved is profound and I said that there may not be a materialistic explanation for it. This is not atheist thinking, and I am not an atheist. I am open minded about these things.

 

"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."

 

I came here to see if you could answer questions which I myself could not answer when I was a creationist. I have asked you some of those questions in the hopes that you might have an answer where I could not find one.

 

Please do not ban me, I am genuinely looking for answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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?

 

71126[/snapback]

Firstly can you show evidence of why you feel that small changes can add up to larger ones, (and no it is NOT a case of 1 +1 = 2!!). I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored.

 

 

Conformism is the problem. It is very hard to support new ideas that go against the norm. This has occured constantly over and over in scientific history, however the walls of evolution are breaking down in the areas of microbiology and biochemistry, the more complex the cell becomes, the closer it gets to principles of engineering and away from randomness, the harder it will be to sell the evolution idea.

 

There are plenty of scientists that have challenged the "establishment" only to lose their jobs... How do you expect anything to change in the face of such.

 

I used to be an evolutionist. This was mainly because that was what I was taught at school, (so much for Dawkins looking out for the freedom of children when his own "side", enforces their ideas on young minds)... However I now don't believe in it by looking at the "science" behind it, (there is very little actual science and alot of conjecture), and the many scientific principles that have already been established that evolution defies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism was the established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

 

And I wasn't ignoring you, I provided the example. You said it couldn't be applied to biology. You said "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" How is this different? I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.

 

 

"I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored." You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts. I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5770/97.abstract . To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

 

Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well adz87,

 

I can tell you that your claimed world view does not apply. You every answer is pro-evolution, and anti-Bible which is anti-God. So I'm changing your world view to atheist, because you have not proven to be an agnostic.

 

Agnostic in simple terms is someone that does not know. Your disagreements with the Bible say you already made up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism was the established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

 

2. And I wasn't ignoring you, I provided the example. You said it couldn't be applied to biology. You said "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" How is this different? I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.

You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

 

4.I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

 

5. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

 

6. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed.

 

7. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5770/97.abstract .

 

8. To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

 

9. Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

71133[/snapback]

1. What initial evidence was this? was it empirical? Or was it based on supposition like Darwins other idea, Pangenesis.

 

 

3. Read post 30, (the one you said you would deal with later). But the keyconcept you need to realise is that the bridge / archway is DESIGNED! This has

already been stated by others before but you have ignored this. This also touches upon my comments that your analogy fails to address key concepts of evolution, ie mutation, selection etc. These are why your analogy is incorrect and doesn't pertain to evolution, these have already been stated but I hope you see them this time.

 

EDIT: Another thing to add to this is that we are discussing LIVING things here, it isn't like a bridge that can sit there and wait for random bits of stone to fall out of the sky. The cell needs to be able to life and function whilst all these changes are taking place, this is another reason why your analogy doesn't logically fit.

 

4. I wasn't asking for "every single one", (these are your words)... I was asking for just ONE. If you cannot even show just one example in reality, (without having to draw blocks on the computer), this shows how weak your position is in terms of reality.

 

5. and I am telling you that the principle that has been "established" doesn't pertain to reality. Instead

 

6. Yet your example was about a bridge, (so now you are changing the goal posts)... Look back to your pictures, no archway there!!

 

I bet there are plenty of stones that can be taken away from a stone bridge.

 

 

7. If no-one knows then the my claims at point 5 stand.. I would prefer you to comment on the link you have shown. I am not here to review your own information.

 

8. Yet to claim they did with no empirical evidence is even worse!! Actually not believing in something until there is empirical evidence that directly asserts it is called being scientific...

 

9. Mendels 1st law- Lets say you have 2 parent organisms one mother and one father and they have 10 chromosomes... in a baby 5 come from a mother, 5 come from the father, yes?

 

Then how is it that multiple chromosomal organisms "evolved" from a bacteria with a single chromosome.. (Yes binary fission is different to S@xual reproduction).. I have created a few threads asking this, but I have yet to hear a sufficient mechanism that occurs in all species, (I am mainly concerned about animals).

 

My post 33

 

 

 

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.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism wasthe established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

71133[/snapback]

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

 

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical†evidence as the OP calls for. You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

 

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

 

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical†evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

 

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

71137[/snapback]

Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution..... ;)

 

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

 

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical†evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

 

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

71137[/snapback]

Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution..... ;)

 

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

71140[/snapback]

 

It seems that adz87 wants to totally disregard the OP, which states:

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

70977[/snapback]

Either that, or he believes “mere opinion†= “empirical evidenceâ€ÂÂ… Or “Design Evidence†= “Evolution Evidenceâ€ÂÂ.

 

Moving goal posts must be hard work in reality, but in the metaphysical world, it requires nothing more than shifting a few words around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

 

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

 

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

71137[/snapback]

His statement is absurd. All of the fossils that he showed us were not transitional fossils. They were already been debunked as frauds or misunderstandings.{It does show how horrible scientists are at guessing what fossils were.) Of course, we know why they still try to use this as evidence. Fossils are in complete coherence with Creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of the definition of macro-evolution. Right from the encyclopedia of science: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones. Compare with microevolution.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/...oevolution.html

 

And from the same site the definition of micro-evolution: Also known as adaptation; evolution within a species. It is distinguished from macroevolution.

 

Which by the way is what I have read in text books, and what I was taught in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms