Evolution? How?

rosborne979 wrote:

We use this knowledge every day in medicine and in agriculture.

no we don't. "knowing" that the bacteria you're growing in your petri dish is 60000 MYO doesn't make you less or more able to use it, grow it, "play with it". what matters is empirical - what happens if i do this to it, do that to it etc. the latter doesn't require evolutionary thinking to carry out.

rosborne979 wrote:

Why do you choose to believe what you're told by the people who gave you your first bible? Do you trust them? Who do you believe in such matters?

Jesus.
1. Lived.
2. Died.
3. Resurrected.

c.f. Bible/The Passion of the Christ.

I trust Jesus.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

1. The Cambrian explosion took place over 30 million years. A short time in geological terms but a long time in evolutionary terms. Because we haven't witnesssed a species change in 50 years can hardly compare to 30 million years. (When we discover new species today how can we be sure that they were not recently evolved?)

so we agree that instead of having a "darwinian tree of life" you have a "darwinian lawn of life".

The Cambrian Explosion indicates a spawn of millions of species simultaneously ("in a short time span as you indicated within geological terms"). Darwin predicted/predicts a linear change. All i'm saying is CE shows otherwise.

parados wrote:

2. Ever hear of XYY syndrome? a person actually has an extra chromosome which is made up of over a thousand genes. So, we have provable instances of people having added genes. http://mchneighborhood.ichp.edu/pacnorgg/media/Sex_Chrom/xyy_eng.pdf

yes.
the information is not new. if a cat was born with 7 ears instead of 2 that's not evolution. that's something seriously wrong with the stem cell stage of
division.
(just for the record i've done genetics at uni, and let me just say that "once a drosophila, ALWAYS a drosophila") - darwin predicts "once a drosophila, tomorrow (MYO timeline) a human being."
again the scientific facts prove otherwise.

parados wrote:

3. The only requirement for evolution is life. It does not require a certain temperature other than one that can sustain life. You must mean high temperatures are needed for the creation of life. Scientists have created amino acids in the laboratory. In fact recent experiments have shown amino acids can be created in the cold of space.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020330/fob1.asp

amino acids and a "simple" prokaryote are two seperate leagues. don't compare them.

parados wrote:

7. " the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
" http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

you might win on this one - but assumptions in decay rate is assumed to be constant. we just saw a tsunami a few months ago. are you saying that you believe the earth has always been "generally" "stable" (unchanging) over millions and millions and millions of years? i agree with your isotope decay rates, but i don't believe that the earth has been the same for 10 billion years, just 'cos the tsunami a few months ago shows me differently in the real world, and i adjust my empirical science accordingly.

0 Replies

All proved itself in the bible. No other external records exist. Just to think that the bible was written and compiled years (50 plus) later - some forms of it over a thousand years later. With all those miracles happening, it's a wonder no other historian recorded those events. Most of what's in the bible are myths anyway. They are taken from Jewish laws and regional myths of gods. Even the baby Jesus with Mary (the painting depicted so often by christians) is really Egyptian mythology much older than the time of Christ. Christians keep repeating that old refrain that the bible is the world of god, but there have been and still are many versions of the bible. A little confusing, don't you think?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I hate doing this kind of post by post crap but pilsner has made a few error filled observations that seem to be draughted by the CRI. viz
]

impressively civilized.

let's talk geology since you're an expert and astronomy fits somewhat with geology.

you say the strata shows you millions of years and that the earth is old. what assumptions are you basing your worldview on?

astonomy works such that paradigms attempt to predict solar system formation and extrapolate (even infer) the age of the universe. that requires assumptions: in dt they assume an old universe and adhoc what we observe. like our moon. how did our moon come to rotate around the earth? oh, a comet like halley's came close to earth and got "pulled in" (that's utter bs from their own mouths 'cos the physics of that require the earth's gravitation force to be 60x more than it is today to pull something the size of the moon in) - and such adhocs are absurd, modifying the very principles of physics - not really empirical science.

MLPT on the other hand says "the moon is just there 'cos that's the result of supersonic turbulance and the rate of cooling of a spinning hot disc/nebulae".

now i don't need to tell you why i believe the latter theory.

oh i don't think i explained MLPT order of creation of the solar system.

1. Neptune
2. Uranus
3. Saturn
4. Jupiter
5. Mars
6. Earth
7. Venus
8. Mercury
9. Sun

DT is just the reverse. Quite different paradigms. MLPT is based on empirical science (the existence of plasma fluids) and works with the laws of physics.
DT? who knows how this paradigm held for so long.

MLPT also "invokes" (for lack of a better word) 'solar winds' that explains the number of moons on the planets. and that was how Prentice also predicted the composition of the moons Voyager 2 were to find.

I'm trying not to hold my breath as astronomers switch to MLPT... but i guess that will depend on what happens to evolutionary theory. I'd be happy if i saw it happen in my lifetime Cool

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

2. Genes. Give 1 example of one gene ADDING itself to ANOTHER gene. Result: zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Mutations are all bad, as observed through current emperical sciences (you guys would operate on cancer cells would you not?)
Mutations occupy only one mechanism of genic diversity. Many benign Mutations accumulate in a genome at a fairly fixed rate from which we can date the organism in its present form.(The technique of Polymerase Chain reactions allows us to detect and repeat the occurences of the short tandem repeat alleles in the previously called "junk" DNA-we now know that its not junk at all). Mayr has stated that. Much other genetic diversity comes from recombination. duplication, retention of RNA factors, etc much of a populations diversity comes from good ole sexual transmission of traits

i cheated. 2&8 were supposed to be just one point Cool

yes, genetic diversity is good (yes from the eyes of a botanist/zoologist) and dna recomb, replication, sex, asex etc. are all good, and we observe that. your PCR is well utilized in labs and yes it can do just that - in your point, "junk dna is not junk at all" -- a creationist would think, well, that makes sense 'cos God would not put random junk in our dna sequence(s) - how would an evolutionist think? oh crap, there's no junk in here, but doesn't darwin predict lots of junk 'cos we've evolved from prokaryotes?... just a Q.

but my point is that there is no evidence of one gene that has ever been observed to be added into another gene. to express it as a phenotype, a fish will always be a fish, you can delete its eyes, fins or give it eyes/fins - but you will never find a fish mutate into an ant (ants are better in the evolutionary scale 'cos they are landbased yes? - correct me if i'm wrong) - that kind of stuff is reserved for the xfiles.

i see mutation as bad. i get a mutated skin cell - cancer - benign or otherwise, i go to the hospital to cut it out.

how do you see mutation? or don't u have a view on it? just trying to gather your world view and how you see the intricacies of our sciences.

0 Replies

Quote:

but my point is that there is no evidence of one gene that has ever been observed to be added into another gene

WRONG-genes can lateral transfer and replicate genes (see concepts of orthologous v paralogous genes). The new genic complement in a new -line species is an example of paralogous genes.Watson, Margulis,McClintockall have posited mechanisms for genic doubling and "overachieving".It appears that a mathematical relationship exists between the size of the genoe and the length of time a species is on the planet.
Yeast, for example doubles and triples its gene compliment everytime you bake some bread. In evolution , to say that theres no example of genes adingon is just flat wrong. Happens all the time, most times its just not preserved or , as Mayr sez, a paralogous duplicate of a gene just lies there and takes on new function as time and codons increase.Read about the sequencing of the fugu "Pufferfish" and how it helped in gene sequencing.

You are apparently a person who beleives that evolution and your religious beliefs are inconsistent. I feel sorry for ya bud, cause we aint gonna stop decoding genes and the more we learn, the more your "CRI scientists" have to practise your revisionist views.

0 Replies

Quote:

you say the strata shows you millions of years and that the earth is old. what assumptions are you basing your worldview on?

astonomy works such that paradigms attempt to predict solar system formation and extrapolate (even infer) the age of the universe.

I actually said that the Isua formation is at least 3.8 Billion years. You seem to selectively choose what parts of any science you wish to believe. Thats ok. My point is that stratigraphy on the planet earth can be simultaneously dated by a number of means

1Direct superposition (oldest stuff lies on the bottom)
2Original horizontality(layers of strat sequences were always laid out horizontally. Even dunes show that , while cross bedding may be off horizontal, the entire dune field was horizontal

3Radionuclide decay (there are many tens of methods using isotopes and ratios of isotopes available that can show us , by both decay and stable isotopes what geologic time were looking at)

4paleomagnetics-we can follow relict magnetism through time

5 tectonics-we can map the breakup and compression of continents and their margins

6 continental drift-the continents "float" on mantle convection cells. All can be seen to move at unique rates as a function of their placement on a triple point (think spherical geometry)

7isostacy-gravity anomalies through time are preserved in certain basins that can be then mapped and used to augment the stratigraphic makeup

8fossils-no we dont date the sediments by the fossils and then date the fossils by the sediments. Thats an ol;d Creationist
"if it aint true it oughta be" view. Evolutionary changes and placement of index fossils only key in toa strat unit when weve gotten all other means of dating to coalesce (which, not surprisingly, they do)

Theres a bunch more techniques in which the Creation sedimentologists (Ive even dignified them as scientists at all) try to make up some line of bullshit like
"The grand canyon was really carved in a short duration of highly turbulent water" YET , even if this were true, They fail to discuss the length of time it took to lay down all the units of the Grand Canyon , from the Kaibab down to the Vishnu.
You can blow smoke up my ass about your planetary sequence and you may score some debate points because I admit that Im not versed in the system you mentioned. BUT thats a mere diversion. If we have good solid evidence that the earth is so old from coalescing routes ofsolid evidence, Im not sure what your astrophysical discussion gets us other than some convenient place for you to divert attention. You wont believe our terrestrial physics but youll jump out in space to measure age synthetically .
I will, I pledge, follow up on this and read till Im more knowledgeable but, Im already familiar with the direct techniques by which we date the petrology and impact structures on the Moon and these data support an old age for the moon also.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Cambrian Explosion indicates a spawn of millions of species simultaneously ("in a short time span as you indicated within geological terms"). Darwin predicted/predicts a linear change. All i'm saying is CE shows otherwise.

Nothing of the sort, Darwin was obsessed with why did life appear so late.He didnt see t5hings earlier than Silurian.
SO Theterm "explosion" , with what we now know, is hardly fit.We now know of a rich assemblage of precambrian life annelids, coelentarates,stromatolites and algae , the only differences were that the production of "hard parts' coincided with the 570 million year mark. In truth , all the CE gave us was a few trilobites, pelecypods, brachiopods, molluscans and one or two other, like bryozoans. Many of these went extinct(in fact, the vast majority went extinct) The later life appeared in gradual appearance
1st notochord in the late Cambrian
1st vertebrate , not till the Silurian
fish (all kinds) Silurian to Devonian
Amphibians-Late Devonian
insects -silurianand devonian
etc etc.
The "explosion is only real if you try to make it appear as a "Moment of creation" . Actually life appeared in an orderly progression as resources (mostly oxygen and nutrients) were available and the order of appearance till all the main phylla appeared . This progression., spanned about another 300 million years , or about 10 times the 30 million year "Explosion"
But of course this bit of science doesnt mean anything to you since youve pretty well stated you "beliefs".
Most of Creation science is done with sound bytes and not careful reasoning. Most Creation research is done by poring over genetic and paleo research to try to find some argument to counter, and little time is spent trying to understand the very points being challenged.

Another point to which Ive never been given a decent Creationist answer, is, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE EXTINCTION THATS GONE ON? Most species are extinct as unique species, yet homologous ones (seemingly derivative ones) are here in their place. Also, whenever a major catastrophe results in a mass extinction, a whole new line of orders seemingly "suddenly" appear totake over.Evolution can answer these and many more posers, Creationism is, however, stuck in reverse.

0 Replies

Quote:

"junk dna is not junk at all" -- a creationist would think, well, that makes sense 'cos God would not put random junk in our dna sequence(s) - how would an evolutionist think? oh crap, there's no junk in here, but doesn't darwin predict lots of junk 'cos we've evolved from prokaryotes?... just a Q.

A scientist would try to understand what the story is . The term "junk DNA" was a term coined because we couldnt find a use for all the non coding sequences. Now, as we are beginning to understand that this is the stuff of "controller" sequences and actual new genes,we better pay attention.
Noone in science ever presumed an answer like "its all good cauze God dont put no junk in my DNA" Do you even fathom how silly that sounds?
PS , youre mixing and matching science a lot.Darwin had no idea about genetics or the existence of genes. If were gonna try to argue a point reasonably, lets not take these huge leaps of reason and ascribe stuff to people who had no idea in hell about mechanistics of inheritance .

0 Replies

Quote:

(just for the record i've done genetics at uni, and let me just say that "once a drosophila, ALWAYS a drosophila") - darwin predicts "once a drosophila, tomorrow (MYO timeline) a human being."
again the scientific facts prove otherwise.

No he doesnt, thats complete bullshit. Now stop being purposefully dense.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

WRONG-genes can lateral transfer and replicate genes (see concepts of orthologous v paralogous genes). The new genic complement in a new -line species is an example of paralogous genes.Watson, Margulis,McClintockall have posited mechanisms for genic doubling and "overachieving".

i'm not debating the transfer of genes - swapping of allels during/before/after replication.... i thought my analogy sufficed, but i have been told that my explainations were at times... "too vague".
sure shuffling of genes work (orthologs and paralogs)... but "I challenge you to find even one book, journal or paper anywhere that explains the origin of the genetic information in a step-by-step fashion that would have been necessary to produce the blood-clotting mechanism, biochemistry of vision, or the transformation of the reptilian lung into the avian respiratory system." - as required by darwinism.

*http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp

farmerman wrote:

You are apparently a person who beleives that evolution and your religious beliefs are inconsistent. I feel sorry for ya bud, cause we aint gonna stop decoding genes and the more we learn, the more your "CRI scientists" have to practise your revisionist views.

you know me so well as to feel sorry for me? that's new.
FYI, i have hardcore Christian Jesus Christ believers who believe in evolution as the mechanism for the spawn of God's creatures... so until you know my social network don't mock me or attempt to make assumptions as to what is compatible or incompatible with my worldview.

you know why i choose to believe creationism, and i willingly gave you that information - but don't let that knowledge give you a big head to become judge jury and executor.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You seem to selectively choose what parts of any science you wish to believe. Thats ok. My point is that stratigraphy on the planet earth can be simultaneously dated by a number of means

farmerman wrote:

Theres a bunch more techniques in which the Creation sedimentologists (Ive even dignified them as scientists at all) try to make up some line of bullshit like

oh i take back my "impressively civilized" comment and also "let's talk about geology" 'cos if this is your definition of "conversation", gg to you.

i don't know what i was thinking wanting to talk to you about geology, since i know about as much as you do about astronomy; stupid comment withdrawn.

farmerman wrote:

You can blow smoke up my ass about your planetary sequence and you may score some debate points because I admit that Im not versed in the system you mentioned. BUT thats a mere diversion.

charming.
diversion? yeah couldn't have gone better if i'd planned it. 'nuff said.

0 Replies

it's your life, do what you will with it, call me what you will. be judge jury and executor, but here are some links to alternative worldviews (non-"darwinistic") for those interested (Vol, if you still around this heated thread):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/warped.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/finches.asp

if all roads lead to rome i'm confused as to why you guys always get so heated in discussions - but then again some mysteries in life are just for amusement.

let's see the candid responses...

Evolutionists: "evolution is right, creationists should stop smoking pot"
Creationists: "this data can be explained this way, the evolutionists *MAY* be wrong."

take your pick.

if a candle has been lit, the dinner was cooked some (unspecified) time ago.

0 Replies

Biliskner wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Why do you choose to believe what you're told by the people who gave you your first bible? Do you trust them? Who do you believe in such matters?

Jesus.
1. Lived.
2. Died.
3. Resurrected.

c.f. Bible/The Passion of the Christ.

I trust Jesus.

Why? How do you know any of this is true? You never met Jesus, and you didn't meet the people who wrote the original bible. How do you know any of what you believe is true?

0 Replies

Bilksner-If Im arguing, its merely cause you represent a tiresome group of individuals that repeat your mantras and dont discuss. Im not saying that youre puling your material from AIG , but it sure looks like it. As far as the Grand Canyon , the record of the "erosion of this feature" is quite predictable. Im not even sure to what you refer. If you look at the Main trail today, its about where it was in the late 1800s. . The Creationist argument fails to recognize the 2+billion years of sedimentary and metamorphic layers
that the river has cut. Your AIG argument in this is just silly.

You were being cryptic about Georgias "little grand canyon", Ive never heard of Georgias little grand canyon (we have a little grand canyon in Pa and in NY ) please share this information I like underived data presented with no context-
If they dont recognize the mass of rock that the canyon has cut through as being part of the time line then they , as usual, are practicing "selective analyses"

Everybody knows more about astrophysics than I.But its not geology .However, diversion to that realm is to ignore the nice discussion on stratigraphy that youve glossed over. We told you of the myriad ways to measure the earths absolute and relative age, you just flit by cause maybe its a weak spot , OK , Im used to the approach by your ilk.

As far as "show me the genetic evolution. The research on gene expression and molecular evolution is hot in many U's now. I refer to Hakkams 97 paper on the analyses of the Hox gene in arthropods. Were understanding genic expression and modifications as adaptation chnges a genes main function. One gene can develop multi expressions and many genes can affect only one expression. Weve mapped the exon/intron layout for at least one gene between mice and humans and we see evolution in action by how the introns seem to collect the spurious mutations while the coding sections remain surprisingly consistent.

No your seemingly "lighthearted and jocular view " posted at the end is a great bit disengenuous. Creationists say (and you may look back to this very thread) Evolution is inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity, (something like that)

You may profess a desire to appear reasonable but thats not whats going on. A small group of the Evangelicals, at this time, wants a special interpretation of the US Constitution by having the "establishment" clause of the 1st amendment apply to everyone except them.

I was at the recent Intelligent design seminar where Mike Behe spoke. His comments after the topic were bitter and rather confusing

I have a feeling that your done .Ive noticed that your takin offense at my salty talk.Youve never even started todiscuss geology really.

I just feel that many Creationists get on these lines just to set up a google string of relevant posts to later quote in an ipsidixit fashion. Weve had a number of guys show up, make statements then disappear, but their posts live on and show up on a google search. I like to make sure that quotation doesnt mean credibility.

0 Replies

I just visited the Lumpkin Georgia "little Grand Canyon" site. I believe youre trying to read too much into the concepts of mass wasting and erosion. WHO calculated that this is being eroded in .001% of the time predicted by geologists?

I think that theres an agenda driven BS statement in theresomewhere. If I was sent down to evaluate the erosion "gully" Id do as they did. get airphotos and recreate the pattern of pinnacle weathering. The fact that the base level doesnt change displays the rules of sedimentation and erosion.
Hell weve got rills bigger than that around some of our coal mines in PA. They know how the Lumpkin gulley started, its a historical artifact that the gulltying began by farming practices.

Whew, gullible arent you? And you want your host of material taught to our kids as science?
Well gotta take off, were siinging in the choir today

0 Replies

Quote:

but assumptions in decay rate is assumed to be constant. we just saw a tsunami a few months ago. are you saying that you believe the earth has always been "generally" "stable" (unchanging) over millions and millions and millions of years? i agree with your isotope decay rates, but i don't believe that the earth has been the same for 10 billion years, just 'cos the tsunami a few months ago shows me differently in the real world, and i adjust my empirical science accordingly.

I see no evidence that the tsunami changed chemistry or atoms. Do you have some? The tsunami is a very real natural effect. But you make some leaps that have no basis in science. As farmer can tell you much better than I, the physical appearance of the world changes over time. Seas have sedimentation that layers on their bottom. Mountains rise up from the movement of the earth. I never claimed that the physical makeup of the oceans and continents has never changed. That change is pretty obvious to see in the geological record.

The tsunami affected a very small % of the earth's surface both as % of land and as % of overall earth's surface. The tsunami did not change the rules about sedimentation nor did it change the rules about movement of earth's crust. (Remember, the Tsunami was caused by that movement.)But most importantly the tsunami did not change the chemical make up of the world as a whole or the way atoms work. I will be happy to change "my empirical science" when you present any empirical evidence that the decay rate of isotopes changed because of the tsunami. Or perhaps you have evidence that the sediment layers on the bottom of the ocean suddenly flipped.

I will be happy to examine any evidence you claim to have that answers my questions.

0 Replies

Quote:

astonomy works such that paradigms attempt to predict solar system formation and extrapolate (even infer) the age of the universe. that requires assumptions: in dt they assume an old universe and adhoc what we observe. like our moon. how did our moon come to rotate around the earth? oh, a comet like halley's came close to earth and got "pulled in" (that's utter bs from their own mouths 'cos the physics of that require the earth's gravitation force to be 60x more than it is today to pull something the size of the moon in) - and such adhocs are absurd, modifying the very principles of physics - not really empirical science.

This is utter BS. You ignore the most prevelant theory of how the moon was formed to use one that most don't think happened. Then use the theory mostly discredited in the science community to attack the science community. Complete intellectual dishonesty on your part. If you want to use astrophysics then at least be honest enough to use the prevailing theories.
This is a fairly easy to read explanation and includes some of the science supporting the theory. Things like SEDIMENTATION from tides.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_main_000901.html

0 Replies

rosborne-re your comment about ID failing on the three part summary. I do hope you are right. However, again, wet blanket in hand, if they can divorce themselves from the connection entirely by arguing only in merits of science and not theology, then if you can recall icans old admonition that within the heirarchy of biologic structure is essentially the tools for self direction. Its a crafty argument I feel and one to be prepared against.
If judges hire their own experts and these experts are vetted through the DAubert process, then I believe ID wont go very far. If., conversely, judges hire "dentists"(I say this for a reason)who make a hobby of speaking to church groups on the evils of evolution, we are screwed.

AsI said before, a case is built upon the best evidence hoping for a fair hearing. Aguillard was clearly a one sided victory , today however, itd be a lot closer vote , I think.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rosborne-re your comment about ID failing on the three part summary. I do hope you are right. However, again, wet blanket in hand,

Certainly no conclusion is forgone, and I would be the last to suggest that we underestimate the slipperyness of this eel, but ID really does break down as a "scientific" theory, so it's going to be difficult for them to get this wrong without exposing themselves to ridicule similar to the Kansas school board. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Supreme Court wants to be a laughingstock. There's a lot of risk for them personally and in the legacy they leave to history.

But look on the bright side, if they do decide that ID is a valid scientific theory which deserves equal time, the door will be open for all kinds of other wonderful new theories which don't have to pass standard peer review; the magic elf theory works just as well as the Intelligent Designer doesn't it? And so does the extraterrestrial theory, and the voodoo gods theory. We can finally all get our pet theories approved by the Supreme Court and taught in science class.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know