Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

There are several possibilities, oxygen being one. I don't quite like the idea of assuming the atmosphere of the ancient world to have had vastly more oxygen than we have now since we'd have had to breathe it and that might be problematical. You've heard of the liquid oxygen barbeque...

http://www.empty-handed.com/images/archive/bbq.jpg

Same sort of thing might happen inside your body cells if you had to breathe too much of the stuff.

0 Replies

That's true. I read somewhere (trying to find it now, for credibility purposes) that, were the atmospheric composition of Earth slightly different, we couldn't survive; at 18% oxygen the air would not be able to support us and we'd suffocate; at 25% we'd all become combustible.

Food for thought..

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Do you begin to see the problem? I strongly suspect that you could look through every hit Google was able to turn up now or ten years from now for an answer to what kept flight feathers from ending up on a bird's *** or ****, and you won't find anything.

Nothing keeps them from ending up there -- except that such a mutation would be harmful, the birds that have it would create less offspring, and the mutation would die out within a few generations. What makes you think this is difficult for evolution to explain?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Do you begin to see the problem? I strongly suspect that you could look through every hit Google was able to turn up now or ten years from now for an answer to what kept flight feathers from ending up on a bird's *** or ****, and you won't find anything.

Nothing keeps them from ending up there -- except that such a mutation would be harmful, the birds that have it would create less offspring, and the mutation would die out within a few generations. What makes you think this is difficult for evolution to explain?

Problem is, that would have happened a lot sooner than the point at which the bird had wings and some sort of feathers.

Natural selection is a destructive procesa and not a creative one. It is an agency of stasis and not change, and weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given species. In the case of a bird wannabe, it would weed it out about a day or two days after its arms first started mutating into anything vaguely resembling wings.

0 Replies

Attempting to "explain" evolution to one who sincerely endorses the relevant POV presented by gunga is akin to trying to explain the principles of simple arithmetic to a garage door.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Thomas wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Do you begin to see the problem? I strongly suspect that you could look through every hit Google was able to turn up now or ten years from now for an answer to what kept flight feathers from ending up on a bird's *** or ****, and you won't find anything.

Nothing keeps them from ending up there -- except that such a mutation would be harmful, the birds that have it would create less offspring, and the mutation would die out within a few generations. What makes you think this is difficult for evolution to explain?

Problem is, that would have happened a lot sooner than the point at which the bird had wings and some sort of feathers.

Why?

gungasake wrote:

Natural selection is a destructive procesa and not a creative one. It is an agency of stasis and not change,

It is true that when natural selection extinguishes mutations that don't make a better animal, is is destructive. But so is a sculptor's chisel. The chisel destroys everything about the marble block that doesn't look like, for example, your portrait. Thus, a sculptor can create by applying a destructive chisel to a block of marble. And in the same manner, evolution can create by applying destructive selection to random mutations, preserving those that do improve an organism's chances to survive and procreate.

gungasake wrote:

and weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given species. In the case of a bird wannabe, it would weed it out about a day or two days after its arms first started mutating into anything vaguely resembling wings.

No, not anything. Almost anything. In a few cases -- say once every thousand mutations -- the mutation is beneficial, spreads in the population and becomes the new "norm", to use your word. The difference between your "anything" and Darwin's "almost anything" is small, but significant.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Attempting to "explain" evolution to one who sincerely endorses the relevant POV presented by gunga is akin to trying to explain the principles of simple arithmetic to a garage door.

Even if that's true -- and I express no opinion about that -- I'm hoping there are fence-sitters on evolution out there reading our exchange. I'm also hoping that they, at least, are receptive to arguments and logic.

0 Replies

Francisco DAnconia wrote:

That's true. I read somewhere (trying to find it now, for credibility purposes) that, were the atmospheric composition of Earth slightly different, we couldn't survive; at 18% oxygen the air would not be able to support us and we'd suffocate; at 25% we'd all become combustible.

Food for thought..

You want to tell that to all those endurance athletes who train and live in oxygen-deprived rooms to simulate height training. They may not yet know they're dead.

0 Replies

Francisco DAnconia wrote:

That's true. I read somewhere (trying to find it now, for credibility purposes) that, were the atmospheric composition of Earth slightly different, we couldn't survive; at 18% oxygen the air would not be able to support us and we'd suffocate; at 25% we'd all become combustible.

Food for thought..

We didnt' exist back then. Large insects did.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

There are several possibilities, oxygen being one. I don't quite like the idea of assuming the atmosphere of the ancient world to have had vastly more oxygen than we have now

We don't have to assume it. The evidence in the geology alone is sufficient proof.

0 Replies

It strikes me as if a person has difficulty imagining the characteristics that a slow course of evolution over millennia seems to bring I cannot see how he could possibly imagine the characteristics that a Creator or Intelligent Designer must have, or how this Designer acquired these characteristics in the first place.

If the (intelligent) Designer is also a Creator where was He if there was no Cosmos to Design in or Create in or God over.

If the cosmos always existed then it requires no great imagination to include a Universe as one facet of an Evolving Cosmos. Simply Physics.

If one would like to believe in the existence of a Creator, a Designer, or a Big Bang then it is necessary to suspend the laws of physics for a while in order to make such a happenstance necessary. This seems to be true whether you are a "Big Banger" or a "Pentacostal Snake Handler".

The difficulties involved in adapting a whale to survive in the surrounding circumstances pale in comparison to the difficulties involved in building a Cosmos with no surrounding circumstances at all Exclamation

Unfortunetly Gunga, there doesn't seem to be anything that is "caused" to happen in our known universe. As much as anyone I'd like to believe that my curiosity won't end with my death. Unfortunetly there is no evidence to the contrary Sad

I enthusastically reccommend Gunga's link to the "Electric Universe" Exclamation

It has some argueable points Exclamation

0 Replies

It strikes me as if a person has difficulty imagining the characteristics that a slow course of evolution over millennia seems to bring I cannot see how he could possibly imagine the characteristics that a Creator or Intelligent Designer must have, or how this Designer acquired these characteristics in the first place.

If the (intelligent) Designer is also a Creator where was He if there was no Cosmos to Design in or Create in or God over.

If the cosmos always existed then it requires no great imagination to include a Universe as one facet of an Evolving Cosmos. Simply Physics.

If one would like to believe in the existence of a Creator, a Designer, or a Big Bang then it is necessary to suspend the laws of physics for a while in order to make such a happenstance necessary. This seems to be true whether you are a "Big Banger" or a "Pentacostal Snake Handler".

The difficulties involved in adapting a whale to survive in the surrounding circumstances pale in comparison to the difficulties involved in building a Cosmos with no surrounding circumstances at all Exclamation

Unfortunetly Gunga, there doesn't seem to be anything that is "caused" to happen in our known universe. As much as anyone I'd like to believe that my curiosity won't end with my death. Unfortunetly there is no evidence to the contrary Sad

I enthusastically reccommend Gunga's link to the "Electric Universe" Exclamation

It has some argueable points Exclamation

0 Replies

The idea of a big bang is bad physics and bad theology to boot. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. Nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Moreover, having an omnipotent and omniscient God suddenly decide that creating a universe 17 billion years ago when the idea had never occurred to him aforehand is basically nonsensical. How could he be omniscient and not have figured that out 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago??

Until somebody can show me a reason for believing otherwise, I am sticking with the idea that the universe is basically eternal.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The idea of a big bang is bad physics and bad theology to boot. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. Nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Unless there was an inverse gravitational force, like Dark Energy... Oh, there is. What a shock.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:
Richard Goldschmidt was one of the scientists who publically renounced Darwinism as a consequence of the failure of the experiments involving fruit flies.

I wonder how many renounced richard goldschmidt?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
The idea of a big bang is bad physics and bad theology to boot. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. Nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Unless there was an inverse gravitational force, like Dark Energy... Oh, there is. What a shock.

Not really.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/522112.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060302darkenergy.htm

0 Replies

Just ran into this thread. Gunga is always gfuilty of "superlativity". Whenever he reads somewhere that someone renounced single mechanisms of a science, he then concludes that this same person renounces theentire concept. Goldscmidt didnt renounce the reality of evolution, he merely substituted hisown theories . These theories we now know as "saltation", described by Goldscmidt in his material Basis of EVOLUTION.
He stated that Darwins slow methodical mechanisms of natural selection only led to a Rassenkreis and not entirely new genera. True species, needed to be separated by "bridgeless gaps filled with hopefful monsters" was Goldschmidts mantra. Goldschmidt wasnt a kook that evryone today makes him out to be. He was methodical,
well trained and conversant of the details of natural selection (with the exce

ption of not having the benefits of a fuller fossil record and having only the 1950's rudiments of genomics). His apostacey, called "Neo Darwinism was still based upon the principles of Nat selection and derivative species and genera.
However, as apostacies all over, someone took Goldschmidt on in the 50's and countered his every point from a scholarly standpoint. As Mayr said i the early 60's

"The simplicity of Goldschmidts theories is merely the firm belief in miracles"

I liked thomas response gunga, why even ask these things repeatedly, when a decent google search can provide answers counter to your initial presumptive challenges. Ho hum, If some ID mentor states that science has no answers for your list, you just unquestioningly believe them ?
Hey, plate tectonics isnt real, the planet just shifts around every year, pass it on

If the earth is endless, shouldnt we be able to find some long lived isotope ages somewhere?. Oris this a conspiracy too?..

0 Replies

Gunga,

There is a mechanism Very Happy

hidden deeply in quantum mechanics that may explain how a "Big Bang" could work. However I don't think it ever is necessary. It may explain how quasars work though.

I still think that the BB-EU theory comes about as a faulty attribute to observation. Halton Arp may be a bit closer, but I suspect that his "Inherent Red Shift" is less due to age than the relative densities that one will find in the neighborhood of younger structures. Actually the relative densities may be the cause of the younger structures.

The evidence of the quasars alone should have put paid to the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe" theory, just as the evidence of WWII and the Sudan should have put paid to the "God is Love" theory.

Unfortunetly the refutation of "Intelligent Design" theory so far must rest on statistical evidence, ie. given an infinity; what can happen will happen. No external direction is required. Occams razor writ large.

Farmerman, I didn't see anything presented here claiming that the Earth is endless. Did I miss something Question

Ros, I wouldn't bet too much on "Dark Energy" either. May I suggest that the correction of the "Red Shift" for the amounts of spacetime between objects of observations will probably make it disappear. Spacetime being observed as a combination of gravity and distance.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ros, I wouldn't bet too much on "Dark Energy" either. May I suggest that the correction of the "Red Shift" for the amounts of spacetime between objects of observations will probably make it disappear. Spacetime being observed as a combination of gravity and distance.

You're entitled to your opinion Mech, but you're up against the best minds in physics, and so far, I agree with them.

0 Replies

Mechsmith, Since Im new here , ive only read a few pages and saw gungas " dilemma..

Quote:

Until somebody can show me a reason for believing otherwise, I am sticking with the idea that the universe is basically eternal.
_________________

Mathematically, if the Universe is endless, by extension the earth is merely a subset where its just a little less than "endless" which is sort of undefineable also. Infinity-(n) is still a bit of A GEOCHRONOLOGISTS JOKE. Some of the oldest Sigma isotope ages are thorium 232 and Rubidium 87, and the oldest numbers we can get (fromratios of daughter lead 208 and Strontium 87 in meteorites) are in the neighborhood of about 4.8 billion years since they were a melt. Were objectively producing lots of hard geochem data that hadnt yet heard about gungas objections

0 Replies

Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know