Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[AVZ]

No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.

I think I do. What makes you qualified to participate in this thread?

[Texas Conservative]

No, it's entirely relevant, inconclusive evidence will be replaced with conclusive evidence via research, data, and facts. Sooner or later we will know what killed the rabbit.

Some things will never be known.  The arrogance of humanism should be something we think about.

[Texas Conservative]

I find the idea that pakicetus evolved into a whale to be fundamentally retarded.

[4WD]

I find the idea that pakicetus evolved into a whale to be fundamentally retarded.

Well then, I guess that definitely settles that idea.

[Texas Conservative]

Well then, I guess that definitely settles that idea.

If you were smart, you would agree with me, for I agree with God.

[4WD]

If you were smart, you would agree with me, for I agree with God.

Spoken like the Pope.

[Texas Conservative]

Spoken like the Pope.

I don't require your worship and adoration.  Just your agreement.

[The Barbarian]

You are not addressing the point.

I already showed you your mistake.

Animals have either a pelvis that makes it a land dwelling animal, or a pelvis that makes is aquatic.

No, that's an error.  Seals and some fossil whales have pelvises that make it difficult for them to walk, but they could.  On the other hand, the fossil whale Ambulocetus has a pelvis that works like that of an otter, and it could walk without difficulty.

Seals have a lot of difficulty getting around on land, but sea lions have less difficulty because they are somewhat less adapted to swimming than seals.

A transition between the two however would completely fail.

Sea lions are transitional between seals and land animals, and they are very successful.

Once the pelvis turns, it will no longer support the hind legs and the animal can no longer walk. It may perhaps be able to drag itself through the mud, but since it is neither terrestrial nor aquatic, it will be unable to support itself in either habitat.

Seals do just fine.  I don't understand why this is difficult for you.

It is exactly that intermediate species that cannot be found in the fossil record.

I just showed you an entire series of them.   As YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the whale series of transitional forms is a serious problem for creationism.

A species where the transition from terrestrial to aquatic is half formed.

Like sea lions or Ambulocetus.

It does not exist.

As you now see, they do.  Even your fellow YE creationists admit it.

[The Barbarian]

4WD writes:

No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.

AVZ replies:

I think I do.

Just for the record, then, what are the four points of Darwin's theory, and how has that theory been modified by the discoveries of Mendel, Kimura, and Gould?   Tell us about it.

What makes you qualified to participate in this thread?

Degrees in biology and in systems with a focus on biological systems.   A lifetime spent studying and teaching biology.   

[The Barbarian]

At  this  point  in  time,  the  largest  challenge  from  the stratomorphic  intermediate  record  appears  to  this  author  to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic   series   of   archaeocete   genera   claimed   by Gingerich
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
    CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995

As I said, you are misrepresenting both scientific art as well as scientific quotes.

Well, let's talk about it.   I think you've messed up here.

Kurt Wise said: "At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales."
You made it out to be this: "It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists"

See above.  That's what he said.

Perhaps the creationist theory needs to be adjusted. It is Kurt Wise critically looking at his own theory.

And as I pointed out, he concedes that the whale series is an especially difficult problem for creationists.

There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.

As you now realize, it's directly observed.  Remember what the scientific definition of biological evolution is: "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

But let me put this in a perspective even you can understand.

The dumb old Barbarian is grateful.

A rabbit lies dead on the street.
A YE creationist says: "it was zapped by UFO's"
A scientist says, "the evidence shows that it was run over by a motor cycle."

The YE creationist depends on his belief in unobservable events, which don't fit the evidence.
The scientist depends on the evidence showing what actually happened.

[The Barbarian]

Spoken like the Pope.

Not quite.   The Pope knows better than to take an ex cathedra position on evolution.   It's a scientific issue, without an theological impact.   So even if you're a YE creationist, you can still be a Christian, and your salvation is no less likely for it.

[4WD]

I don't require your worship and adoration.  Just your agreement.

You, like the Pope, have neither the authority nor the power to require anything of me.

[Texas Conservative]

You, like the Pope, have neither the authority nor the power to require anything of me.

I guess you would rather disagree with God.

[Alan]

I guess you would rather disagree with God.

How have you managed to slip that into this discussion? 

[4WD]

I guess you would rather disagree with God.

No, and I don't.

[The Barbarian]

I guess you would rather disagree with God.

Perhaps the most common religious expression in the history of man is, "God is on my side."

And for most or all those of us here, He is.   When I had small children, I was always on their side.  Doesn't mean I agreed with them on whatever they wanted, though.

[KiwiChristian]

Sea lions are transitional between seals and land animals, and they are very successful.

Transitional? How can something be a transitional form when all three are still alive? Do we see them changing? NO. of course, we need that secret ingredient, huh? TIME

[KiwiChristian]

I showed you that the scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

I just googled the definition. "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Notice, the words "kinds" and "believed". LOL.

Some peoples' definition of "evolution" is changes within species. ie: speciation. We do not deny that speciation occurs. So, if you use THAT definition of "evolution" then yay, we agree.

"Kind" is not a scientific term.  It's a creationist term.  So up to you to define it.   Since all known life on Earth is genetically related, that would indicate all living things are of one "kind."

Ok, so we never hear "scientists" using the term? LOL.

Maybe it's time you stopped trying to do that, and started trying to put together a case for your new doctrines.

Well, maybe you should actually stay on track and answer questions?


Predicted transitional forms in the fossil record are (as YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says) are strong evidence for evolution.    Even stronger, there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.

But the "fossil record" exists nowhere except in the textbooks.

However, "proof" is not part of science.   We merely accumulate evidence until it's sufficiently strong to make doubt foolish.

[KiwiChristian]

No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.

And you DO?

You have the "expertise"?

[KiwiChristian]

Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.

Maybe thats all he/she has?

[KiwiChristian]

Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.

AMEN!

Changes within a kind happens.

ie: we get different breeds of cows and dogs. We dont call them different KINDS.

Yet evolution states that all animals AND plants somehow came from a Primordial soup.

"The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into the first species on Earth."

how wacky can you get!

And they at us when we say God got it right first time in the beginning!

[KiwiChristian]

In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there.  Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

That is NOT what the text says. see how you have to ADD to the Bible to make it fit your false interpretation?


It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days"  (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time",  "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic.    Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.

Dont you mean ""Yom" CAN mean "period of time" but not always" ?

Notice how God says "THE first day, THE second day, etc." to show us that He meant a literal 24 hour day.

Unless you are saying He told the jews to work the land for many LONG PERIODS of times and rest for one LONG PERIOD of time?

How could plants which were created BEFORE the sun survive for LONG PERIODS of time if God didnt mean a 24 hour day?



The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.

Oh, is that all? So less than 7,000 years ago? Makes you think. Well, SOME of us.

Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented.   And  the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"

hieroglyphics can be classed as "writing". I see two different types of structures. doesnt mean they are related any more than a plane that has an engine, doors, windows and wheels are related to cars which have engines, doors, windows and wheels.

Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.

Assuming your dating methods are accurate. I think the sheer volume of evidence prove they don't.



Many, many favorable mutations have been observed.

Do they remain the same KIND of animal? No-one disputes that "mutations" happen.




In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things.  You've been misled on that one.

Oh? Did darwin have any degrees from accredited agencies? You know, the same thing evolutionists ask whether scientists that support creation if they have.

God says the Earth brought forth life.  You should believe Him.

He then said that what was created "good". Can't be good if He didnt get it right first time. That would be a retarded God that I for one wouldn't worship.

Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space.   The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.

And has that "observed rate" ALWAYS been the same rate? You are ASSUMING it has been.



There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.

yes, i think there has. You know, fossilised dinosaurs with still some tissue on it?




"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).


Is that why it is COOLING down? And for that matter, the moon has been moving away. Now, if we extrapolate these movements back billions of years, whoa!

[KiwiChristian]

Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.   
And it's not important to salvation.


It's just a fact.  No where does the Bible say how old the Earth is.

No, I'm pointing out that your new interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.

And YOUR interpretation IS correct?

[Alan]

Maybe thats all he/she has?

Don't comment on things that are over your head.

[Texas Conservative]

Don't comment on things that are over your head.

Everyone here has commented on things that are over their head, unless someone here understands all the math, and all the science, and all the theology perfectly.

I know no one here does.  And where understanding is missing, faith is employed.

Argument reminds me of Nacho and Esqueleto from Nacho Libre.

[The Barbarian]

Barbaraian observes:
In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there.  Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

That is NOT what the text says.

Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

See how you have to ADD to the Bible to make it fit your false interpretation?   Maybe you should read it, and see what else is in there.

Barbarian regarding a seven day week.
It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days"  (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time",  "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic.    Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.

Dont you mean ""Yom" CAN mean "period of time" but not always" ?  No, it can mean "always."

How could plants which were created BEFORE the sun survive for LONG PERIODS of time if God didnt mean a 24 hour day?

Or it could be as Christians have always known, that the "days" are symbolic, not literal days.

Barbarian observes:
The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.

Oh, is that all? So less than 7,000 years ago?

Yep.  But as you just learned, that doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth.

Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented.   And  the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"

hieroglyphics can be classed as "writing".

The oldest known hieroglyphics (palette of Narmer) is more recent than the oldest Sumerian writing.

I see two different types of structures. doesnt mean they are related

You've been misled. 

For thousands of years in the Predynastic Period the dead were buried in shallow oval pits, sometimes surrounded by their personal belongings and covered with sand. The first significant development came when the Egyptians altered the shape of their burial pits from oval to rectangular and roofed the pit with timber (Edwards 20). While no remains of a superstructure has been found, it probably consisted of sand, which could have easily blown away revealing tomb goods to any potential grave robbers (Edwards 21). In the beginning of the dynastic period the kings of Egypt overcame this issue by constructing a mud-brick superstructure over their burial pit (Edwards 21) which is known today as a mastaba, named so for their resemblance to the brick benches outside houses in modern Egyptian villages (Fakhry 3)



For thousands of years in the Predynastic Period the dead were buried in shallow oval pits, sometimes surrounded by their personal belongings and covered with sand. The first significant development came when the Egyptians altered the shape of their burial pits from oval to rectangular and roofed the pit with timber (Edwards 20). While no remains of a superstructure has been found, it probably consisted of sand, which could have easily blown away revealing tomb goods to any potential grave robbers (Edwards 21). In the beginning of the dynastic period the kings of Egypt overcame this issue by constructing a mud-brick superstructure over their burial pit (Edwards 21) which is known today as a mastaba, named so for their resemblance to the brick benches outside houses in modern Egyptian villages (Fakhry 3).]
...Imhotep chose for King Djoser the site on which his pyramid would be constructed, at Saqqara, near the early mastabas of the officials noted above (Edwards 34). Dating ca. 2680 B.C.E (Aldred 1998 46), the pyramid is thought to have originally been planned as a mastaba which underwent six different stages in planning that would itself lead to a transition from mastaba to pyramid.


Barbarian observes:
Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.

Assuming your dating methods are accurate. I think the sheer volume of evidence prove they don't.

That's the thing about reality.  It keeps right on going, even if you don't believe it:
The Ediacaran (/ˌiːdiˈækərən/; formerly Vendian) biota consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms that lived during the Ediacaran Period (ca. 635–542 Mya). Trace fossils of these organisms have been found worldwide, and represent the earliest known complex multicellular organisms.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota

Barbarian observes:
Many, many favorable mutations have been observed.

Do they remain the same KIND of animal?

Sometimes.   Usually, the organisms with the favorable mutations just become a fitter kind than before.

No-one disputes that "mutations" happen.

And now you realize that favorable mutations happen.

Barbarian observes:
In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things.  You've been misled on that one.

Oh? Did darwin have any degrees from accredited agencies?

There were no university accrediting agencies in those days.  However, he was elected to the Royal Society, which was the only recognized accrediting agency for scientists in that time in England.

You know, the same thing evolutionists ask whether scientists that support creation if they have.

Yep.  Darwin was indeed accredited, unlike most creationists.

Barbarian observes:
God says the Earth brought forth life.  You should believe Him.

He then said that what was created "good". Can't be good if He didnt get it right first time.

He created evolution, so it's surely good.

Barbarian observes:
Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space.   The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.

And has that "observed rate" ALWAYS been the same rate?

Assuming gravity has always been here.   The evidence shows that it has.  If it wasn't, the rotation of the Earth would have torn itself apart long ago.

Barbarian chuckles:
There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.

yes, i think there has.

Show us a checkable source for that.  Nothing in the literature.   "Jurassic Park" was just a movie; it's not real.

You know, fossilised dinosaurs with still some tissue on it?

So far, no tissues or even intact cells.  Some organic molecules, like heme and collagen, but no tissue.  If they found tissue, we would indeed have the DNA.  But no such thing to date.

"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).

Is that why it is COOLING down?

It's not cooling.  The solar output is in a current minimum.   That means more thermal energy is being retained in the Sun, and less of it is being lost currently.

And for that matter, the moon has been moving away. Now, if we extrapolate these movements back billions of years, whoa!

The moon's recession is being driven by tides.  (transfer of kinetic energy from Earth to moon; the subsequent acceleration requires a higher orbit)
  So the amount of coastline directly affects the rate of recession.  That means during the Pangea era, the recession was slower, and it's faster now.

Fortunately, we can check that by tidal rhythmites, showing how the rotation of the Earth has slowed over time due to the recession of the moon.  Would you like to learn about that?

[The Barbarian]

I feel sorry for someone who "believes in" science.   You don't "believe in" science; you accept it or reject it based on evidence.

[Texas Conservative]

I feel sorry for someone who "believes in" science.   You don't "believe in" science; you accept it or reject it based on evidence.

Some measure of belief in science or that said scientists involved are correct is necessary.  If you don't realize you can't possibly understand it all, then you are ignorant. 

[The Barbarian]

Some measure of belief in science or that said scientists involved are correct is necessary.

Ah, the equivocation issue.   

Belief:
a. "I believe in God"
b. "The evidence is why scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs."
c. "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

The trick depends on pretending that these all use "belief" the same way.   

[Texas Conservative]

Ah, the equivocation issue.   

Belief:
a. "I believe in God"
b. "The evidence is why scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs."
c. "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

The trick depends on pretending that these all use "belief" the same way.   

I guess you make no pretense that you are ignorant.

[The Barbarian]

I guess you make no pretense that you are ignorant.

Me?  I'm just an old barbarian.  And you know how ignorant they are.

[Alan]

Everyone here has commented on things that are over their head, unless someone here understands all the math, and all the science, and all the theology perfectly.

The comment was directed at the specific post and ridiculous reply, not the entire discussion.

[Alan]

[Jaime]

Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?

[Alan]

Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?

No, not at all.