The Sun Stood Still

Originally posted by aharvey

First things first.

Click to expand...

Act like you just came to me to fund a $50,000,000 project. Sell me on your idea. Keep in mind one thing... I'm not a scientist, I made my money by selling toys (Smirch the hatemonger dolls ) so I have no idea what the scienitific terms mean.

Second things second. Think for a moment about the nonevolutionary alternative. Were all 2000 mantid species "created" independently? If not, then some species had to have evolved from other species, right? And if that's possible, then at what point do you say, "okay, now those mantids could not have shared a common ancestor!", and why?

Click to expand...

Even before I became a Christian I didn't think much of evolution. I could'nt see why humans were the only specie that had "evolved" so well that we learned how to build machines that could fly and travel many times faster than sound. And the only ancestor we can find still has kept a grasp on a primitive way of thinking: bust coconuts, drink it's milk, eat leaves and bananas and fling poop on things. Why aren't the other species even coming close to us? This last part is one of things that, for me anyway, has always stigmatized macro-evolution.

Originally posted by Stratnerd

probably should have addressed this first...

Science cannot "show" such a type of evolution so your understanding is wrong. As AH points out, we infer that this type of evolution occurs. I asked what convincing evidence might look like because I can't imagine that we'd expect to see what takes millions of years in nature to occur in the human life time.

Click to expand...

If we can find fossils, example here so don't focus on the numbers specifically,that are 500,000,000 million years old and find others that are 100,000,000 million years old, why is there such a problem in finding all of those inbetween? If everything evolved from a single cell, hypothetical "inferred" moment, and that includes humans, shouldn't we be able to find some kind of "fosilized skeletal" trail that doesn't have very large breaks in the patterns?

No offence but I didn't see any need to reply to posts 55-58.

Originally posted by bob b

Your error is in not recognizing that creationism and evolution are not in conflict EXCEPT on the subject of long term "uphill" evolution as illustrated by the alleged transformation of a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being over billions of years.

I have stated numerous times that I agree with all five of Darwin's theories as stated by Ernst Mayr in "What Evolution Is" and also in his "What Is Biology".

The error was in thinking that mutations can operate"uphill", for example in transforming a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

Other than that there are many truths contained in evolutionary theory.

But the one big "boo boo" tends to discredit the entire field and it would be good for the sake of the future of the field to weed out and discard this one huge error.

Click to expand...

Bob, I can see I am on the same side of the fence as you but I could just never say the same as you.

I'll try to keep my replies shorter.

I bolded this, but the point, again, was missed... so.. I'll post again

The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).

Darwin wrote extensively on this over 150 years ago. And, oh, how I wish that was mandatory reading for everyone wishing to comment on evolution.

Sell me on your idea.

Click to expand...

If you are a Biblical literalist, then you, like Bob, Yorzik, and Nineveh will never be convinced.

Even before I became a Christian I didn't think much of evolution.

Click to expand...

I suspect you didn't think much about photosynthesis or the Calvin cycle either - and these are essential for you to be alive. Evolution, like the rest of biology, required quite a bit of knowledge to understand how it works.

I could'nt see why humans were the only specie that had "evolved" so well

Click to expand...

Maybe intelligence isn't a goal or that great of an asset. Maybe evolution isn't goal directed. Obviously, the millions of species of this planet are doing just fine w/o being able to make airplaines - even the chimps you pointed out.

But evolving intelligence requires a certain sequence of mutations in the right environment and requires that there aren't contraints - that is, by becoming intelligent something must give. In our species, it looks like our species had to born almost as larvae just so they'd get the birth canal.

why is there such a problem in finding all of those inbetween? If everything evolved from a single cell, hypothetical "inferred" moment, and that includes humans, shouldn't we be able to find some kind of "fosilized skeletal" trail that doesn't have very large breaks in the patterns?

Click to expand...

I answered that above - fossilization is rare - even sedimentation for all time periods is rare.

Here's Darwin's Origin

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

And on the imperfection of the fossil record

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html

Also, although BobB insists that we have this view, nobody thinks there was a single ancestral cell.

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I agree with you on this.. although I adore my friends I would tease them because their snakes were nothing more than a broth (the days before they had PCR). Frankly I think using both is the best way to go (how can you go wrong with more data?)

But I can see where you stand on this debate. Funny how polemic you guys are about this though (like debates on vicariance vs. dispersal, or, dare I say, species concepts).

Click to expand...

I agree with you that more data is better, and have collaborated with molecular systematists before (so this isn't just lip service!). The polemics aren't exactly symmetrical on this issue, though. I just happen to think that people prematurely abandoned morphology for the wrong reasons, and they tend to give the wrong reasons for why they prefer to use molecules.

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Ok after reading your post and the ones that followed, it seems I should have picked something a bit bigger like cats or whales, maybe sharks.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's exactly why I chose something small like a mantid! People tend to focus on the big beasts, but these represent a tiny fraction of life on earth. If you are rejecting evolution as the explanation for biological diversity, then you need to be spending your time where the diversity actually is!

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I guess I was hoping to see something 'transitonal" like a cockroach with mantis arms on it, as an example.

Click to expand...

Hey, I've got just the bug for you, then! But I've got to run. I'll try to find a decent pick later.

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Would it be possible if we just changed the control to a cat instead of insects?

Click to expand...

Nope, won't let you off the hook that easy!

STRATNERD'S POST #49--Everybody read it. It is his own admission of
the very UNscientific bias against creationism in the evolutionist's camp. READ IT! A more blatant admission of narrow minded scientists (so called) could not be penned.

WORSE than narrow minded. Can you spell c-l-o-s-e-d - m-i-n-d-e-d ? And they call US narrow minded. If to any extent we ARE narrow minded, it is only because a person MUST be strict and unswerving in defense of all absolutes which can be depended upon without fear of mistake. For example, consider the many instances wherein scientists (so called) with a haughty, imperious air have scoffed and railed against the bible for what THEY THOUGHT were its "scientific" errors.
Such scoffers they are as they stand before a 35 mile long backdrop of their once highly regarded "science" books which have, in the past fifty years had to be trashed-canned because of UNscientific science in them.

The real reason they are obsessed with our "narrow-mindedness" is that it is a luxury which they, with their repeated missteps in the scientific field, cannot afford. They have to trash-can their earlier "science" but the Bible just keeps trucking along.

Despite how painful it is, I should probably read some of Kluge's stuff. I read some stuff for the Cladistics book review but that was a bit... obtuse.

But I was thinking that a morphological trait and the genes that produce it are "correlated". But couldn't several different alleles (that are phylogenetically informative) give rise to a trait that does not vary thus is not phylogenetically informative?

RE,

UNscientific bias against creationism in the evolutionist's camp.

Click to expand...

Whatever dude, I've thought more about this stuff than you ever will. I've approached creationism scientifically (do you even know what it means) - and creationism FAILS.

A more blatant admission of narrow minded scientists (so called) could not be penned.

Click to expand...

"so-called" nope, I'm a scientists through and through.

And they call US narrow minded.

Click to expand...

of course creationists are - Biblical literalism is the belief that text is unerring - being unerring how does evidence play a role? It doesn't - it can't.

the Bible just keeps trucking along.

Click to expand...

sorry not Genesis. Most thinking people have left the literal translation behind.

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I bolded this, but the point, again, was missed... so.. I'll post again

The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).

Darwin wrote extensively on this over 150 years ago. And, oh, how I wish that was mandatory reading for everyone wishing to comment on evolution.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

They haven't, so now the clever wordsmiths have given up closing the gaps and invented reasons why the gaps should be there.

Their evidence is that there are gaps, just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight.

To the uninitiated, such reasoning boggles the mind.

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

Click to expand...

Really? Could you point the reference? I don't see how he'd think that entire layers would suddenly appear.

Originally posted by Stratnerd



The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).

Click to expand...

Ok.

now throw in the fact that there are few organisms that are global and most species only occur on a single continent and then only in few habitats. Then on top of it - fossilization is relatively rare.

I've been all over these streams in Louisiana and I find just a few semi- or unfossilized deer bones and there must have been tens of thousands over the eons living in any particular watershed.

Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

They haven't, so now the clever wordsmiths have given up closing the gaps and invented reasons why the gaps should be there.

Their evidence is that there are gaps, just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight.

To the uninitiated, such reasoning boggles the mind.

Click to expand...

Ok, I am the uninitiated.... Why are gaps considered the evidence?

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

Click to expand...

thinking about this some more.... Darwin emphasized that little of the planet has been explored.. much of that is still true.. look at the stuff that has just been found in China. But the stuff that has come out only confirms evolution.

They haven't

Click to expand...

sure they have.

just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight.

Click to expand...

anyone that does think straight knows there should be gaps as was pointed out over 150 years ago - you're a little behind on your reading.

Originally posted by Stratnerd

now throw in the fact that there are few organisms that are global and most species only occur on a single continent and then only in few habitats. Then on top of it - fossilization is relatively rare.

I've been all over these streams in Louisiana and I find just a few semi- or unfossilized deer bones and there must have been tens of thousands over the eons living in any particular watershed.

Click to expand...

You may be shocked to learn that I tend to agree with you about fossils.

The general sparcity allows one to draw conclusions based upon one's overall worldview: in my case that the fossil record and worldwide distinct layers are compelling evidence of a worldwide watery catastrophe.

Really, so you think that a worldwide flood would leave sedimentary layers in some high places and leave them absent in lower places?

so you think we'd find terrestrial animal tracks between sedimentary layers?

so you think a worldwide flood would somehow get alternating layers with heavier sediment on top of lighter sediment?

your world view is that of a Biblical literalist so all the world must confirm your view - now you just need to ingore, spin, and pound square pegs through round holes, and, oh yea, invite stuff like super-tectonics, super light speed, super speciation, yadda yadda yadda.