Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
    And if I had to pick my favorite line of evidence for TOE, it would have to be anatomical vestiges.
    Really? I am tempted to say 6000 year old earth. It is just sooooo silly.
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

    "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

    "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

    "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
      I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
      And if I had to pick my favorite line of evidence for TOE, it would have to be anatomical vestiges.
      OK. I will add that one to the list. Please name some you are aware of why they support the idea that all life has descended from a single primitive ancestor.

      BTW, wouldn't the concept of descent from multiple different types of fully formed creatures (as the Bible teaches) also be compatible with the existence of vestiges?
      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bob b View Post
        As I have said many times TOE predicts nothing.
        Yes you have said it many times. But just repeating something doesn’t make it the truth. I also understand this is your way of changing the subject when you are backed into a corner and can’t answer the question. You really can not debate the details because they will destroy your argument.

        Evolutionists do have general expectations, but nothing in detail. Whatever they find "proves evolution". All one needs is a good story.
        Common sense would tell you that if TOE is true, you could find a fossil, or multiple fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another. Common sense would also tell you that if creationism is true, there would not be fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another. That is a detailed prediction that would be made by the TOE. So I would ask you again, why is it that the leading creationist can not agree on where the dividing line is between apes and humans in the fossil record?

        Can you answer this question or will you either ignore it or change the subject?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bob b View Post
          My view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true: multiple types of fully functional sea, land and air creatures at the beginning. God undoubtedly did such a great design job that there were built-in mechanisms to aid in rapid diversification. Isn't that what a master designer would plan ahead for?
          If God really did make all the different “kinds”, whatever that means, why would an all-knowing God even make diversity? A master designer wouldn’t need to plan ahead, he’d just make it right to begin with. And why don’t we see this rapid diversification today?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hank View Post
            Common sense would tell you that if TOE is true, you could find a fossil, or multiple fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another.
            This is why I said that there is nothing in the theory that makes any specific predictions: it is merely common sense that if creatures descend from a common ancestor that some record of this should be available in the fossil record, that is if the fossil record is really a record of what happened slowly in a step-by-step manner over millions of years. But common sense would also indicate that thousands of transitions must have occurred if that scenario is true and the fossil record is devoid of such thousands of transitions.

            Common sense would also tell you that if creationism is true, there would not be fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another.
            Why not? These terms are human invented and for fossils quite subjective. You aren't one of those who claim that creationists do not believe that creatures change over time are you?

            That is a detailed prediction that would be made by the TOE.
            There is nothing in the theory itself that predicts this. People claim that "living fossils" do not falsify evolution. The theory is retained whether creatures change over time or if they don't.

            So I would ask you again, why is it that the leading creationist can not agree on where the dividing line is between apes and humans in the fossil record?
            How would I know considering you haven't identified him or what he said or asked me if I agreed or didn't. What makes you think I take "marching orders" from what others say? Or is this so standard among you guys that you automatically think I would do the same?

            Can you answer this question or will you either ignore it or change the subject?
            I think you might consider asking me a question that doesn't involve my being clairvoyant.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hank View Post
              If God really did make all the different “kinds”, whatever that means, why would an all-knowing God even make diversity? A master designer wouldn’t need to plan ahead, he’d just make it right to begin with. And why don’t we see this rapid diversification today?
              What kind of a scientific question is that?

              God never took me aside and told me why He did what He did. If it isn't in scripture then I have no more idea why He did it the way He did than you would (assuming you even believe in God in the first place).

              Of course we can always guess.

              Who told you we don't see rapid diversification today? And besides wouldn't this be more likely to occur before the Earth was filled with creatures and before available ecological niches were filled? Isn't this why scientists say there is always rapid diversification following major catastrophes?
              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                This is why I said that there is nothing in the theory that makes any specific predictions: it is merely common sense that if creatures descend from a common ancestor that some record of this should be available in the fossil record, that is if the fossil record is really a record of what happened slowly in a step-by-step manner over millions of years. But common sense would also indicate that thousands of transitions must have occurred if that scenario is true and the fossil record is devoid of such thousands of transitions.
                Yes it’s common sense and a prediction of the theory if it is true even thought you don’t want to admit it. Apparently you did know that fossils rarely happen. And that’s a proven fact, not an assumption. Considering so few do fossilize, we have a lot of transitions.
                Why not? These terms are human invented and for fossils quite subjective. You aren't one of those who claim that creationists do not believe that creatures change over time are you?
                If they change over time, what stops them from changing and where is the dividing line?
                There is nothing in the theory itself that predicts this. People claim that "living fossils" do not falsify evolution. The theory is retained whether creatures change over time or if they don't.
                Why would a “living fossil” falsify TOE. When we shoot an object into the sky, sometimes it falls back to earth and sometimes it continues on into space. Neither one falsifies the theory of gravity.
                How would I know considering you haven't identified him or what he said or asked me if I agreed or didn't. What makes you think I take "marching orders" from what others say? Or is this so standard among you guys that you automatically think I would do the same?
                So you don’t respect the opinions of scientist in this field and you don’t respect the opinions of leading creationist. You must be one mental giant to gather all this information on your own and then tell scientist they don’t know what they are talking about. But I guess I’m not surprised, religious leaders have been making a fool of themselves for years doing exactly the same thing.
                I think you might consider asking me a question that doesn't involve my being clairvoyant.
                Well you’re not rational or logical so clairvoyant was my last hope. Lol

                Okay, I’d guess you know all the different fossil skulls that have been found and all the species scientist have classified them. I’d also bet you don’t agree with the classification scientist have given them. But regardless of that, you can easily see the skulls getting larger and changing shape, so where would YOU draw the line between apes and humans?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                  I suppose it should be easy for you to define what "micro" and "macro" evolution are then? If your answer involves the word "kind", then please define what that means as well.

                  You may want to answer the following age old question - if a tree falls in the middle of a forest with no one around, does it make a sound? If you answer yes, is that "macro" acoustics?
                  Wouldn't that depend upon how big the tree is? And doesn't most things such as trees, make sounds when the fall? The tree itself isn't actually making the sound anyway, rather the impact.
                  Choice of avatar dedicated to eveningsky339.

                  Comment


                  • There are so many great pieces of evidence, and more come in every month it seems. I think though, that it's quite limiting to focus on any one particular piece when the most compelling part is the great mass of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines that are coming into agreement that makes evolution so puissant as an explanation for why things are the way they are.

                    But, if we want to be limiting, why not pick the fossil and genetic evidence linking birds with dinosaurs?

                    The discovery of a large number of feathered dinosaur fossils, some able to fly and others not. Some with wings that also have claws, others with therapod limbs that have feathers. They share very similar pulmonary systems with birds. These dinosaurs, like the birds, have feathers, large sternums, hollow limb bones. They are also found to share certain birdlike habits - fossils finds of Oviraptors show that they splayed their three-clawed fingers protectively over egg clutchs, just as we see hens splay their wings to protect their nests today. In sleeping, some of them tucked their heads under their forelimbs , just as birds do today. When they died, they took on death pose similar to that which we see in many birds.

                    We discover when looking at avian genetics, there are surprises that support the common descent argument.

                    Birds typically don't have teeth, but experiments using mouse mesenchyme in bird jaw tissue showed that birds could be induced to form mammalian teeth. Why would this even be possible? Then, in February last year, teeth formation without any outside recombination was induced in a chicken, and the teeth that grew were not mammalian but crocodilian, and grew in a jaw that spontaneously altered to sustain them. That makes little sense outside the Darwinian paradigm. It seems that most birds retain the ability to make reptilian-like teeth.

                    Finally, no one expected to be able to test the link between dinosaurs and birds genetically from the dinosaur side. So the recent discovery of collagen proteins in a T-rex fossil was a bonus. The analysis of the few sequences actually recovered showed more links with birds than any other living creature, which is what we would expect if the current model is correct.

                    I should point out that it's not yet clear whether birds evolved from therapods, or whether both therapods and birds had a close common ancestor - it doesn't really matter as far as evidence of evolution goes. It just makes some telling points in favor of common descent over, say, intelligent design (which is so far failing badly as an explanation when compared to evolution, but that's another story).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Flipper View Post
                      Then, in February last year, teeth formation without any outside recombination was induced in a chicken, and the teeth that grew were not mammalian but crocodilian, and grew in a jaw that spontaneously altered to sustain them. That makes little sense outside the Darwinian paradigm. It seems that most birds retain the ability to make reptilian-like teeth.
                      Just because it is possible to grow one type of teeth in another animal does that prove that birds evolved from crocs?

                      In a similar story (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1070433.html) pigs are able to carry human hemoglobin. Does that provide evidence that pigs evolved from man?
                      fidelis usque ad mortem

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hank View Post
                        Yes it’s common sense and a prediction of the theory if it is true even thought you don’t want to admit it. Apparently you did know that fossils rarely happen. And that’s a proven fact, not an assumption.
                        It's an inference based on the assumption of great age. Fossils frequently occur in vast profusion. Africa for instance.

                        Considering so few do fossilize, we have a lot of transitions.
                        Considering that great ages is a myth there are essentially no transitions.

                        If they change over time, what stops them from changing and where is the dividing line?
                        Protein folding and the requirement in ToE that each step be not only workable but one that will be an improvement that will be selected by Natural Selection so that it will spread throughout the population in preparation for the next stage in the fictitious process.

                        Why would a “living fossil” falsify TOE. When we shoot an object into the sky, sometimes it falls back to earth and sometimes it continues on into space. Neither one falsifies the theory of gravity.
                        One can calculate using Newton's theory the "escape velocity". One can't do anything comparable with a theory like evolution that is merely subjective argumentation.

                        So you don’t respect the opinions of scientist in this field and you don’t respect the opinions of leading creationist.
                        Since you never specified anything, I gave the answer that "I think for myself". If a scientist says something that make sense I respect him for that (I respect John Maynard Smith, Steven J. Gould. Ernst Mayr, etc. but if they were to say something that didn't make sense I would reject that "something". However if a scientist continually says dumb things I would not respect him (Richard Dawkins is a prime example).

                        You must be one mental giant to gather all this information on your own and then tell scientist they don’t know what they are talking about. But I guess I’m not surprised, religious leaders have been making a fool of themselves for years doing exactly the same thing.
                        I do have intellectual skills that have consistently placed me in the top 99% percentile. However I also have many shortcomings in things that are more important. If I can use what skills I do have to aid people in retaining faith in scripture and not being overawed by science, perhaps God will take this into account in the calculation of plus and minuses.

                        Okay, I’d guess you know all the different fossil skulls that have been found and all the species scientist have classified them. I’d also bet you don’t agree with the classification scientist have given them.
                        Classification is useful for communicatingto others what creature or finding is under discussion. It has no particular value other than that.

                        But regardless of that, you can easily see the skulls getting larger and changing shape, so where would YOU draw the line between apes and humans?
                        As Gould pointed out, the general trend in skull size is to get smaller over time. Cope's Law has been discarded as merely a subjective generalization that is contradicted by numerous exceptions and downright opposite trends.

                        There are no "Laws" in evolutionary biology that are in anyway analogous to those discovered in Physics, but some evolutionists do seem to suffer from "Physics Envy", and hence try to pretend that there are.
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                          Considering that great ages is a myth there are essentially no transitions.


                          Wrong, but feel free to try again.
                          "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                          "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                          "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                          "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by chatmaggot View Post
                            Just because it is possible to grow one type of teeth in another animal does that prove that birds evolved from crocs?

                            In a similar story (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1070433.html) pigs are able to carry human hemoglobin. Does that provide evidence that pigs evolved from man?
                            You should read the story before commenting. No one is saying that birds evolved from crocodiles, but rather that they have within their genomes the ability to express teeth that are crocodile-like (as opposed to mammalian).

                            The pigs you link to in your story have had their genes altered to carry this variant of hemoglobin. That's not the same thing at all.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                              What kind of a scientific question is that?
                              Well you brought it up by saying your view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true. What kind of scientific theory is that? Guess it’s a lot more difficult to support your views with actual evidence than to spout them off. Since you say that God “undoubtedly” did such a great design job, I was just asking why that great design job needed to be changed. Some of the statements you make are a little absurd.

                              God never took me aside and told me why He did what He did.
                              Well that’s a news flash because you sure talk like he did. But since he didn’t, he could have done it with evolution like the evidence points to.

                              If it isn't in scripture then I have no more idea why He did it the way He did than you would (assuming you even believe in God in the first place).
                              What you really mean is if it’s not in your INTERPRETATION of scripture then you have no idea. I have an idea because God gave me evidence of what he did and gave me a brain to check it out.

                              Of course we can always guess.
                              True, or we could look at the evidence with the brain God gave us and come up with rational theories that are supported by that evidence.

                              Who told you we don't see rapid diversification today?
                              If you know of any, how about an example.

                              And besides wouldn't this be more likely to occur before the Earth was filled with creatures and before available ecological niches were filled? Isn't this why scientists say there is always rapid diversification following major catastrophes?
                              Do you consider creation a major catastrophe?

                              This comes back to, if God did it right the first time, why are there ecological niches and why do we need diversity? Besides, you don’t think the scientists are right, remember?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hank View Post
                                Well you brought it up by saying your view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true. What kind of scientific theory is that? Guess it’s a lot more difficult to support your views with actual evidence than to spout them off. Since you say that God “undoubtedly” did such a great design job, I was just asking why that great design job needed to be changed. Some of the statements you make are a little absurd.
                                If I design a computer program which can adapt to a changing user environment, would you then conclude that I did a poor design job because you found that some of the code in the program had changed to implement such an adaptation?
                                One feature of computer programs is that because the code is stored as "data" that it is possible for a program to modify its own coded instructions, and that is actually how "loops" were originally implemented in computer code before index registers were invented. The point I was making which apparently went over your head was that a superior design job would provide for changes to the environment.
                                This capability could easily be misunderstood as being due to the actionof "random mutations plus natural selection".

                                Well that’s a news flash because you sure talk like he did. But since he didn’t, he could have done it with evolution like the evidence points to.
                                Theoretically I suppose that one could say that He could have, but to me the evidence indicates that He didn't, and that the most likely scenario is the one which Genesis relates: multiple types of fully functional creatures at the beginning.

                                My disagreement with evolutionists is primarily regarding the starting point for the diversification process and the mechanism for it. I rejected "random mutations plus natural selections" as the mechanism even though mutations do occur and nature does cull out misfits. And a slow step-by-step modification process will not construct sophisticated automatic feedback control mechanisms as we find in great profusion within even the simplist lifeforms which exist today.

                                One can not build race car engines from scratch that way and expect to have them "work" at every step along the way of small modification, so why in the world would anyone believe that the far more sophisticated biological "machines" we find at every level of natural creatures would be any different?
                                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X