Best Evidence for Evolution.

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
First off, I would change that to "Young Earth Creationists do not understand evolution."

Generally true. A FAQ of "Common Misconceptions YEers Have About Evolution" might be a worthwhile effort. But some are knowledgable. They are the interesting ones. Guys like Kurt Wise, who acknowledges the evidence, but says he puts more weight on his interpretation of Scripture. Guys like Harold Coffin who say that if they went with the evidence, they'd think the world was very old.

There are probably a few that do, but in general it is the case that they are either ignorant of the theory or they intentionally misunderstand it.

There is a third category; those knowledgable, but they put their interpretation of Scripture above all other things.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Once in a while a scientist in another field takes a look at evolution in detail and is surprised that it has so little evidence to support it and so much evidence to cause one to doubt it. This happened with the famous scientist Fred Hoyle.

Hoyle was an evolutionist. You've probably confused his opposition to the Big Bang or to abiogenesis.

It all kind of blends together, if you don't know what you're talking about.
 

Hank

New member
I would think that truth is independent of what anyone agrees or disagrees upon. Calling opinions "scientific evidence" is a bit of a stretch.
Of course it’s not the opinion Bob as you well know. You are just trying to change the subject. It’s the FACT that there IS no rational basis for any kind of a dividing line between what represents an ape and what represents a man. It’s the skulls that are the evidence, not the opinions.

BTW, I do not ignore the skulls. I do not accept the dates people assign to the skulls, because they are not determined scientifically.
I didn’t say anything about any dates. Although they have been dated by reliable methods but that only adds to the case for evolution. As I stated the gradual increase in brain cavity and skull shape is enough to show mankind evolved. So why don't you take a stab at where you think the dividing line should be?

Julian Huxley lined up some horse fossils and his lecture I attended as a freshman in college convinced me that evolution had to be true. Later researchers found problems with his "transition progression" and the museum exhibits based on his guesses were quietly removed from view.
You were convinced of evolution because one person showed you some horse fossils 50 years ago? No wonder you are an easy mark for creationist.
Why do you believe there is no difference? Brain size alone is not a reliable indicator.
Okay but I asked you first. Where is your evidence that there is a difference besides capacity? When I said capacity, I was referring to ability for increased logic, memory, etc. not size.
Do you also think that women's minds are inferior to men's?
No
If not why not?
Last time I checked, the data indicated that most people inherit half their DNA from a woman. That would indicate that half their mind comes from a woman. So how could a woman’s mind be inferior to a man if women furnish half the minds in the world? Duh!
Why do you believe in an immaterial spirit but not an immaterial mind?
There is no physical evidence of a spirit so it can’t be material. However we can measure the change in brain activity during mental activities, we can see neurons and see them develop during the development of memory, a person’s brain waves stop when they die, and physical damage to the brain can change a person’s personality. That’s all evidence the mind is a function of the brain which is material.
Because that is where they are found today.

That’s why you are in the top 99% percentile. lol

There is no scientific evidence to back up any guesses as to why this is so.
You mean there is none you want to look at. The evolutionary explanation, as indicated by the fossils and other evidence, is that placental mammals were not able to get established in Australia before it separated from the other continents, and Australia’s animals developed from the primitive mammals that lived on Australia at that time. This explains very well why Australia contains almost all living monotremes and marsupials, but has almost no native placental mammals. (taken from talk.origins)
As the saying goes, your guess is as good as mine (equally worthless).

So basically you are saying you don't have a clue. How about this one?

"If [platypuses] were on the Ark they obviously swam and walked here from Mt. Ararat. This would have taken years, even centuries. The platypuses could have used any land bridges that existed between Asia and Australia as a result of the drastic lowering of sea level during the ice age subsequent to the flood." (Doolan, Mackay, Snelling, & Hallby, 1986)

Well that's one of the Creationists guesses and it's certainly worthless. Pardon me until I can stop laughing.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hoyle was an evolutionist. You've probably confused his opposition to the Big Bang or to abiogenesis.

Nope, Hoyle was smart enough to reject abiogenesis, and this of course leaves him (and others) in the peculiar position of trying to deny God while at the same time providing evidence that He must exist.

Also when people say that they believe in "evolution" it is not really clear what they mean by the term other than "change". I have Hoyle's book "Evolution From Space" so am fully aware that he was having trouble reconciling his tendency toward atheism with the facts. He did say the "fine tuning" of the physical constants indicated that "somebody must have monkeyed with them".

It all kind of blends together, if you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, I've noticed that about your belief that the Bible teaches "evolution".
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course it’s not the opinion Bob as you well know. You are just trying to change the subject. It’s the FACT that there IS no rational basis for any kind of a dividing line between what represents an ape and what represents a man. It’s the skulls that are the evidence, not the opinions. I didn’t say anything about any dates. Although they have been dated by reliable methods but that only adds to the case for evolution. As I stated the gradual increase in brain cavity and skull shape is enough to show mankind evolved. So why don't you take a stab at where you think the dividing line should be?

Unless one knows the dates the skulls can not be lined up in a sequence to show a gradual increase in brain cavity. Skull sizes vary in a population. How many samples having the same dates are needed to establish a good mean size for the population in question?

You were convinced of evolution because one person showed you some horse fossils 50 years ago? No wonder you are an easy mark for creationist.

Most 18 year olds are an easy mark for arguments from "experts". Huxley was one of the experts who formulated "the Modern Synthesis", otherwise known as NeoDarwinism. But when I was 54 and had years of experienced dealing with "experts" in Aerospace trying to peddle their pet schemes, I had gradually developed an ability to spot a technical scam, which is what NeoDarwinism is. DNA was the turning point, something unknown or not well understood in 1949.

Okay but I asked you first. Where is your evidence that there is a difference besides capacity? When I said capacity, I was referring to ability for increased logic, memory, etc. not size.

You only have the ability with your fossil skulls tto measure size (physical capacity)

Last time I checked, the data indicated that most people inherit half their DNA from a woman. That would indicate that half their mind comes from a woman. So how could a woman’s mind be inferior to a man if women furnish half the minds in the world? Duh!

You are assuming the materialist's view that DNA is what generates the human mind. Do you have evidence to support your assumption?

There is no physical evidence of a spirit so it can’t be material. However we can measure the change in brain activity during mental activities, we can see neurons and see them develop during the development of memory, a person’s brain waves stop when they die, and physical damage to the brain can change a person’s personality. That’s all evidence the mind is a function of the brain which is material.

I'm sure you are convinced. But there is really no compelling reason to believe that this is all there is to it. Certainly the material brain is part of it, but is that the end of the story? Perhaps the spirit is also part of the story.

Perhaps time will tell.

That’s why you are in the top 99% percentile. lol

Evolutionists are fond of remembering my goofs and never letting me forget them. It is a good thing they are rare.

The evolutionist strategy is to point out a creationist's errors whenever possible with the objective of discrediting anything and everything they ever say from that point on.

But if an evolutionist makes an error, why it is eventually corrected, because "that is how science works", so it is not cricket to ever point out any errors made by evolutionists in the past.

Because that is how the evolutionist strategy works!!! ;)

(taken from talk.origins)

I knew you must have been getting bad input from somewhere!!!! It is not so much what they say that is bad (although there is some of that) but what they fail to mention that is critically important that is the trouble with that site.
 

baloney

BANNED
Banned
Put aside evolution of species for a minute, this 6,000 year old Earth idea is absurd. Using radimetric decay rate of isotopes other than Carbon 14, we know the age of rocks on earth date back a billion years.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Put aside evolution of species for a minute, this 6,000 year old Earth idea is absurd. Using radimetric decay rate of isotopes other than Carbon 14, we know the age of rocks on earth date back a billion years.

Actually all we know is that there is a certain amount of daughter product, which if it was all due to radiometric decay and if the decay rates were always the same as they are today then the date calculation would correctly give long ages.

One possible fly in this oitment has to do with how the universe came into being.

If in the beginning there was a rapid expansion of the universe as both the Bible ("God stretched out the heavens") and the Big Bang claim, then both light and radioactive decay would have been trillions of times faster in the expansion interval than they are today. The Earth was then formed from this material, causing some to erroneously conclude that both the Earth and the stars must be ancient.

Some might claim that this means that God is deceptive, but perhaps these rather unusual effects are only a necessary consequence of physical laws and the expansion process, and besides, God has told us in His word that the Earth and the universe are not that old, so how could anyone logically accuse Him of being deceptive?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"If the decay rates were always the same.."

Are you saying decay rates change?

During the rapid expansion of the universe light had an effective speed millions of times faster than today (when the expansion has stopped). The speed of light is one of the variables involved in radioactive decay equations so it is logical to assume that the decay rates would also have been greatly speeded up.

The Earth was formed from material in space and hence would have radioactive daugther products that if the speeded up rates were not taken into account would yield erroneously long ages for the rocks.

Similarly, if the speed of light speedup during the early universe expansion interval were not taken into account then people might erroneously conclude that the universe was ancient since any light waves emitted today from a distant star would of course take thousands if not millions of years to reach us.

It was fortunate that I was able to glean some of this interesting information from a close and careful reading of a book by the author of the Inflationary Universe hypothesis, Alan Guth.
 

baloney

BANNED
Banned
The decay rates of radioisotopes are driven by the quantum mechanics of barrier tunneling and the relative strengths of coulomb repulsion and nuclear binding energy which drives all nuclear interactions.

If they were to change, this would mean the characteristics of fundamental particles and forces are changing, which means that the behavior of all matter in the universe is in a state of flux. Moreover, since you claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have occured right before our very eyes.

Why then do the Egyptian pyramids still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone pine tree survive? Changes of this sort would have changed the fundamental behavior of matter. Let's imagine that electromagnetism was much stronger in the past; this would help pry apart nuclei faster, thus increasing the rate of radioactive decay. However, it would also make a solid objects stronger and more rigid, it would make fire burn hotter, it would change the melting points and densities of all materials, it would increase coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion in the sun (thus cooling and dimming it to the point that we would have frozen to death), it would drastically alter the electrochemical reactions used in living organisms, and that's just the tip of the iceburg! Alternately, let's suppose that the strong nuclear force was much weaker in the past. This would also increase decay rates, with similarly severe side effects. Large elements would become more radioactive, thus greatly increasing background radiation and producing anomalous low mass radioisotopes. Worse yet, the binding energy of nuclei would be much smaller, so the energy yield of nuclear fusion would be much lower and the ancient sun would have been so cool and dim that the Earth would have been a dark, frozen, barren rock.

In simple terms, Bob. Your statement of change in speed of light and decay rates is the stupidest to be made on this forum.

Notice that you YEC idiots propse alternate explanations for physical phenomemnon without crunching numbers to account for it?

If a 6,000 year old rock looks like its 3.8 billion years old, this would suggest that its decay rate started off at more than 1 1/4 million times u, and dropped at a rate of 1u every 42 hours! We have been measuring decay rates for a while now. Have we detected such dramatic changes? Take a guess. We have been observing the effects of faraway stars and supernovae which are far more ancient, and do they show any signs of these dramatic chagnes? Take a guess.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If in the beginning there was a rapid expansion of the universe as both the Bible ("God stretched out the heavens") and the Big Bang claim, then both light and radioactive decay would have been trillions of times faster in the expansion interval than they are today. The Earth was then formed from this material, causing some to erroneously conclude that both the Earth and the stars must be ancient.

The problem is that we have fossils in the record from much of the time you're talking about. If radioactive decay was trillions of times faster, they would all have been fried. Likewise, we would see the effects of heat from all that radiation, so the sedimentary rock would not exist. On the other hand, if you want to claim that this accelerated rate stopped just before life began, you would have to accept a universe at least two billion years old.

Which isn't really very helpful to you.

Some might claim that this means that God is deceptive, but perhaps these rather unusual effects are only a necessary consequence of physical laws and the expansion process, and besides, God has told us in His word that the Earth and the universe are not that old,

That's the point. God doesn't say that. You added that to scripture yourself, to make it more acceptable to you.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Biblical literalists seem to have a "cottage industry" of rapid-response pretzel-twisted procrustean solutions to the obvious contradictions found in "the Book." Of course this is no different from ANY religion's sacred texts, but no matter: Our stories are true and theirs are just "myths."

Speaking of myths, a Buddhist story has Jesus beat hands down: When the Buddha was born, he came out of the womb walking, talking AND preaching. Apparently a virgin birth and a bright star framed with angels wasn't necessary for this dude.

Yeah, yeah--the Bible actually DOES contradict itself. But that has never apparently had any effect on the real-world spiritual power of Jesus Christ. So what's the big deal? Why insist on denying the obvious in the face of a real spiritual cost? (SEE DICTIONARY on "Word" and "Spirit.")

I think that literalism is a disease of the Enlightenment. Both fundamentalist faith AND secular rationalism are trapped by it. Maybe when a society begins to attain literacy the attatchment to "mere words" can become a kind of hysterical pathology. Why?

Is it because when we first learn the left-brain task of reading some of us don't get beyone that task to discover context and nuance--which is the next necessary step? In regard to anything human, we all have a tendency to sometimes stubbornly cling to what is familiar rather venture into anything we have not seen before.

Let's normalize the "happy accident" and see the world differently. Step up to the ever-present evolutionary invitation.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All of the expansion of the universe took place on day one of creation. Since then the universe is no longer expanding.

The other replies to this concept are non applicable, because they make other assumptions than this.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
All of the expansion of the universe took place on day one of creation. Since then the universe is no longer expanding.

The other replies to this concept are non applicable, because they make other assumptions than this.

Careful not to choke on that camel, Bob.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
My studies of the fossil record indicate that the fossil record disproves major transformations. This was the finding of the evidence by Gould and Eldridge, except that they claimed that major transformations must have occurred so rapidly that they left no record in the fossils.

That's not quite an honest representation of what they wrote, is it bob? In fact, Gould says such major transistions are uncommon in the fossil record, not absent. In fact, he names a number of them. Remember, some of us actually read those articles.

What isn't proven, is as you so neatly put it, our descent from a hypothetical Primitive Proto-Cell,

As you mentioned, DNA made a contribution to the issue. If common descent is a fact, one should see DNA comparisons producing the same nested hierarchy that other evidence does.

And it does. Science is inductive, and it doesn't use proofs. It is inductive, makint inferences from evidence. And as you learned, the evidence clearly establishes common descent.

Life, seems to show that Bacteria are the simplest life-forms capable of independant life.

Actually, there are simpler organisms than bacteria. It would help if you kept up with the literature.

track except you have not studied the fossil record sufficiently to realize that major transformations among multicelled creatures are as non-existent as ones which go from bacteria to anything else.

Would you like to see the one for horses? Fortunately, horses were so numerous, and fossilized frequently enough that we can track the transition from very early examples to Equus in great detail. The line that led to modern horses is very well documented.

Gould and Eldridge (and others) gave the game away when they revealed "the trade secret" of paleontology.

Nice try. BTW, the lines of gradual evolution Gould mentioned included ammonites formainiphorans, and horses.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's not quite an honest representation of what they wrote, is it bob? In fact, Gould says such major transistions are uncommon in the fossil record, not absent. In fact, he names a number of them. Remember, some of us actually read those articles.

Since you claim to know, perhaps you can tell us then what major transitions Gould named that are documented in the fossil record

As you mentioned, DNA made a contribution to the issue. If common descent is a fact, one should see DNA comparisons producing the same nested hierarchy that other evidence does.
And it does.

Actually what is done is to select certain genes for analysis and use algorithms which then supposedly give a best fit to to the selected gene data. As usual the basic assumption is that a gene hierarchy exists. And frequently the tree determined by using genes disagrees with that determined from the fossils. Of course one could always select different genes and see if that works.

Science is inductive, and it doesn't use proofs. It is inductive, makint inferences from evidence. And as you learned, the evidence clearly establishes common descent.

Common descent is of course obvious, but the key question is common descent from what?

A hypothetical primitive protocell or multiple types as Genesis indicates?

Nice try. BTW, the lines of gradual evolution Gould mentioned included ammonites formainiphorans, and horses.

The horse "tree" is actually a "bush" not a tree.

Once it is accepted that radiometric dating does not really indicate long ages then the entire "millions of years" idea will end up on the ash heap of history.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
That's not quite an honest representation of what they wrote, is it bob? In fact, Gould says such major transistions are uncommon in the fossil record, not absent. In fact, he names a number of them. Remember, some of us actually read those articles.

Since you claim to know, perhaps you can tell us then what major transitions Gould named that are documented in the fossil record

The evolution of modern horses from little multi-toed browsers, for one. Ironically, Gould said (in Horses Toes and Hens Teeth) that while species to species transitions are rarely preserved in the fossil record, there are a great number in the higher taxa. He points out Archaeopteryx as a transitional. You know this, unless you were just cribbing things from other creationists.

As you mentioned, DNA made a contribution to the issue. If common descent is a fact, one should see DNA comparisons producing the same nested hierarchy that other evidence does.
And it does.

Actually what is done is to select certain genes for analysis

No. One can do that, (and it also produces the same phylogenies as other methods) but DNA hybridization uses all of it.

and use algorithms which then supposedly give a best fit to to the selected gene data. As usual the basic assumption is that a gene hierarchy exists.

Ironically, this heirarchy was first documented by a creationist. Imagine that.

And frequently the tree determined by using genes disagrees with that
determined from the fossils.

They lied to you about that one, bob, or possibly you've confused cytochrome c and DNA again. Cytochrome c, which is more conserved than DNA, has fewer differences for the same length of time, and so the "resolution" of cytochrome c is lower. DNA is quite accurate, and in those rare cases where anatomy seems to be contrary to molecules, the molecules generally win. In the millions of species, however, feel free to name those that aren't consistent. Or if you just made it up, don't show us; we'll understand.

Of course one could always select different genes and see if that works.

And it does.

Barbarian observes:
Science is inductive, and it doesn't use proofs. It is inductive, making inferences from evidence. And as you learned, the evidence clearly establishes common descent.

Common descent is of course obvious, but the key question is common descent from what?

A hypothetical primitive protocell or multiple types as Genesis indicates?

Genesis doesn't indicate multiple types independently arising.

Barbarian observes:
Nice try. BTW, the lines of gradual evolution Gould mentioned included ammonites formainiphorans, and horses.

Once it is accepted that radiometric dating does not really indicate long ages then the entire "millions of years" idea will end up on the ash heap of history.

Once it is accepted that the world is flat, then the "round earth" idea will end up on the ash heap of history.

Both are equally likely.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barb,

I am glad you mentioned Gould's book. It jogged my memory so I got it down from my bookshelf and found this interesting passage that has recently been confirmed by evo-devo research. Some here have criticized my viewpoint that there needed to be only a relatively few animals on the Ark in order to repopulate the world so rapidly with the vast variety we see today. The article hints at how this could be, although Gould obviously still held the "long ages" concept. Once again, evolutionists (and cosmologists) have come close, but no cigar, probably because they refuse to give God the glory.
------

180 HEN’S TEETH AND HORSE’S TOES

O. C. Marsh, a founder of vertebrate paleontology in America, took a special interest in these aberrant animals and published a long article on “Recent polydactyle horses” in April 1892. Marsh had two major claims upon fame, one dubious – his acrimonious battles with E. D. Cope in collecting and describing vertebrate fossils from the American West – and one unambiguous – his success in deciphering the evolution of horses, the first adequate demonstration of descent provided by the fossil record of vertebrates, and an important support in Darwin’s early battles.
Marsh was puzzled and fascinated by these aberrant horses with extra toes. In most cases, the additional toe is merely a duplicate copy of the functional third digit. But Marsh found that many two- and three-toed horses had harkened back to their ancestors by developing either or both of the side splints into functional (or nearly functional) hoofed toes. (A later, and particularly thorough, German monograph of 1918 concluded that about two-thirds of horses with extra toes had simply duplicated the functional third digit, while about one-third had resuscitated an ancestral feature by developing the vestigial splints of their second or fourth toe into complete, hoofed digits.) These apparent reversions to previous evolutionary states are called atavisms, after the Latin atavus: literally, greatgreat-great-grandfather more generally, simply ancestor. The biological literature is studded with examples of the genre, but they have generally been treated anecdotally as mere curiosities bearing no important evolutionary message. If anything, they are surrounded with the odor of slight embarrassment, as if the progressive process of evolution did not care to be reminded so palpably of its previous imperfections. The synonyms of European colleagues express this feeling directly—’ ‘throwback” in England, pas-enarnère (“backward step”) in France, and Rückschlag (“set-back”) in Germany. When granted any general significance, atavisms have been treated as marks of constraint, as indications that an organism’s past lurks just below its present surface and can hold back its future advance.
I would suggest an opposite view—that atavisms teach an important lesson about potential results of small genetic changes, and that they suggest an unconventional approach to the problem of major transitions in evolution. In the traditional view, major transitions are a summation of the small changes that adapt populations ever more finely to their local environments. Several evolutionists, myself included,

HEN’S TEETH AND HORSE’S TOES 181

have become dissatisfied with this vision of smooth extrapolation. Must one group always evolve from another through an insensibly graded series of intermediate forms? Must evolution proceed gene by gene, each tiny change producing a correspondingly small alteration of external appearance? The fossil record rarely records smooth transitions, and it is often difficult even to imagine a function for all hypothetical intermediates between ancestors and their highly modified descendants.
One promising solution to this dilemma recognizes that of certain kinds of small genetic changes may have major, discontinuous effects upon morphology. We can make no one-to-one translation between extent of genetic change and degree of alteration in external form. Genes are not attached to independent bits of the body, each responsible for building one small item. Genetic systems are arranged hierarchically; controllers and master switches often activate large blocks of genes. Small changes in the timing of action for these controllers often translate into major and discontinuous alterations of external form. Most dramatic are the so-called homeotic mutants discussed in the following essay.
The current challenge to traditional gradualistic accounts of evolutionary transitions will take root only if genetic systems contain extensive, hidden capacities for expressing small changes as large effects. Atavisms provide the most striking demonstration of this principle that I know. If genetic systems were beanbags of independent items, each responsible for building a single part of the body, then evolutionary change could only occur piece by piece. But genetic systems are integrated products of an organism’s history, and they retain extensive, latent capacities that can often be released by small changes. Horses have never lost the genetic information for producing side toes even though their ancestors settled on a single toe several million years ago. What else might their genetic system maintain, normally unexpressed, but able to serve, if activated, as a possible focus for major and rapid evolutionary change? Atavisms reflect the enormous, latent capacity of genetic systems, not primarily the constraints and limitations imposed by an organism’s past.
-------

Extrapolating even further backwards in time the problem must eventually be faced: HOW DID SUCH SOPHISTICATED CAPABILITIES FIRST ARISE?

Our God is great. :first:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If that's what it takes to make the facts fit the YEC preconceived notions of a young Earth you can bet someone is saying it.

Decay rates can change if the speed of light changes, and during a rapid expansion of the universe the effective speed of light would have been millions of times faster than it is now. This does not cause any more overall heating than it would now because the energy released is a function of 1/c.

Most advanced textbooks of physics will tell you that.

It seems to all work out nicely. ;)
 
Top