Best Evidence for Evolution.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Yes, and the simplest creatures known use hundreds if not thousands of such complex proteins, and the "rules" for generating them are stored in the DNA, which in turn requires proteins to support the translation machinery. All this literally boggles the minds of those involved in figuring out how it all works in detail. I will reactive my thread :Cell Trends Two so you can get a "feel" for why people believe that the cell is the most sophisticated and complex piece of machinery ever designed, by a country mile, making anything ever created by mankind look absolutely crude and childlike in comparison.
But getting back to your posting, if creation by God is involved who are you little man to tell God what He can or cannot do when creating the first lifeforms?
And if you are suggesting that nature did the "creating" then you should be able to use your own argument to rule out separate creations.
(Except for the inconvenient fact that not all creatures use the same DNA code scheme.)
There is some reason to believe that such inconvenient exceptions like non-standard DNA code schemes may have been planned deliberately in advance to thwart a future evolutionary explanation. At least that is the theme of "The Biotic Message".
PlastikBuddha
New member
I would not presume to put limits on the Divine- but it seems to me that the set-up favors evolution. MAcguy mentioned "The Biotic Message". I checked it out, and it doesn't seem to fly. It's basically just a rehash of arguments for the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution spun to try and bolster creationism. I have yet to see any of this prove to be a better explaination than evolution. What are you talking about not using the same DNA scheme- it's all based on the same amino acids, same basic shape. What exceptions are these? I'm curious.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Not seperate creations. Not starting scratch, reinventing the wheel so to speak, then eventually arriving at the exact same end product.
99.9% of lifeforms use a "standard" translation table to go from DNA code to the amino acids which make up proteins.
But some lifeforms have been found that use a slight variation of the "standard" translation table.
Of course, evolution is so flexible that people can invent a "story" to explain any possible finding. This isn't science, it is psuedoscience posing as science.
Much of what goes on in biology is good solid science that can be tested and replicated, but there is a darkside element in biology that substitutes "stories" for experiments and has been very successful in convincing our society that it must be good solid science because it gets published in otherwise respectable journals.
Even some of the good solid science can be tainted by evolutionally storytelling in the conclusion section of an otherwise valuable article. This may sometimes be necessary to make the article "acceptable" to be published in what has become a very "politically correct" environment regarding the subject of evolution versus creation.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I don't think its storytelling- I think variations on a basic theme are what evolution is all about. Even when taken down to the level of DNA. If it were completely different then some people would have some 'splainin to do, but I don't see why this bothers you.
It doesn't "bother me" because I have come to expect "stories" instead of science from evolutionists to explain inconvenient facts. Sort of like your offhand remark that "variation on a theme" is what evolution is all about.
But that kind of "handwaving" is not science.
For a lifelong science lover like myself it is rather appalling to recognize the pathetic scientific state of most of what is known as "evolutionary science".
SUTG
New member
What kind of science do you like, bob?
Jehu
New member
My favourite subject on evolution is the Whale. I made a post about this.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35863&highlight=Whale
Whales and their land ancestors are a good evidence for evolution, even their spines ect.
Abiogenesis is unproven but a logical preconclusion to evolution.
The very existance of the whale and it's transistional fossil record completly disproves YEC.
Slowly slowly tranformy monkey(Not that whales came from monkeys)
It's too bad your thread got sidetracked, since noone ever really discussed the idea that Pakicetus is a valid whale ancestor. Googling "pakicetus" got me a few links to both images of the complete fossil skeleton and an artist's rendition of what it may have looked like.
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html
A giant rodent maybe? But according to evolutionists it's a whale ancestor because of it's inner ear! This is hardly convincing evidence...
eveningsky339
New member
Personally, I believe that the universe is ~20 billion years old, the earth is ~4 billion years old, and evolution is an unproven and, in light of recent evidence, a fairly flimsly hypothesis. The fossil record does everything but support evolution.
I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic. I personally will do my best to refute every claim in support of evolution.
Take your best shot! :chew:
I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic. I personally will do my best to refute every claim in support of evolution.
Take your best shot! :chew:
audioseizure
New member
why do you think the universe is 20 billion years old?
it's actually 13.7 billion years old.
and if you're not an evolutionist, why do you think the universe and the earth are so old?
could you be more specific about what the fossil record does that doesn't support evolution?
you seem to be looking for a good debate, i'll accept the challenge.
eveningsky339
New member
Didn't the Big Bang occur ~20 billion years ago? Or am I behind in the times? Hmm...
I think the universe is old because of science. In the words of another Old Earth Creationist, to say the universe is only a week old is an insult to science, scientists, and the One who invented science in the first place.
He manages to support his argument rather well. The Hebrew word for day, yom, actually has three meanings: sunrise to sunrise, sunrise to sunset, and a period of time. Hebrew is literally a thousand times smaller than English in terms of vocabulary, so Hebrew words usually have several meanings, determined by context.
Besides, I believe Genisis 1 is a literary framework-- God simply organized it in the fashion that he did for the sake of the Hebrews, and to create a seven day week with one rest day.
It's not so much that the fossil record contradicts Darwinism-- it's more that it simply does not support it. However, I can think of two examples that contradict it: the Cambrain Explosion and the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup that really ought to be there.
I think the universe is old because of science. In the words of another Old Earth Creationist, to say the universe is only a week old is an insult to science, scientists, and the One who invented science in the first place.
He manages to support his argument rather well. The Hebrew word for day, yom, actually has three meanings: sunrise to sunrise, sunrise to sunset, and a period of time. Hebrew is literally a thousand times smaller than English in terms of vocabulary, so Hebrew words usually have several meanings, determined by context.
Besides, I believe Genisis 1 is a literary framework-- God simply organized it in the fashion that he did for the sake of the Hebrews, and to create a seven day week with one rest day.
It's not so much that the fossil record contradicts Darwinism-- it's more that it simply does not support it. However, I can think of two examples that contradict it: the Cambrain Explosion and the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup that really ought to be there.
The kind which is based on traditional scientific methods like prediction, experimental verification, etc.
The "Just so" stories of evolutionary science do not conform to traditional science.
audioseizure
New member
nope, 13.7 billion years ago. you were closer with the age of the earth, it's 4.5 billion years old.
EDIT: the universe is 13.7 billion years old +or- .2 billion years.
fair enough.
i'm very pleased to see that you're in support of science rather than the literal translation of the bible.
again, i'm going to need a little more specificity. sorry. it's just that i don't know where to start and i would be sitting here typing all night trying to cover everything.
Not only is Denton an agnostic, he is also an evolutionist, but one who believes the ideas of Darwin and modern day Darwinists are incorrect. He has his own theories as to how evolution works. Because he attacked Darwinian ideas in his book people somehow got the idea he was a creationist.
eveningsky339
New member
The Cambrian Explosion occured ~500 million years ago (very rough estimate... the date escapes me.) Prior to this, we have a few sponges, a few cute little jellyfish, nothing in particular-- then bang! Complex organisms with no prior common ancestors. It's been a huge thorn in the side of Darwinism since it was discovered.
As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.
Java man and archaeoptryx (sp?) are another two examples that are cited by evolutionists, though it is fairly easy to prove them wrong.
As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.
Java man and archaeoptryx (sp?) are another two examples that are cited by evolutionists, though it is fairly easy to prove them wrong.
audioseizure
New member
The Cambrian Explosion occured ~500 million years ago (very rough estimate... the date escapes me.) Prior to this, we have a few sponges, a few cute little jellyfish, nothing in particular-- then bang! Complex organisms with no prior common ancestors. It's been a huge thorn in the side of Darwinism since it was discovered.
As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.
Java man and archaeoptryx (sp?) are another two examples that are cited by evolutionists, though it is fairly easy to prove them wrong.
i'm going to take this time to do some research and collect my thoughts... and sleep. i will get back to you in the AM.
This thread is really not the place to discuss the age of the universe, but since you obviously missed the simple explanation for the misunderstanding I brought up, let me give you the short version.
The universe could be 20 billion (or 13.5) light years in size and we could still see stars that far away in a young universe IF the universe was rapidly expanded.
The Big Bang does assume that universe was rapidly expanded by an enormous factor in the first instant of its creation. What is not widely known is that if that inflationary period had lasted just one more instant at the original expansion rate that the universe would have reached its current size. That is how fast the Big Bang assumed the expansion rate was during its so-called "inflationary period".
So if this was what actually occurred then time would have effectively been enormously speeded up during the expansion, meaning that the propagation rate of light would also have been speeded up. In fact, if you would check Wikipedia you would see that the Big Bang assumes that during the inflationary period the effective rate of light propagation is millions of times faster than its current speed.
This scenario fits into Creation Week. We see light from distant stars because the light rays in transit during the expansion would also have been stretched out as the expansion proceeded. The catch is that what we are seeing today in our telescopes is a slow motion version of what really took place in less than a second, or at most less than a day (because the expansion is no longer continuing).
I hope that this brief and simple explanation helps you to see that the rapid expansion of the universe, halfway embraced by Big Bang advocates, solves the starlight travel time problem and at the same time shows that the universe and everything in it may be no more than 6-7000 years old.
Although this is not conclusive proof of what really happened or how long it actually took, it does show that a universe billions of years old is not a logical requirement of a universe which is billions of light years in physical size. It all depends on how long it took for the universe to expand to its present size, and this cannot be determined scientifically for obvious reasons.
If you wish to discuss this further, please start a separate thread.
mighty_duck
New member
That is a twenty year old book that has already been thoroughly refuted. Ironically, it was refuted by Denton himself in his next book, where he espoused evolution...
audioseizure
New member
again, you've come very close by just guessing the dates based on memory. the cambrian explosion took place about 540 million years ago, but it was not the origin of complex life. evidence of multicellular life from about 560 million years ago as well as from about 590 million years ago appears in the doushantuo formation in china (chen et al. 2000, 2004). testate amoebae are known from about 750 million years ago (porter and knoll 2000). eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 million years ago according to fossil chemical evidence (brocks et al. 1999). there is more...
it's also good to note that the earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the cambrian explosion (hoffman 1998; kerr 2000). an ice age before the cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today.
As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.
more to come.