Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    You claimed that the reference you posted proved that Angiosperms have been around for ages.
    No, I didn't. If you look at the challenge that I was building on, my point is obvious. Instead, you have gone down rabbit hole after rabbit hole.

    Here it is: "The more we find out, the quicker we realize that the timeframes for evolution are getting squished impossibly small."
    Last edited by Stripe; November 2nd, 2019, 07:45 AM.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      No, I didn't. If you look at the challenge that I was building on, my point is obvious. Instead, you have gone down rabbit hole after rabbit hole.

      Here it is: "The more we find out, the quicker we realize that the timeframes for evolution are getting squished impossibly small."
      What I answered you, did address this. Let me be more clear for you.

      The idea of timeframes shrinking to "impossibility" doesn't follow from your reference at all. The authors specifically state that there isn't a continuous record with more angiosperm pollen, so it probably doesn't mean angiosperms themselves existed in the Triassic. Really the evidence being only pollen. We don't know what kind of plants produced it other than it looks basically like Angiosperm pollen, but not like any modern angiosperms and not even exactly like pollen from the cretaceous.

      So what is the better interpretation of this finding? That maybe some relative of Angiosperms (or something else that happened to have pollen like them) existed in the Triassic? Or all of evolution is wrong and we'd better just give up.

      After all the statements about being skeptical in this thread I think it should be pretty obvious what the answer is.

      Again, if you want to support your ideas, it's pretty obvious what the predictions would be. We should find Mangroves, Oaks, Maples and other modern trees fossilized alongside Lepidodendron scale trees and Archeopteris.

      But you can't find those, because it didn't happen and they're separated by millions of years.

      Your only recourse is to cherry pick data and pick at the edges of "look at the unexpected stuff evolutionists found". News flash, no scientist knows everything, but the data are not consistent with a recent creation with everything found together in a mishmash left behind by a global flood.

      If you read:

      The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, you'd know that early Christian geologists figured this out a long time ago.
      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mtwilcox View Post
        Yeah, I would say fins turning into fingers would be considered “gaining anatomy”, but do you have evidence that happened?

        Like say, a tiktaalik with fingers to compare to your tiktaalik with fins...?

        Of course, I meant a modern observable mutation, but you knew that.
        Going from Tiktaalik to an amphibian isn't something that's going to happen over a human lifetime. But you knew that, right?

        Hey! It must be a descendant of the tiktaalik!!!
        Nope. Any scientist with a basic understanding of anatomy would know that Mudskippers are ray finned fish, a sister group to all lobe finned fish, including tiktaalik.

        I wonder how much longer it will take for mudskippers to evolve fingers and feet...
        It could happen, *if* there was a loss of all other land living vertebrates. Fish came onto land during a time where the only other land living creatures were arthropods (insects, millipedes, spiders and scorpions). And if something with an internal skeleton, teeth and a solid jaw meets an arthropod, you can imagine what could happen. There would be very powerful selection for animals that could live and feed on land. Lots of unexploited food sources (arthropods) and few predators compared to the aquatic environment.

        So unless that specific situation is repeated, it's unlikely mudskippers will go a much farther than where they are because there are far superior land living vertebrates around now.
        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

        Comment


        • Proverbs 20:12 (KJV): The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.
          Romans 1:18-22 (NASB): 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,


          Kind regards
          Trevor

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Yorzhik
            Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            I don't see any reason to say a complex system means random changes are worse than a simpler one. The complex system has a lot more redundancy and can tolerate a lot more noise and damage than a simpler one.

            I think that's why your simplified models of DNA function don't work.
            You didn't even address the comment. The comment wasn't whether one could more easily mutate a simpler system or a more complex system to death. The comment was whether it was easier to build a system via mutation+NS that was simpler or more complex. It should have been obvious to you that the more complex system is harder to build. And not only is the system more complex the more we look into it, but you are adding system redundancy to the system making it even MORE complex. And don't think systems outside of and interacting with DNA are going to make the system simpler... 'cause it will make the compete system even more complex.

            At least you should question, or have a modicum of curiosity, as to how random mutation+natural system can accomplish that.

            But instead of looking into it, biologists like you repeat the dogma of similar looks and similar function. While biologists like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer look at the molecules and show you how it can't be done.

            Originally posted by Yorzhik
            You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?
            The simplest way is to know that the rocks on top are older than those on the bottom.

            To cross date obviously scientists use radiometric methods or using electromagnetic field reversals.
            I'm sure you meant those on the bottom are older.

            You said "Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?"

            So are you saying scientists are dumb or that "those" is a pronoun that refers to something no one is talking about?

            I haven't really said anything about epigenetics up till this point so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. Epigenetics don't make new functions, pretty much by definition.
            I only mean control systems outside DNA. It's something we have to pay attention to if we are going to try and model how well random mutations+natural selection can build increadibly complex DNA systems (with redundancy!).

            HOX genes are universal to all bilaterian animals, that much is a fact. They are used in slightly different ways in different organisms and show many rounds of duplication, depending on the organism.
            Intuition should tell you that building these HOX genes has to be somewhat specific. Aren't you curious how this is a problem for RM+NS? Common descentists don't ever address this.

            Ray finned fish actually have more copies of HOX than we do. Got a good explanation for that?
            There's a few explanations. Broken copy systems, or us not understanding enough about HOX genes to see how that kind of design change can help function. Perhaps something else. Why do you think that's a problem for the YEC model?

            What other reasons is there for the eyemaking protein, for such radically different eye types to be cross functional? Especially when many other proteins are not.
            You keep bringing up systems like this as if it's a problem for the design model. It worked, therefore it was used repeatedly. And if it wasn't, you'll have to get into the designers head as to why they would do something one way when your idea is that they should have done it another. It's a philosophical argument. I'd love to get into philosophical arguments why universal common ancestry is wrong, but science is enough to show common descent is wrong.

            Circular DNA isn't just looks. It radically changes how the DNA functions and replicates. Circular DNA eliminates the end replication problem that Eukaryotic chromosomes have. Mitochondria and chloroplasts don't just look like bacteria, they still behave like bacteria.
            Similar looks or functions is still a subjective measure on what "descended" from what.

            Flood layers are easily identified by graded bedding. We don't find one giant flood layer of graded bedding world wide.
            You have to be kidding me. You are this ignorant of every flood model? You think the world just sat in water for a year? That's essentially what you'd have to think to say this.

            Yes some sediment layers were deposited rapidly, but others weren't. And many layers reflect *different* deposition conditions.
            So when you say rapidly, what kind of timeframe are you talking about and what is the difference in layers that tells you what was laid fast and what was laid slow?

            I can see that where I live, there are many layers of limestone (not a flood layer), which is overlain by sandstone (not a flood layer) and if you go farther south you can find the underlying eroded granite (also not a flood layer).
            How does one get a limestone or sandstone layer that isn't laid down by water?

            Did you find that sediment map? I bet you didn't.

            Oh, and granite seems to be the rock that was the foundation of the continents before the flood happened.
            Good things come to those who shoot straight.

            Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              The idea of timeframes shrinking to "impossibility" doesn't follow from your reference at all.
              Of course it does. And I wasn't even making the claim, just providing an actual on-topic reference.

              The authors specifically state that there isn't a continuous record with more angiosperm pollen, so it probably doesn't mean angiosperms themselves existed in the Triassic.
              Of course they bow to Darwinism. However, moments prior, they wrote:

              "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

              So while we know you want there to be a progression from "basal" to "more modern," the evidence doesn't indicate that. The evidence shows that "all the essential features of angiosperm pollen" are present every time "earlier" stuff is found.

              Really the evidence being only pollen. We don't know what kind of plants produced it other than it looks basically like Angiosperm pollen, but not like any modern angiosperms and not even exactly like pollen from the cretaceous.
              Except that it "shows all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

              So what is the better interpretation of this finding? That maybe some relative of Angiosperms (or something else that happened to have pollen like them) existed in the Triassic? Or all of evolution is wrong and we'd better just give up.
              Your suggestions are ridiculous. You need to stop overreacting to the evidence and just put it in its proper place. Of course this paper doesn't overthrow evolution. It's just an example of the challenge that was issued.

              Again, if you want to support your ideas, it's pretty obvious what the predictions would be. We should find Mangroves, Oaks, Maples and other modern trees fossilized alongside Lepidodendron scale trees and Archeopteris.
              We have pollen.

              Why should we expect to find entire trees deep in sediment laid down by a catastrophic global flood?

              Is this another "rabbit in the precambrian" piece of nonsense?

              You can't find those, because it didn't happen.
              Just like you can't find wet roads after that rain last night.

              Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

              Are you just going through the Wiki list of logical fallacies and making sure you commit each one?

              The data are not consistent with a recent creation [and] a global flood.
              Of course they are.

              If you read Walt Brown's In the Beginning, you'll find a compelling case.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Of course they bow to Darwinism. However, moments prior, they wrote:

                "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

                So while we know you want there to be a progression from "basal" to "more modern," the evidence doesn't indicate that. The evidence shows that "all the essential features of angiosperm pollen" are present every time "earlier" stuff is found.
                Angiosperm pollen. Do you know what pollen is? Do you know how small it is and how minimal the features are?

                Your paper is cited in a newer review of the subject:
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055841/

                Relevant quote below:


                Monosulcate pollen, such as that produced by early‐branching lineages of extant angiosperms, is known at least as far back as the Valanginian (Brenner, 1996), and pollen exhibiting subsets of definitive crown‐angiosperm characters is known as far back as the Middle Triassic (Cornet, 1986; Doyle & Hotton, 1991; Taylor & Taylor, 2009; Hochuli et al., 2013), but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms (Doyle & Hotton, 1991), and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses.



                Why should we expect to find entire trees deep in sediment laid down by a catastrophic global flood?
                Because we find whole fossil trees sometimes?



                Mind you those are found in Arizona and represent a group of trees not found in the northern hemisphere anymore.

                Is this another "rabbit in the precambrian" piece of nonsense?
                If now extinct and modern trees existed at the same time, why don't we find them together? And yes why not a rabbit, or a whale or a mosasaur or something like that in the precambrian (or cambrian for that matter)?
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  Angiosperm pollen. Do you know what pollen is? Do you know how small it is and how minimal the features are?
                  Why are you so confident that this pollen cannot be angiosperm.

                  Remember: "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

                  Your paper reiterates that: "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms ... and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses."

                  Because we find whole fossil trees sometimes?
                  Did you read the question I posed? Do you intentionally ignore the words that showed I was very aware of fossil trees?

                  If now extinct and modern trees existed at the same time, why don't we find them together?
                  Because the trees you call "extinct" are not substantially different from what we have today. Remember how the papers we are looking at back that up?

                  "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms."

                  Why not a rabbit, or a whale or a mosasaur or something like that in the precambrian (or cambrian for that matter)?
                  Why would you expect those to be buried deep in sediment laid down by a global catastrophe?

                  Try to understand: This question assumes that fossils actually exist.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Why are you so confident that this pollen cannot be angiosperm.
                    I'm not. Why are you so confident it is?

                    Your paper reiterates that: "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms ... and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses."
                    You just cut the critical part of the quote to make it say something it doesn't.

                    "...but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms"

                    So they don't really know if it's angiosperm pollen or not because if it is, it represents primitive angiosperm pollen which is far less distinct from gymnosperm pollen (a far more ancient group of plants).




                    Because the trees you call "extinct" are not substantially different from what we have today. Remember how the papers we are looking at back that up?

                    "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms."
                    Do you think Pollen is the only evidence we have?

                    I wasn't talking about your pollen-only plants at all. I was talking about Lepidodendron, a tree that exists as fossil forests, with no modern trees (angiosperms included) mixed in.

                    Lepidodendron forests aren't late Triassic age, but Carboniferous.




                    Why would you expect those to be buried deep in sediment laid down by a global catastrophe?
                    Why not?
                    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      I'm not. Why are you so confident it is?
                      Because of the paper you provided.

                      You just cut the critical part of the quote to make it say something it doesn't.
                      "...but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms."

                      See? They're very similar. Why are you so confident that they cannot be pretty much the same thing?

                      So they don't really know if it's angiosperm pollen or not because if it is, it represents primitive angiosperm pollen which is far less distinct from gymnosperm pollen (a far more ancient group of plants).
                      Nope.

                      That's your Darwinism speaking. We're interested in the evidence.

                      Why not?
                      Physics.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • The creation story of Genesis was created by Israelites for Israelites using parts and pieces of ancient history from Mesopotamian lore. The priestly elite were establishing their authority through a fictitious line of decent. Its the same priest class of Holy men who ultimately rejected the Son of God and sought to kill him.

                        Religion has its own "pride" and fear of admitting error. "He who would save his own life will loose it but he who will give it up shall find it." Institutional religion is trying to "save itself" because it lacks faith in following the truth wherever it may lead.


                        Jesus sought ALL truth.

                        "Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evil doing of his ancestors."UB

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Caino View Post
                          The creation story of Genesis was created by Israelites for Israelites using parts and pieces of ancient history from Mesopotamian lore. The priestly elite were establishing their authority through a fictitious line of decent. Its the same priest class of Holy men who ultimately rejected the Son of God and sought to kill him.

                          Religion has its own "pride" and fear of admitting error. "He who would save his own life will loose it but he who will give it up shall find it." Institutional religion is trying to "save itself" because it lacks faith in following the truth wherever it may lead.


                          Jesus sought ALL truth.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Because of the paper you provided.

                            "...but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms."

                            See? They're very similar. Why are you so confident that they cannot be pretty much the same thing?
                            It says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. Let me translate for you again since you apparently don't understand scientific writing: "We can't know for sure whether it's a crown angiosperm or a gymnosperm (pines, spruce, fir, and others) so we are excluding it from our data because it is equivocal!"

                            You don't base a very major claim on weak equivocal evidence.


                            Let's back up a bit and explain the situation a bit better (for anyone else following along).

                            The story the evidence tells us is this:

                            Today we look around us and see Angiosperms (flowering plants) everywhere. Every tree you see, aside from conifers and a few other oddballs are angiosperms. Not all angiosperms have beautiful flowers, some are wind pollinated like grasses. The food that we humans eat is all angiosperms: rice, wheat, coconuts, apples, squash, potatoes, cassava etc.

                            Many insects are specialized to feed on flowers. If we look into the layers of rock left behind, before a certain point we do not see evidence of these plants at all, or the insects that pollinated them. Even these handful of pollen grains are tiny in number compared to all of the other groups of plants that were around, dominating the planet. So a major reversal happened around the cretaceous period. Flowering plant pollen is suddenly everywhere, like today, and the pollinating insects, bees, butterflies and moths suddenly diversify.

                            Now why are there all of these layers of rock where any evidence of flowering plants is minimal and equivocal?

                            It's possible flowering plants were around as a primitive crown group and in tiny numbers as far back as the Triassic. Maybe the coevolutionary relationship of Angiosperm and pollinator hadn't yet been set into motion. This is the "long fuse" model, that's mentioned in the paper I linked. It's possible. Seed bearing plants, the group that gave rise to angiosperms have been around a very long time. The molecular evidence, according to the paper, actually does point to an earlier origin, but they say the speed of the radiation might make that inaccurate. Really, we can't say for sure unless we get some clear fossils of intact angiosperms from much earlier. Regardless, the explosion of angiosperm diversity didn't occur until that relatively late point as far as rock layers go.

                            Mind you these are the kind of primitive flowers we're talking about:



                            This flower doesn't have distinct petals and stamens, they're basically the same thing.

                            So the real question is, why isn't there angiosperm pollen everywhere, like today, all the way down the geologic column?

                            If YEC were true, we would definitely expect that. The story of creation and the garden of eden even specifically talks about trees bearing fruit and fruit is the exclusive domain of angiosperms.

                            Angiosperm means "Vessel seed" meaning seeds inside of a container. Gymnosperm means "Naked seed" which the seeds are held on the surface of cones.
                            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              rice,
                              Dinsaurs ate rice.

                              https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5751/1177.full

                              I wonder if it was steamed or fried...

                              Many insects are specialized to feed on flowers. If we look into the layers of rock left behind, before a certain point we do not see evidence of these plants at all, or the insects that pollinated them, and even these handful of pollen grains are tiny in number compared to all of the other groups of plants that were around, dominating the planet.
                              Insect proboscis (tongue) in moths and butterflies 70 million years before previously believed has them evolving before flowers.

                              https://nyti.ms/2Fnqa9M

                              So the real question is, why isn't there angiosperm pollen everywhere, like today, all the way down the geologic column?


                              https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1001191811.htm

                              If YEC were true, we would definitely expect that.
                              Not necessarily, considering that you're forgetting that layers of sediment can be "sorted" in floods.

                              The story of creation and the garden of eden even specifically talks about trees bearing fruit and fruit is the exclusive domain of angiosperms.
                              And?

                              Your entire argument against YEC seems to forget that it's more than just the Creation week that you have to work around. It's also the flood account in Genesis 7, which itself has it's explanation for the sedimentary layers that you call the geologic column.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                You three seriously pegged the irony meter on this one.
                                I look at all the information you provide, and answer it directly and sensibly. While it's you that sticks to non-sensical definitions, or ignores difficult questions to your theory.

                                I've been bringing plenty of new information into these discussions and all you want to do is dismiss and ignore it. Skepticism isn't just rejecting what doesn't conform to a worldview, it is looking at any new information in light of all of the other information that's available.
                                Nothing relevant has been dismissed or ignored. You bring up homology or similarities in DNA form and we answer that. Or you bring up some really old argument that the flood was the earth just soaked in water for a year. We aren't dismissing your argument, but we let you know that the science of the flood is so far beyond that.

                                Just because we counter your argument or don't agree with it doesn't mean we dismiss or ignore you. You're projecting.

                                One doesn't take one piece of data and throw out all the other contrary data because the other data makes you feel better.
                                I'm not doing that. I have examples of you doing that. Remember when I was asking you how much DNA was useful? You wouldn't answer because there was data showing a lot more than a few percent was useful, but as more of the genome is useful, the sillier mutation+NS looks... better to ignore that one like you did.

                                You claimed that the reference you posted proved that Angiosperms have been around for ages, but the problem is, you're looking at small amounts of pollen and pollen that's not a recognizable modern angiosperm.

                                If you're looking for support for the hypothesis that the earth is only 4,000 to 10,000 years old, you would expect the types of pollen in ALL sediment layers to be reasonably similar, without any major groups of plants that are alive today missing.
                                Why? What flood model would predict that kind of dispersal?

                                Except we don't see that at all in the rock layers all around us. When we find fossil plants they're very often of plants that don't exist anymore and the plants we see here today are not fossilized with them.

                                How else do you explain that type of data other than the composition of the plant life on earth has changed massively over time?
                                How do you think a worldwide flood wouldn't change life on earth massively?
                                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                                Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X