|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Or a combination of mammal and octopus eye so that you can change the lens focal length and the shape of the eyeball and have telescopic vision. These last two kind of things are what one should expect if ID were involved in species change btw. Isn't this just pure speculation? I don't think you can predict what sort of direction a design is going to go in (and as I regularly point out the IDers aren't even looking at designs, they are looking at implementations - which isn't quite the same thing) unless you know what the requirements or goals of the design are. Since the IDers want to leave the designer(s) hiding behind the curtains we don't know what the goals of the 'eye project' were (are?). Perhaps the contract with the Magaratheans led to the following sub-section in a Functional Specification:
Requirement: The third most intelligent species on the planet must be forced to speculate on why some of their physical organs are so piss-poor compared to their equivalents on other, less intellectually advanced species. Humans will be equipped with a relatively poorly designed eye (see Specification Optical Systems In The Human for full details of the human eye). The eye used for comparison will be that of the octopus which, as described in in the relevant sections of Specification Optical Systems In The Octopus, will be implemented without some of the deliberate design flaws placed in the human eye. The default neural pathways built into the human brain must be checked to ensure that they will have enough curiosity to make the required comparison between their eye and that of the octopus. Except of course there would be a lot more bullet items, cross references to other specs and so on I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Those dad-burned white mice ...
Isn't this just pure speculation? I don't think you can predict what sort of direction a design is going to go in ... These are examples of the kinds of things, rather than the specific instances, and IF "intelligent design" were involved THEN it should involve elements common to designed items. One of these is discontinuity (sudden appearance of whole new species) and one is cross-fertilization (features from one design jumping to another), and a third is combination (where two similar features are combined to provide a significantly enhanced feature, like telescopic vision). These are also things that should NOT happen IF evolution were the ONLY answer. This may seem to be trending this discussion off topic (into ID Problems and away from Evo Falsification), but I raise it as an instance of things that could differentiate between ID and Evo -- something that should occur if one were true and should NOT occur if the other were true. This is a critical part of any good falsification test -- it differentiates between possible concepts. IDets like to use computers as examples of designed items. Modern cars have both computers and GPS systems in them, neither of which "evolved" in the cars during development and both of which are still evident in individual units and are also found combined into still other designs (GPS phones, blackberries, etc). Rather these items appear fully developed into cars, jumping across design development paths. This is the way intelligent implementation of design operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then "intelligent design" is a good explanation. This is NOT the way evolution operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then evolution is NOT the best explanation. The failure of "intelligent design" is the {lack\failure\absence} of explanation for the lack of design elements. I consider this to be another falsification of the "intelligent design" concept. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*24*2006 07:33 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5426 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
I was fascinated to see this topic appear and am interested in participating but I have mostly questions. For example:
How long do individuals here think it will be before we understand genetics? It seems that with Chromosome 1 now "in the computer" so to speak that tremendous progress should lie ahead. How long before we could, for example, electronically create "DNA" for a particular animal? How long before we will be able to physically create "DNA" for a particular animal? How long before a computer could "extrude" physical DNA from an electronic model? I look forward to your feedback.Bob, Alice, and Eve (BAE)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5426 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
I dont' plan to falsify the whole ToE this week but want to explore the DNA aspect for falsification (everyone laughs) so, if you would please, what are the three greatest DNA supports for evolution?
I hear statements like "Common junk DNA proves a common ancestor" and terms like Genetic Affinity. How strong of evidence are they considered to be and what others exist. And, if I could get some replies to my first post about computerization of DNA, I would appreciate the informaiton. Thank you in advance,BAE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I dont' plan to falsify the whole ToE this week but want to explore the DNA aspect for falsification (everyone laughs) so, if you would please, what are the three greatest DNA supports for evolution? There's kind of a disjunction, here. If it's your goal to falsify evolution, then you should be telling us what your three greatest supports for falsification are. Attacking our evidence doesn't falsify anything. Rather, you must show observations that could not be made if evolution was an accurate model. The greatest support for evolution is that the evidence all converges towards roughly the same thing - a pattern of common ancestry in living things - from multiple, independant directions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How long do individuals here think it will be before we understand genetics? We can take any DNA molecule and read its sequence of base pairs. We can take any sequence of base pairs and determine what polypeptide sequence will result. After that, it gets tricky... Research into protein folding models continues apace, however. I suspect the mysteries of proteinomics will be surrendered within the next decade or so. It's really just a modelling problem.
How long before we could, for example, electronically create "DNA" for a particular animal? How long before we will be able to physically create "DNA" for a particular animal? How long before a computer could "extrude" physical DNA from an electronic model? All things we can currently do. Generating arbitrary sequences of DNA is not difficult; you don't even need to do it yourself. If you email the sequence to one of about a hundred labs, they'll do it for you at some price based on length. There's a physical limit on how long a sequence you can generate at any one time, though. Raw, unclad DNA isn't very strong so sequences longer than 10kbp (10 thousand base pairs) tend to break. It would be possible to generate the 5gbp (5 billion base pairs) of a human genome, for instance, piecemeal, and then rely on the pre-existing mechanisms of the cell to re-assemble it. Hard, but not impossible. Here's where the limit of our understanding is reached, though - we don't know how to generate functional proteins from whole cloth, at this point. We can specify arbitrary sequences of DNA but specifying DNA that results in a protein that has a specific desired function is currently beyond our knowledge. The best we can do right now is search the natural world for proteins that do what we want, already, and then identify their genetic sequence and then insert that into the target transgenic organism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I think it is useful to ask ourselves how we might be able to falsify specific aspects of ToE, but we have to consider ”falsifiability’ on a manageable scale. There is no reasonable experiment or data collection exercise we might conceive of to falisfy the entire synthesis because it is not a single theory, but a comprehensive amalgamation of many. What is feasible are attempts to falsifiy specific component parts that comprise important support pillars for the overall framework, but even that could prove difficult.
There are certainly specific, fine-scale inferences taken from ToE that warrant serious efforts to falsify them, but you are probably going to have a hard time falsifying any of the large-scale ”big branches’ of the theory. mark24’s suggestion for demonstrating lack of congruency of genetic evidence with phylogenies derived from conventional taxonomy would be such an example, were it possible. It is not likely to happen, given the remarkably consistent trees that have already been constructed for most higher level taxa, and I don’t think you could convince a serious scientist to expend any time and effort to that end. It is more the specific *applications* of ToE that are worthy of trying to falsify, and they are being tested and falsified all the time, at least within highly specific contexts. As I see it, the biggest problem with ToE in the context of ecology is that very often we are left with multiple alternative hypotheses that are difficult to pare down to a ”single explanation’ by process of elimination, either because they are not mutually exclusive, or if they are, it is very difficult to collect the data necessary to eliminate any of them. So for example, in a recent paper I was forced to put forward 4 alternative hypotheses for an ecological phenomenon which I was seeking to ”explain’. Granted the evidence did not result in the all hypotheses being weighted equally, but neither could any be ruled out entirely. So there is plenty of ambiguity left in the application of ToE that still cries out for falsification, but it’s all fine-scale stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ephraim7 Inactive Member |
The dictionary gives the following definitions for biological evolution:
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successivegenerations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. 2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. The definition for phylogeny is as follows: The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of aspecies or taxonomic group of organisms Evolution is a fundamental concept in modern biology. Biology is definedas being: The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms. Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms. Whenbiology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be. Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibilityof stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion years ago. Never mind what caused that to happen, the origin of the dense entity, or what was in existence thirty trillion Earth years ago. Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to planet Earth and begin to grow. But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept thetheory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star, which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory. However, this was on a relatively small scale. This is called the Nebular Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in the middle. As the nebula collapses further, instabilities in the collapsing, rotating cloud cause local regions to begin to contract gravitationally. These local regions of condensation become the Sun (which was the bulge in the center) and the planets, as well as their moons and other debris in the Solar System. Never mind that the nebula was not uniform and that the local regions had their own unique composition, and that dust and gas somehow hardens to become gold, silver, copper, and other metals. Also, never mind about the elliptical orbits. Now, with supposition upon supposition, we have the Earth formed,and many years passing by as it cools and becomes suitable for life. I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern around Earth until the conditions were “just right” to sustain life and get the “primordial soup” ready. The Primordial Soup theory suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from Earth’s atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then supposedly evolve into all the species. It seems that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of the supernatural. For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first lifeon Earth appeared in that "primordial soup" consisting of some body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life. This "warm little pond" was believed to have been struck by an electrical discharge (the energy source) which caused the chemicals to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth life. From this first life, evolutionists hypothesize, all other life on Earth evolved. Never mind how water formed on Earth, we will only unravel just so much in this article. Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which isthe fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic ages on Earth. We have tangible data, but secular science has its own conclusions concerning that data. Science concludes that since the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1 Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find, and abundant, as the other fossils. Enough about evolution. What about the “Observations of Moses”?Well, we have to clarify some things first. Those that try to compare creationism with evolution do not understand the facts. Creationism is the undisciplined doctrine that the Holy Bible (Genesis) teaches how God created the Earth. That is false. There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis, as stated by the “foremost terrestrial authority” on the book. Genesis states that God created our universe, but it does not give us details on the process. The Bible only gives us the amount of time (144 hours) it took to complete. What we can gather is that the supernatural realm, gave birth to our natural existence, about 4.6 billion years ago. What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observationsof Moses (OM). God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or have written) in the book of Genesis. Theology mistakenly calls them the “Six Days of Creation”, but that too is false, because bible scholars, other creationists, and theologians do not understand the text, and have misled mankind into thinking that early Genesis is just “folklore”. What mankind in general does not know is that God was defininggeologic time to Moses, but Moses did not understand. Centuries before mankind discovered the fossil record (of death), and the notion of the Geologic Time Scale, the only account of prehistoric history was given to the chosen nation of Israel. God did not show Moses how the sphere of outer space and our Earth were created, but showed him one day from each of the different past geologic ages of time, as defined by God, in biblical order . , not chronological order. Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students thesuppositions of biological and stellar evolution, and exclude what is taught in Genesis. Why? Is it because there is no evidence? They can’t say that, because Genesis reveals the previous living existence of fossils of the life forms that mankind would later find in the geologic strata, and also declares the existence of life forms that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of 20+ million years ago. The Observations of Moses tell us that God created different lifeforms on Earth in each of seven different geologic ages in which He defines. The Eternal Spirit allowed Moses to be the only modern human to see those prehistoric animals, living as they were in the geologic age in which they lived on Earth. This is why there are no “transitional forms”, because when a total extinction occurred to all surface life, God would created new life forms out of the ground to replace them, after an interval of time. Every state governor and their educational supervisingadministrators were contacted in the fall of 2005 about this. Yet none of them have taken any step to secure training for their teachers. They continue to allow indoctrination of their students in the prejudice of secular science, which refuses to investigate the reality of our origins. A twelve hour course is available for science teachers in order to help them to give a more balanced education to their students. If we learn nothing else, please be advised that there is no suchcontroversy between evolution and creationism. The correct “match ups” are the combined theories of both the Big Bang and Nebular Breakdown against Biblical Creation, and also evolution against the Observations of Moses. With the discovery of extra-solar planets, the Nebular theory has fallen out of favor. Perhaps with future discoveries, other current unrealistic theories will be discarded as well. Herman CummingsPO Box 1745 Fortson GA, 31808 Ephraim7@aol.com (706) 662-2893 Herman Cummings Ephraim7@aol.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ephraim7 writes: What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations of Moses (OM). Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Observations of Long John Silver?And what do you suppose they have to do with evolution? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Herman, and welcome to EvC.
Ai-ya. Where to begin? -
quote: Actually, this is not quite true. Secular science will consider all possible explanations. By "possible", though, we mean that the explanation accords with observed evidence. So far, the theory of evolution is supported by virtually all of the known evidence in biology and geology. No other explanation is known to be supported by the evidence. By "possible", science does not consider the dogmatic convictions of a particular religious sect, no matter how vocal or politically connected they are. The fact is that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, not the literal Genesis account of creation. -
quote: That is true. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life has changed after it originated. That is not to say that origins in not an interesting and important topic, and that biology in general is complete without knowing the origins of its subject matter, just that origins in not entirely within the purview of the theory of evolution. -
quote: Not quite. The Big Bang merely states that the universe was initially in a very hot, very dense state, and expanded. This is what the evidence shows us happened. -
quote: At this time, the "cause", if there is one, is unknown, and may be unknowable. But this does not negate the evidence that informs us as to the subsequent history. -
quote: Actually, this isn't part of the scenario at all. It is pretty much known how organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors in interstellar space and on the primordial earth. In fact, the current theories are that the organic material that was used in the formation of the first life formed on the earth. We actually have experimental evidence to show that this is plausible. -
quote: Actually, stellar formation and evolution has very little to do with the cosmological Big Bang. At any rate, again, we have plenty of evidence to support our notions of stellar evolution. -
quote: Again, a hypothesis that is well supported by the available evidence. -
quote: I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course, life could not have formed before it was possible. Then, when the conditions allowed it to happened, it did. In the meantime, where do you think the material was going to go? -
quote: Again, scenarios about the origin of life are supported by the available evidence. -
quote: Except that the evidence exists in many different fields of biology and geology, including taxonomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and so forth. And pretty solid evidence it is, too. The fossil record, too, provides excellent evidence of the evolutionary history of life on earth (tranistional forms are quite abundant, in fact), but it is only a small part of the total evidence. -
quote: Well, since it is not clear that Moses even existed, I don't see how any of this compares to the actual physical evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. - Your post sure covers a lot of ground. There are many, many threads that talk about the particular evidence for the theory of evolution. If you wish to discuss any of the points that you have brought up, you are more than welcome to join the discussion of any of these points in the appropriate thread. If you don't feel any of the existing threads are appropriate for the point you wish to discuss, you may start a new thread. However, this thread is about falsification of the theory of evolution. Would you like to discuss how the theory of evolution can be falsified, what sorts of evidence would suggest that the theory of evolution is incomplete or even incorrect? "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suspect the mysteries of proteinomics will be surrendered within the next decade or so. It's really just a modelling problem. If one is interested in this problem, one of the projects that is currently being addressed by the worldcommuniotygrid.org dispersed computations (like seti-at-home) is protene folding. If you use the UD agent you can see this folding process with a graphic representation that is kind of cool to watch. The BOINC agent doesn't have this graphic ability () SeeWorld Community Grid - Research - Human Proteome Folding - Phase 2 (but also look at the other projects as well -- it's not just HIV and protene folding anymore, there is also a cancer project) You can sign up for just the protene folding (phase 2) project once you join, particulars at HIV Cancer Diabetes MDA and more - Solve on your computer Enjoy helping research while watching some of it in action. Edited by RAZD, : update sig we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
welcome to the fray Herman\Ephraim7
The formating of your post suggests a large cut\copy and paste, although it is possibly from material of your own writing (as I suspect, if not it should be referenced and then discussed), or that you just composed it on notepad or the like (the line breaks are the problem).
Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms. When biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be. Schools are not teaching the "history of living organisms" they are teaching the science of {evolution\biology} which is based on observation, theory, testing and refinement as is any science. All scientific possibilities are included -- it not just a matter of possibly maybe being possible, but of being testable -- that is the fine line between science and rampant speculations.
Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated. Absolutely correct. Nor does it discuss {why} life originated or {what the purpose} of life is -- those are the philosophical\religious type questions that are not attempted in any science. Thus original life could have been created, could have been caused, or could have just happened, but it doesn't matter to the science of how species change over time (evolution).
It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion years ago. Never mind what caused that to happen, Absolutely false. First off, the origin of life is delegated to the science of abiogenesis, which cares not an iota whether the "big bang" theory is correct or not. Second, as noted above, science does not ask {why} something happened, and this is as true of abiogenesis as it is of physics in general and cosmic astrophysical theory in particular. What science is interested in is how it {happens\works} and then testing that {how} to see if it can be duplicated: if it can we move on to the next "how it {happens\works}" question, if it can't we drop back and try a different approach. Repeatability and testability are the points that make science such a valuable tool in uncovering the {how} of things.
God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or have written) in the book of Genesis. Do you have a {testable\repeatable} way of verifying this assertion? Can you differentiate it from, say {Hindu Creation Documentation}? Until you can there is no point in discussing the rest of your post, unless we agree that it is not science but philosophy and religion. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jimfgerard Inactive Member |
Ephraim7 states: When biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
ME: Evolution IS an undeniable fact, just as gravity and atoms are, and the Theory of Evolution, just as the Theory of Gravity and the Atomic Theory, explains the observational facts. Ephraim7 states: Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang” ME: The Big Bang doesn't address how life originated in the slightest. The Big Bang occurred some 10 billion + years before the first signs of living metabolisms appeared on Earth. I won't bother quoting your gross misunderstandings of how the heavier elements formed nor how planets form around stars. But basically modern science has a pretty good understanding of how our Sun is a 3rd generation star and how heavier elements formed in 1st and 2nd generation stars (heck we can even SEE first generation stars through Hubble at the edge of our range about 13 light years away). What I have always wondered is why the Bible states the Sun and other stars (though it doesn't say the Sun is just another star which it is) were made a day after the Earth and even plants on it and why the Bible, allegedly containing anachronistic knowledge, fails to mention the other galaxies. Why do you suppose God made all these planets which are completely incapable of supporting life as we know it, or why did 'He' not design life to live on those planets? Ephraim7 states: Science concludes that since the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1 Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find, and abundant, as the other fossils. ME: Actually according to the fossil record prokaryotic life was already abundant by a billion years ago and was beginning to evolve into eukaryotic protozoans through processes of symbiosis coupled with natural selection. I have no idea what you mean by "the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant" but you are simply dead wrong about transitional forms being "non-existent" or even hard to find. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ democrats are sometimes inept and presently lost but republicans are mean scientifically ignorant hypocrites, I know what lesser of two evils is the most rational choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jimfgerard Inactive Member |
addendum reply to off-forum correspondence between myself and Ephraim7
Ephraim7 wrote: How do you know that all three types didn't exist at the same time? Evolutionists blindly forget the factor of escalating death. Suppose something caused the lower forms of life to die off, before the higher forms. How can you tell the difference? How can I tell the difference between what? I don't understand what you are asking, sorry. We infer, for example, that dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time as humans because there's a huge gab in the fossil record between the last known dinosaur fossil and the first signs of humans being around. Each layer of the geologic record took a great deal of time to solidify into rock containing its embedded fossils (we know this from many observational facts including how sometimes solid stone gets 'folded' and contained fossils can warp also by the way whole ecologies like deserts and swamps can be on top of one another in successive layers). If we have lower layers with a variety of lifeforms which then aren't in a group of midlayers and then we find different lifeforms in layers above these it is only logical to conclude the lower and upper forms didn't co-exist. What other conclusion would there be? Ephraim7 wrote: How does gas and dust breakdown into gold andsilver? All the elements were forged through the fusion which powers the stars, the heavier elements in second generation stars. When these stars go nova they spew the elements across the universe. This is basic cosmology. Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I'm sure you guys have email discussions. That is fine, but let's not bring them here. At EvC we prefer folk discuss what is posted here, not what is on some other board or what has transpired personally between them whether email, IM or snailmail.
Thank you Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024