Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 1:12 PM
362 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, DrJones*, Faith, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, ringo, Tangle (11 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,288 Year: 23,894/21,208 Month: 1,859/2,468 Week: 368/822 Day: 28/66 Hour: 3/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 16 of 77 (362153)
11-06-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-03-2006 1:20 PM


Bump for NJ
Now that the Haggard thread is closed. I thought you might want to get back around to clearing up your claim of alternative intepretations.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-03-2006 1:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 17 of 77 (362175)
11-06-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jazzns
11-03-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
Sorry that I neglected this debate. I got engaged in another debate.

At some point, would you like to discuss your assertion that there are valid creationist interpretations of the evidence? I am afraid we are going to go round and round with this stuff so I am going to try to be as brief as possible with each point.

We can talk about whatever you want.

I cannot make you go look at the fossils nj. All I can do is tell you that you are operating from a vast ignorance of the state of the fossil record. You are repeating things that have been told to you by creationist sites and have not bothered to investigate the issue in depth for yourself.

Jazzns, seriously, if the fossil record was so impressive and yielded such overwhelming, unambiguous evidence of clear gradations, these images would be plastered all over the internet and there would no longer be a debate. Such is not the case, by the admission of many eminent evolutionists.

I know that the fossil record for marine invertebrates IS complete and it shows a great history of evolution. Where you only see archeopteryx I have seen many other dinosaur fossils displaying morphology more and more similar to birds the closer you get to modern times. There is the proto-mammal jaw to ear sequence which so far I have never heard a reasonable explanation from creationists other than incredulity.

Such as? You can't just say, "it's complete," without demonstrating how its complete. Even supposing that archaeoptryx is a genuine intermediary creature, this example would be one instance out of millions. That is a far cry from proving macroevolution. For starters, Archaeopteryx was the size of a pigeon-- that's a vast difference from the megalithic-sized beasts we are accustomed to. So which small saurian did archaeoptryx come from? Furthermore, avian are endothermic and reptiles are exothermic. Avian have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, whereas Avian have a four-chambered heart. Avian have hollow bones and saurian have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles.

Aside from this, I've heard several evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx isn't just one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ‘is’ the missing link. Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop? How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? What unseen event precipitated the changes to occur far in advance of any conceivable relevance to its survival? The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this creature have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird –a perching bird.

You are missing the changes!!! It is a different animal! Remember 'Coelacanth' is an ORDER of animal not a species. Are you as equally surprised that evolution claims that we came from fish yet there is still fish? Are you as equally surprised that evolution claims we came from apes and there are still apes?

There are only two types of Coelacanth, the Sulawesi and the Comoros. And its fossilized counterpart looks exactly like these. Any other lobe-finned fish is assumed to be related because of its lobed-fins. That's why it was placed as an Order to begin with. That does not prove that it evolved from anything, or that it anything evolved from it. If you are so certain that it evolved into different types of fish, then provide their names and explain how you are certain that the Coelacanth was its progeny.

If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Can YOU actually answer that question NJ?

Because the ToE maintains that species diverge from common ancestors. However, its at odds with itself because the changes were supposed to have occured because of natural selection, which means the progenitorial specie should be weak and have died out, kind of like why there are no australiopiths. So, do you understand the objection?

quote:
Of course, I wouldn't expect Coelacanths to completely disappear because of evolution.

This is crazy! This is doubletalk! How can you make the second to last and the last comments at the same time?

No it isn't! I'm addressing the fact that when two creatures of separate but similar lines procreate, there is going to be a divergence where one line goes in one direction, and the other line can go in another. That means I wouldn't expect Coelacanths to have gone extinct simply because another line was created. However, what I'm saying is that changes that cause adaptations occur for several reasons-- mainly, isolation, mutation, and natural selection. For a change to occur and to develop 'wings' or 'legs', there must first be some reason why it made it more advantageous. So why doesn't natural selection swallow up the antiquated specie? Do you understand now?

In the pictures that I showed you! In the transition to less deep dwelling and more shallow dwelling fish just like the ones that have been in the news recently. It is not the same fish! It has evolved! You just seem to be equivocating because either you didn't look at the pictures or you did and didn't see a change that was drastic enough for you to be impressed.

Well, you're right to say that I didn't see any pictures of your alleged Coelacanth evolution, because I didn't. Repost them and I'll critique it.

Just because YOU CAN'T TELL how they have evolved does not mean that anyone who has studied the subject automatically has your same shaded glasses.

Just because there are similarities in morphology doesn't mean they are related.

Do you think that there is ANY CHANCE that you might simply not have the correct or complete information about this?

I've already answered your question about that above. But now you need to answer me why the lobe-finned fish were candidates for fish experimenting with walking. If the Sulawesi and Comoros are the last known survivors of this Order of fish, then why aren't exhibiting features for walking? They don't do anything that could even remotely be construed as walking.

I am completely unwilling to talk about criticism of motives because nothing is ever going to change your mind about this. You are dead convinced that the purpose of evolution is to refute the supernatural and there is nothing I am going to say to change your mind about that.

No, I believe Darwin was a good scientist and had an inquisitive mind. I have no objection to Darwin. Its the Darwinians that were to follow. Evolution became for them the weapon of choice to spread falsehoods about God. That's what I believe.

SO lets just leave it on the table then please. Lets talk about the evidence and the interpretations. Remember, you are the one who claimed the existence of these alternative interpretations. We have yet to see ONE of these.

Okay.

I wasn't talking about the genesis of cladograms. I was talking about cladograms that we use today. NOW (read TODAY) it is not just based on morphological similarities.

You might as well have been because it still draws upon the same exact inferences today. The only difference is there are more avenues of possibilities to explore, such as you've shared, like genome similarity.

That is pure sophomoric trash. There is no reason to suspect that a cladogram based on retroviral insertions would even make any sense at all! There is even less reason to suspect that if you did make one that it would in any way match the cladogram you get from morphology or genetic similarity!

Are you kidding me Jazzns? You think we place extinct dinosaurs in a certain cladistic order because we can look at their genetic similarity??? No, they place them where they do because of their morphological similarity. I would agree that the study of the genome aids in trying to distinguish how and why they place contemporary species where they do. But you are making me out to say things that I'm not saying.

Actually when I think about it I don't see how this is a valid criticism at all. Cladograms are not birth certificates. No matter what you make your cladogram out of, no matter how much things have changed, you are still going to have more similarities with things that are related than not.

You just condemned yourself. No one has EVER witnessed evolution. Its all an inference, and yet now you say that no matter how much things change, they are still going to have 'more' similarities with things that are not. And, how could you possibly know that? That's completely speculative, which is what I've been saying all along. Now, explain to me that you don't have a priori assumptions about how things evolve or how cladograms work. Cladograms are formed by inference. And in most cases, preconceived notions.


"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 11-03-2006 3:44 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 11-06-2006 3:28 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 18 of 77 (362181)
11-06-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 2:33 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
I'll tell you what, I am willing to discuss any one of these subtopics in depth as long as we can agree on the topic.

Do you, or do you not still hold that creationists have valid interpretations of the same evidence as mainstream science? If so, are you will to provide some examples that are more convincing than a CNN article that doesn't even talk about a global flood?

In that same vein, do you understand my misgivings about the difference between what we have been doing so far, criticizing and defending the evidence versus discussing intepretations?

If you want to abandon your previous position about alternative interpretaions and talk about evidence instead then I am perfectly willing, we just need to change the title of this thread to something like 'What is and what is not evidence for X.

I'll bring up a few things from your last post that I feel need to be responded to:

Because the ToE maintains that species diverge from common ancestors. However, its at odds with itself because the changes were supposed to have occured because of natural selection, which means the progenitorial specie should be weak and have died out, kind of like why there are no australiopiths. So, do you understand the objection?
...
So why doesn't natural selection swallow up the antiquated specie? Do you understand now?

I understand the objection just fine. I just know that the objection is based on a vast misunderstanding of evolution.

The ancestor species is not required to die out for evolution to occur. In fact, if this was true then evolution would be proven false right now.

When species diverge, they do so not only genetically but more often than not geographically as well. It takes a different environment to apply different pressures to cause evolution to happen. This can happen either because the environment changes where the species lives or the species moves into a different environment.

Do you consider it so improbable that some Coelecanth migrated into shallower waters while some remained in deep waters?

Do you consider it so improbable that some species of apes stayed in or near a forrest while others delved deeper and deeper into the savannah?

The ancestor species is not necessarily threatened by the "improvements" of the evolved species because the ancestor species is better adapted to the environment in which it STAYED. A mudskipper is not a threat to a coelacanth because they will never meet in the same environment to compete. A bipedal savannah ape is not necessarily a threat to a chimp because they primarily live in different environments.

If austrolopithicus tried to recompete with its tree dwelling ancestors then it would loose becuase it was better adapted to a hybrid environment. IN the same way, its ancestor would loose in the same environment as the austrolopithicus because it would not be as suited to hybrid environment.

With regards to cladistics, all I can say is that if you want to talk about it further we are going to have to focus on that. You have a vast misundertanding of how clasdistics works. NO one is suggesting that dinosaurs fit into a cladogram build on genetic characteristics. For those, you can only build a cladogram with existing species or ones from the recent past who have been so kind as to leave us their dna such as the wooly mammoth.

You also failed to comprehend the implication of a cladogram based on an unassuming characteristic such as retroviral insertions. This singularly refutes your claim of 'preconcieved notions' because no notion can possibly be linked to these characteristics. If you are having a hard time understaning what I mean by this then perhaps you should ask rather than arrogantly assuming that I don't know anything about cladistics.

This would be a good time for you to demonstrate your alternative explations of the evidence. The cladograms ARE THE EVIDENCE. What we have is that the different viruses a set of species had in its past IS CORRELATED to their differences in genetics is CORRELATED to their differences in morphology. There are more but let just look at those three for simplicity. Mainstream science looks at that and comes to the conclusion that those species are related by the degree of their correlation. There is no other reason why the data would be correlated AT ALL unless the relationship was characterized by ancestry!

What then is the creationist interpretation that EXPLAINS this evidence? Just to note, the whole common designer thing will not work unless the designer also decided to infect the various species with the exact same viruses that had the exact same lasting effect on non-functional dna. Oh yea, and these infections would have to occur in a pattern of heirarchal order that somehow exactly matches morphology and genetic similarity.

Then you have to establish something to convince your audience why this interpretation is BETTER than the current one.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:07 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 19 of 77 (362450)
11-07-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jazzns
11-06-2006 3:28 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
Do you, or do you not still hold that creationists have valid interpretations of the same evidence as mainstream science? If so, are you will to provide some examples that are more convincing than a CNN article that doesn't even talk about a global flood?

Lets discuss something we both can agree on. Its pointless to speak about the Flood if you don't believe it happened. Aside from which, geology can have an extremely broad interpretation. Since we are primarily discussing evolution, lets use things we both can agree on, which is genetic markers. You say that it is evidence of a clear lineage, while I say that it isn't. Read over the article of a creationist interpretation of evidence and offer some counterpoints.

In that same vein, do you understand my misgivings about the difference between what we have been doing so far, criticizing and defending the evidence versus discussing intepretations?

I guess I don't. I though the way we were going was what you wanted, which is different views on the same subject. What else could you possibly mean?

If you want to abandon your previous position about alternative interpretaions and talk about evidence instead then I am perfectly willing, we just need to change the title of this thread to something like 'What is and what is not evidence for X.

I don't see the difference.

The ancestor species is not required to die out for evolution to occur. In fact, if this was true then evolution would be proven false right now.

I agree that it isn't required, but if nature selects the strongest, and evolution gears toward perfection, then wouldn't more cases of something like Australiopiths being competed out of existence? If something develops, the ToE states that it did so, so as to enhance its survivability. Why, then, are some of the lowest forms of life still viable? What prompted their progenies changes in the first place that NS selected for it? Why was their mutation so advantageous that it survived?

When species diverge, they do so not only genetically but more often than not geographically as well. It takes a different environment to apply different pressures to cause evolution to happen.

But all this is going to do is get you a new breed, not an entirely new species. If Iguana population (B) gets marooned on a beach, the combination of inbreeding, isolation, and mutation can give this peripheral population different features from the ancestral population (A). This is unquestionable. And if by chance the peripheral population is reintroduced to the ancestral population, their progeny may converge into another breed, breed (C). And now they may all intermingle to give you breeds (D) and (E). This is the mechanism that can account for diversity. But, never, ever, have we seen the introduction of a completely new taxonomic category spawn from this. You may object to it, but a dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat. There lots and lots of different breeds, and some people have made a considerable fortune of breeding, but you aren't going to get a new species from breeding dogs. And after all of these elaborate experiments, macroevolution is not supported by evidence. And it amazes how sure evolutionists are when there are ample chances to have seen this come to fruition in over 150 years of hard looking.

Do you consider it so improbable that some Coelecanth migrated into shallower waters while some remained in deep waters?

No. But that would be an unimpressive case of microadaptation.

Do you consider it so improbable that some species of apes stayed in or near a forrest while others delved deeper and deeper into the savannah?

No. I find it improbable that humans and apes are cousins.

If austrolopithicus tried to recompete with its tree dwelling ancestors then it would loose becuase it was better adapted to a hybrid environment. IN the same way, its ancestor would loose in the same environment as the austrolopithicus because it would not be as suited to hybrid environment.

You couldn't possibly know this with any measure of veracity. These are the invented scenarios of evolution. Its all based on inferences. You also have to consider how difficult it would be to make any of this a reality. The only way is for a mutation to occur during the production of haploids. An accident in replication anywhere else in the body will only affect the specific cell where the injury occurred. We have these kinds of mutations all the time in our body, but it doesn't go anywhere. They die with us. That makes the ToE considerably more difficult than it would portray itself to be. My contention is that the skulls these anthropologists are looking at are either fully man or fully primate. There is no in-between. I can show you the skull of an Ethiopian man juxtaposed by the skull of a man from Nordic ancestry and you would see a vast difference in their skull shape, diameter, and features. But they are both human.

You also failed to comprehend the implication of a cladogram based on an unassuming characteristic such as retroviral insertions. This singularly refutes your claim of 'preconcieved notions' because no notion can possibly be linked to these characteristics.

Explain how it singularly refutes preconceived notions.

This would be a good time for you to demonstrate your alternative explations of the evidence. The cladograms ARE THE EVIDENCE. What we have is that the different viruses a set of species had in its past IS CORRELATED to their differences in genetics is CORRELATED to their differences in morphology. There are more but let just look at those three for simplicity. Mainstream science looks at that and comes to the conclusion that those species are related by the degree of their correlation. There is no other reason why the data would be correlated AT ALL unless the relationship was characterized by ancestry!

Homologous features, especially down to the genetic level, would be a very impressive case in defense of common ancestry. Assuming that genes with similar sequences would be unlikely to originate independently via random mutations or whatever, your retroviral insertion would indicate ancestry. All subsequent phylogenetic features that appear similar could be considered cladistic evidence. There's only one problem I can see currently. The fact that homeotic sequences are universal asks a simple question. If the hypothesis of common ancestry could be falsified by the discovery of the same retrovirus at the same locus in two species that do not share a common ancestry, then the entire argument is incorrect. And that would place this argument onto a lengthy list of alleged markers. Since I don't know of any studies that have found such homogenous sequences at specific loci or transposons, I can't testify to it. I will say that this is the best argument in defense of macroevolution by far.


"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 11-06-2006 3:28 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2006 12:02 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 20 of 77 (362530)
11-08-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 3:07 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
Lets discuss something we both can agree on. Its pointless to speak about the Flood if you don't believe it happened.

It is not pointless if the flood provides an alternative explanation of the evidence from geology. The claim is that this explanation is just as valid as the one from mainstream science. I'll admit that this is a more difficult task for you to take on as the evidence in geology is not as obfuscated to the layman as it is for evolution. IMO of course.

Aside from which, geology can have an extremely broad interpretation. Since we are primarily discussing evolution, lets use things we both can agree on, which is genetic markers. You say that it is evidence of a clear lineage, while I say that it isn't. Read over the article of a creationist interpretation of evidence and offer some counterpoints.

Jazzns writes:

In that same vein, do you understand my misgivings about the difference between what we have been doing so far, criticizing and defending the evidence versus discussing interpretations?

I guess I don't. I though the way we were going was what you wanted, which is different views on the same subject. What else could you possibly mean? I don't see the difference.

I tried very hard to outline what I thought the differences are. Allow me to try again.

In some cases creationists deny that the evidence is actually evidence. This is different from explaining the evidence in an alternative framework. In one case they are denying that radiometric dating is a valid method. In the other they are trying to explain why radiometric dating gives the consistent results that it does. Talking about radiometric assumptions, talking about the Coelecanth, etc is not providing alternative explanations. What we have been doing so far is going over specific evidences and discussing their validity.

Saying that the living Coelecanth invalidates the ToE is not providing an alternative explanation to the fossil record. It is an attempt to dismiss the fossil record as valid evidence. Even if your points about the Coelecanth were informed and correct, that does not mean that some alternate hypothesis is given more weight. If anything it would be a minor failing of the theory requiring more study or search for more evidence.

Remember your original claim?


This implies that the only difference between evolution and creation is a matter of bias. It also implies that no objective truth about the natural world can be established because there will always be other "interpretations" of the evidence.
...
This is another example of interpreting the evidence differently. Both groups are looking at the same fossils, they are simply interpreting the evidence differently.

What is the alternative explanation for which the Coelecanth fossils are supporting? Poof godditit?

I agree that it isn't required, but if nature selects the strongest, and evolution gears toward perfection, then wouldn't more cases of something like Australiopiths being competed out of existence? If something develops, the ToE states that it did so, so as to enhance its survivability. Why, then, are some of the lowest forms of life still viable?

Because they occupy different ecological niches and in many cases, are required for the continuance of their "more evolved" counterparts. In the most extreme example of your scenario we have the question of , "If we all came from bacteria then why is there still bacteria?" Quite simply, we don't compete with bacteria. In fact, we are food and environment FOR bacteria.

This last statement of yours also ignores the fact that in MOST cases the ancestry species IS out competed to extinction. Most of the species we know that have existed are dead.

What prompted their progenies changes in the first place that NS selected for it? Why was their mutation so advantageous that it survived?

A change in the environment prompted the selection to dominance of existing and newly mutated traits.

If a tree dwelling ape can exploit a new resource that exists out in the savanna then it is more advantageous to be skilled at bipedalism and the ones that are will be more successful at exploiting that niche. This does not change the niche that their neighbors who are not next to a savanna exploit which is food sources in the trees.

But all this is going to do is get you a new breed, not an entirely new species.

That is demonstrably false by the instances of observed speciation that I referenced before.

This is the mechanism that can account for diversity. But, never, ever, have we seen the introduction of a completely new taxonomic category spawn from this.

Once again you are putting forth the unreasonable expectation that we should see evolution, (this time on the scale of taxa!!!) happen before our eyes.

And after all of these elaborate experiments, macroevolution is not supported by evidence. And it amazes how sure evolutionists are when there are ample chances to have seen this come to fruition in over 150 years of hard looking.

150 is to evolution what 1 second is to your lifetime. We are not required to witness the evolution of a new taxa to show that it has happened in the past in the same way we are not required to shoot somebody to prove that they are mortal.

jazzns writes:

Do you consider it so improbable that some Coelecanth migrated into shallower waters while some remained in deep waters?

No. But that would be an unimpressive case of microadaptation.

You are changing the topic. You were claiming the existence of the modern Coelecanth was proof that somehow an ancient Coelecanth didn't evolve. We already know that you don't believe that small changes can add up to macroevolution. That wasn't the point that we were discussion though. My point is a refutation of your criticism involving the modern coelecanth. This reply of yours is meaningless in response except to state a position that we already knew that you hold.

jazzns writes:

Do you consider it so improbable that some species of apes stayed in or near a forrest while others delved deeper and deeper into the savannah?

No. I find it improbable that humans and apes are cousins.

Once again, the response was not an answer to the questions asked. No one is asking if you believe in human evolution from apes. I was asking if you find it so improbably that populations split and migrate into different ecological niches. Given that this has actually been observed and that you seem to be a pretty reasonable creationist, I didn't quite expect to get such an obvious dodge.

Remember the point was that you didn't see how the "more evolved" wouldn't eliminate the ancestor species. The short answer is that they often do! The alternative is that the simply no longer compete. You simply saying the equivalent of, "well that doesn't mean they macroevolved", does not address my refutation at all.

Can we just both agree that the question, "If we all came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?" is a stupid and invalid question to ask?

You couldn't possibly know this (lucy more adapted to savanna) with any measure of veracity.

Yes actually I can know this. The evidence can tell us that the environments that an evolved and ancestor species occupied was different or not. For living organism we can visually inspect when they diverge that the environments are different. We can also examine that a particular species does or does not have traits that are advantageous in the environment. Why you think we cannot know these things is beyond incredulous.

These are the invented scenarios of evolution. Its all based on inferences.

What you say is true of all evidence. When looking at granite rock we infer that it formed in the middle of the earth by a cooling magma body. We have never seen this and we never will. When we look at bones we infer that they had similar function to ones we can compare them to today. Based on that we can provide the best explanation for their purpose and the capabilities of the creature they belonged to.

You also have to consider how difficult it would be to make any of this a reality. The only way is for a mutation to occur during the production of haploids. An accident in replication anywhere else in the body will only affect the specific cell where the injury occurred. We have these kinds of mutations all the time in our body, but it doesn't go anywhere. They die with us. That makes the ToE considerably more difficult than it would portray itself to be.

Why would that be a problem. In previous threads talking about this I have heard numbers ranging from 100 to 5000 mutations that YOU have different from you parents.

Explain how it singularly refutes preconceived notions.

How could you pidgeon hole a sequence of viral insertion into some biased preconceived hierarchy? You might be able to say that a cladogram based on morphology is 'preconceived' because someone is not looking at the right morphological traits. But for genetics and viral insertions there is no ambiguity. The DNA either matches or it does not. NO preconceived notion will change the relationships derived from that data.

Homologous features, especially down to the genetic level, would be a very impressive case in defense of common ancestry. Assuming that genes with similar sequences would be unlikely to originate independently via random mutations or whatever, your retro viral insertion would indicate ancestry. All subsequent phylogenetic features that appear similar could be considered cladistic evidence.

This is a surprising concession. Kudos.

In particular, for the case of retro vial insertions, your assumption of genes unlikely to originate independently is met. This is especially true in situations where the insertion exists in nonfunctional sequences of dna.

There's only one problem I can see currently. The fact that homeotic sequences are universal asks a simple question. If the hypothesis of common ancestry could be falsified by the discovery of the same retrovirus at the same locus in two species that do not share a common ancestry, then the entire argument is incorrect. And that would place this argument onto a lengthy list of alleged markers. Since I don't know of any studies that have found such homogenous sequences at specific loci or transposons, I can't testify to it.

If you could show a case of an identical insertion shared between two species that did not exist in ANY of their closer related species then that MIGHT be a problem. What would be damning would be a pattern of this since it always possible for the evidence of the single insertion to be destroyed over time. The weight that the evidence of the insertions hold FOR evolution is that there is a PATTERN of many insertions that MATCHES genetic similarity and morphology. That pattern would not be destroyed by 1 rogue insertion. It would be weird and unlikely, but alone would not be enough.

I will say that this is the best argument in defense of macroevolution by far.

So then what more does it take to convince you? Does the fact that an offshoot of an ancient fish survived weigh more in your mind than a clear example of something that can only be done by heredity? Does some creationist web site that falsely claims that palentologists discovered Lucy's knee a mile away given more weight in your system of evaluating truths than the evidence that is available right at your fingertips.

I notice that you have participated in other threads about nested hierarchies. You even started one. Was this evidence not presented? ( thumbing through them quickly now )

Maybe you would like to review some of these older threads.

Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus
ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory
Genetic evidence of primate evolution

Edited by Jazzns, : typos


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:07 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2006 6:36 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 21 of 77 (362698)
11-08-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jazzns
11-08-2006 12:02 AM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
In some cases creationists deny that the evidence is actually evidence. This is different from explaining the evidence in an alternative framework. In one case they are denying that radiometric dating is a valid method. In the other they are trying to explain why radiometric dating gives the consistent results that it does. Talking about radiometric assumptions, talking about the Coelecanth, etc is not providing alternative explanations. What we have been doing so far is going over specific evidences and discussing their validity.

I disagree with your premise. Whether they are right on some things, wrong on others is merely a side issue. The fact is, radiometric dating is a good tool to start with. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is replete with error and that empirically knowing which dates are true and which are erroneous is difficult. Therefore, questioning the reliability is not out of the question.

To restate my position, I would consider myself more aligned with proponents of ID than I would that of creationists. Creationists, like that of many evolutionists, have a clear objective instead of viewing everything tentatively.

Saying that the living Coelecanth invalidates the ToE is not providing an alternative explanation to the fossil record.

No, its just an example.

This implies that the only difference between evolution and creation is a matter of bias. It also implies that no objective truth about the natural world can be established because there will always be other "interpretations" of the evidence.

A huge part of it IS a matter of bias. That's not to say that aren't people out there who have honestly considered both options or other options. But, by and large, it is a matter of bias for many of them. If you haven't noticed, its like a cat and mouse game about who can one-up the other. That's not science, that's a pissing contest.

What is the alternative explanation for which the Coelecanth fossils are supporting? Poof godditit?

The answer is in the lack of evidence. If it can be demonstrated that evolution is false, then no unguided, purposeless thing can exist which inexorably will bring you to the other alternative-- an intelligence created it. Whatever that 'intelligence' is, directed or undirected panspermia, Yahwew, Allah, the FSM, is a matter of theological debate. All that ID is interested in is whether or not it can be shown that life could not have evolved for inexplicable reasons. Aside from which, "Poof, goddidit" has never been an answer for any scientific questions, because an answer of such brevity would completely emasculate science. Likewise, saying "nothing created everything" for starters, defies logic, and secondly, answers absolutely nothing.

Because they occupy different ecological niches and in many cases, are required for the continuance of their "more evolved" counterparts. In the most extreme example of your scenario we have the question of , "If we all came from bacteria then why is there still bacteria?" Quite simply, we don't compete with bacteria. In fact, we are food and environment FOR bacteria.

Cows and horses share the same ecological niches and they both thrive. So what selective pressures cause these changes to begin with? What was it that caused the first proto-avian to sprout stump-like appendages that would form a proto-wing, and form proto-feathers long in advance to any conceivable relevance to its survival? What exactly prompted the changes? Obviously nature have chosen those traits because the others were not optimal, but antiquated. It sure would appear that nature has a mind, especially when given the prospect of saurian awkwardly changing into avian and somehow managing to stave off natural selection as cannon fodder. Its in the delicacies, the finer aspects of biology, that evolution begins to make no sense. Its easy to just say, everything changes, and nature selects the strong, and millions of years equals millions of mutations, and there you have it. But when we look at it through a fine-toothed comb, the inconsistencies become marvelously apparent.

A change in the environment prompted the selection to dominance of existing and newly mutated traits.

If a tree dwelling ape can exploit a new resource that exists out in the savanna then it is more advantageous to be skilled at bipedalism and the ones that are will be more successful at exploiting that niche. This does not change the niche that their neighbors who are not next to a savanna exploit which is food sources in the trees.

You couldn't possibly know that by looking at bones. And this is the kind of stuff that makes its way into the textbooks and quickly hailed as some sort of unassailable fact of biology. All that you know about is that there are tree-dwelling apes-- very few of them at that. You also know that bones of an extinct type of ape have been found elsewhere that is 'currently' grassy. And so you could easily be lead to follow clues that don't actually exist only to formulate some plausible scenario that will soon be extolled as empirical fact.

Once again you are putting forth the unreasonable expectation that we should see evolution, (this time on the scale of taxa!!!) happen before our eyes.

No, I am not! I am not at all being unreasonable about what we should expect to see. I would agree that trying to watch evolution before our eyes would be like trying to watch our fingernails grow. However, fossils are like snapshots in time where you can very clearly see the changes. Its like somebody that diets. The can't see the changes because they look at themselves on a daily basis and the shedding of weight is insensibly fine. But, when they take photos every month, they can clearly track their progress. Now, every fossil we have is completely well-formed. There are no transitions from one step to the other. They are all either exactly as we see them today, (Coelacanth), or they died out. There are no stepwise gradations, which is exactly why punctuated equilibrium came about. It gave them the perfect excuse fro why we shouldn't expect to see any clearcut proof.

150 is to evolution what 1 second is to your lifetime.

150 years of anthropology, archeology, and biology should yield some proof, no? Those are seconds in evolutionary time but aeons of time to dig up some legitimate, tangible proof of evolution. The ENTIRE theory is supported by microevolution mixed in with inference.

You are changing the topic. You were claiming the existence of the modern Coelecanth was proof that somehow an ancient Coelecanth didn't evolve. We already know that you don't believe that small changes can add up to macroevolution. That wasn't the point that we were discussion though. My point is a refutation of your criticism involving the modern coelecanth. This reply of yours is meaningless in response except to state a position that we already knew that you hold.

Why is that meaningless? The 'point,' the one that I've mentioned twice, and now going on a third time, is that Coelacanth were supposed to be the genus that ambled onto shore and developed lungs (a ridiculous proposition for those claiming pragmatism). If todays Coelacanth use their lobbed-fins for nothing other than swimming, then that kind of puts a damper that they walked in the past. Therefore, the Coelacanth has not evolved, not even 350 million years of time. However, if slight changes in color, or shape of their eyes, or a more pronounced dorsal, these are unimpressive changes. And looking at fossilized Coelacanth with today's Coelacanth show that we are dealing with a creature that has not made much progress over time, as far as progress goes. I mean, primates are supposed to be changing so fast, as far as evolution goes.

Once again, the response was not an answer to the questions asked.

Yes, it was. You asked if it was improbable that apes could have migrated. My answer was, 'no.'

No one is asking if you believe in human evolution from apes. I was asking if you find it so improbably that populations split and migrate into different ecological niches. Given that this has actually been observed and that you seem to be a pretty reasonable creationist, I didn't quite expect to get such an obvious dodge.

As I've already shared, there all kinds of species that migrate and become isolated for a variety of reasons, only to develop unique features. I am contending that man and ape are two separate species. Orangutans and chimpanzees are separate. So why not humans and chimps? You say, because of endogenous retroviral insertions in the same locus. I'll get to that in a bit.

Can we just both agree that the question, "If we all came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?" is a stupid and invalid question to ask?

Yes.

The evidence can tell us that the environments that an evolved and ancestor species occupied was different or not. For living organism we can visually inspect when they diverge that the environments are different. We can also examine that a particular species does or does not have traits that are advantageous in the environment. Why you think we cannot know these things is beyond incredulous.

You know, more could be stated about what's missing from the hominid record than what is actually present. I also don't mind pointing out that there is a wide range of variation among human skulls, to include the orbit's, maxillae, and mandible shapes and sizes. Are there any anatomical markers that consistently separate Homo erectus from human beings? Could not the differences be attributed to differences on racial variation? I have reviewed the anatomical (dis)similarities several times and find the 'evidence' lacking any real credibility. And that goes for all of the anatomy, not just skull features.

Why would that be a problem. In previous threads talking about this I have heard numbers ranging from 100 to 5000 mutations that YOU have different from you parents.

That's because the only significant mutations that affect evolution are during cell replication. All the other mutations are pointless to even discuss because they bear no reflection on evolution.

This is a surprising concession. Kudos.

I'm not unreasonable. I think this is the greatest, tangible piece of evidence in support of evolution. Everything up until this was based on nothing more than inference, which isn't terrible in itself. what I find contemptible is portraying all of these inferences as staunch fact.

In particular, for the case of retro vial insertions, your assumption of genes unlikely to originate independently is met. This is especially true in situations where the insertion exists in nonfunctional sequences of dna.

From what I know of this argument, these are non-coding genes that are assumed to have been caused in a coding error in the distant past, and that all subsequent progeny will share these specific genetic markers in a specific locus/loci. This sounds very similar to the Cytochrome C argument and could be ipso facto.

What would be damning would be a pattern of this since it always possible for the evidence of the single insertion to be destroyed over time. The weight that the evidence of the insertions hold FOR evolution is that there is a PATTERN of many insertions that MATCHES genetic similarity and morphology. That pattern would not be destroyed by 1 rogue insertion. It would be weird and unlikely, but alone would not be enough.

I think the question is whether or not an retrogenes could be directly acquired by one individual organism from another. If it could be demonstrated that they could not, that would certainly hinder the argument. Also, unrelated pseudogenes are far in excess than those that are shared. One would then have to ask how inexact it really is. How many alterations can happen independently but coincidentally, so that it no longer assumes shared evolutionary ancestry? One would have to ask that in light of differences invariably outnumbering convergent ones. I tried to consider that many divergent and contradictory phylogenies are in existence. Even the most conservative figure would at least have one of them that was bound to fortuitously coincide with another. But, given the enormity of the chimp and human genome, that seems implausible, especially when half of the ID argument is geared towards tearing down some of the evolutionary arguments that sit atop of lofty conjectures.

So then what more does it take to convince you?

Alot more. This is one footing in my mind for evolution. I'm sure any proponent of evolution wouldn't have thrown it all away because of IC.


"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2006 12:02 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2006 9:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 22 of 77 (362979)
11-09-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
11-08-2006 6:36 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
Jazzns writes:

In some cases creationists deny that the evidence is actually evidence. This is different from explaining the evidence in an alternative framework. In one case they are denying that radiometric dating is a valid method. In the other they are trying to explain why radiometric dating gives the consistent results that it does. Talking about radiometric assumptions, talking about the Coelecanth, etc is not providing alternative explanations. What we have been doing so far is going over specific evidences and discussing their validity.

I disagree with your premise. Whether they are right on some things, wrong on others is merely a side issue.

I think it is important to come to some agreement about this. It is the interpretation part of this discussion that I was most interested in getting involved with. I am not talking about right and wrong. In my opinion they are wrong on both accounts. What matters is what the argument is. Let me try to illustrate with an example.

The ICR Grand Canyon project was an attempt by them to show that the radiometric dating method is invalid. They failed miserably to do this but even if they had succeeded they did not put forth any positive evidence for their pet hypothesis that the earth is young. The whole point of their effort was to try to eliminate evidence for an old earth. That is what I mean when I talk about criticizing the evidence. Many creationist arguments focus on trying show how evidence for evolution or an old earth are somehow not valid.

This is in contrast to OTHER efforts which try to explain the evidence, that we all accept, in a different way. There are some creationist ideas about how the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon might have formed under flood conditions. This different tactic often appears because the existence of the Coconino Sandstone cannot be invalidated. The evidence itself is so strong that it cannot be questioned and therefore it must be explained in a different framework.

My MAIN argument in the OP is that when this situation happens, the creationists always invent an explanation that ignores the rest of the evidence. In the case of the Coconino Sandstone, they completely ignore the other formations and how the conditions they posit would have to be in place to form the Coconino Sandstone would be not be able to form the other formations or would destroy them. They focus only what it would take for the flood to make the the dune shaped sand formations because their hypothesis of a global flood cannot survive the idea of a vast desert existing right in the middle of when the earth is supposed to be completely covered in water. IN doing so, they completely ignore the ramifications of what that would to do to everything else in area INCLUDING the particular evidence from the Coconino Sandstone itself which refutes a water transport mechanism.

Overall this is a pattern among creationists when they take on the yoke of trying to explain evidence that cannot be made suspect by calling foul upon the evidence itself. In doing so, in every circumstance I have seen, creationists ignore the entire body of evidence that often shows their explanations to be in dire error.

The fact is, radiometric dating is a good tool to start with. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is replete with error

You didn't address anything I said previously about the isochron method and how it is different from direct or 'generic' dating methods. The method itself is NOT in error and that can be empirically shown for anyone who chooses to learn the methods before feeling that they can criticize them.

and that empirically knowing which dates are true and which are erroneous is difficult. Therefore, questioning the reliability is not out of the question.

Knowing which dates are true or not only seems to be a problem for people who don't understand how the method works and what the ratios mean. Mainstream geology has no problem adequately identifying the conditions that either make the use of the method invalid, or when the method shows something else other than age.

The biggest hangup I think that people have about radiometric dating is simply realizing that the dates calculated by the ratios don't always mean the date the rock was formed. For direct methods, the date given corresponds to the last time the system was closed. This provides a MINIMUM AGE of the rock and SOMETIMES, with other correlating evidence, that minimum age can be determined to be the ACTUAL age.

To restate my position, I would consider myself more aligned with proponents of ID than I would that of creationists. Creationists, like that of many evolutionists, have a clear objective instead of viewing everything tentatively.

You say this but many of the arguments you have brought forth speak otherwise. Most prominent IDers do not question the age of the earth, evolution, or common decent. What they are critical of is a notion of "pure unguided naturalistic processes".

I also take offense to the claim that evolutionists have an "objective". As I asked before, I would prefer you leave criticisms of motive out of this discussion. The last thing I want to drag this discussion into is the whole evolution is/not a dogma. I am not interested in that type of discussion because I do not believe it is fruitful.

jazzns writes:

Saying that the living Coelecanth invalidates the ToE is not providing an alternative explanation to the fossil record.

No, its just an example.

But it is not an example of anything other than a fish that we used to think was extinct. Down below you agreed that the question, "If we all came from monkeys then why is there still monkeys?" is a stupid question. Similarly then the question, "If Coelecanth all turned into amphibians then why is there still Coelecanths?" is equally stupid. It is based on a false understanding of evolution as a linear rather than hierarchal process.

Jazzns writes:

What is the alternative explanation for which the Coelecanth fossils are supporting? Poof godditit?

The answer is in the lack of evidence. If it can be demonstrated that evolution is false, then no unguided, purposeless thing can exist which inexorably will bring you to the other alternative-- an intelligence created it. Whatever that 'intelligence' is, directed or undirected panspermia, Yahwew, Allah, the FSM, is a matter of theological debate. All that ID is interested in is whether or not it can be shown that life could not have evolved for inexplicable reasons.

But you are contradicting the reason that creationists bring up the Coelecanth to begin with! The standard argument is that the existence of the modern Coelecanth somehow means it never evolved into an amphibian. That says NOTHING about the process being guided or not! They are trying to say that there is no process at all! The entire reason for the juvenile and ignorant argument that creationists use involving the Coelecanth is to attempt to show that there is no process of evolution and that special creation wins. They are NOT trying to show that there was an intelligent designer who guided "the process".

Cows and horses share the same ecological niches and they both thrive.

They survive because there is enough to go around. I would rather use a better example since cows are domesticated. Zebras and antelope for example. They DO compete but because there is enough environment for them all to share, they are not forced to OUT compete each other. There is no law saying that only species can occupy one niche at any given time. There just has to be enough "room" in a particular niche for a new species to move into.

So what selective pressures cause these changes to begin with? What was it that caused the first proto-avian to sprout stump-like appendages that would form a proto-wing, and form proto-feathers long in advance to any conceivable relevance to its survival? What exactly prompted the changes?

Wow! What a list! Lets talk about these for a second.

1. What selective pressures cause these changes? This question demonstrates a vast misunderstanding of how evolution works. Selective pressures do not CAUSE changes. The changes happen and the selective pressures "select" the ones that are more useful for reproduction.

2. A proto-avian sprouting stump-like appendages that would form a proto-wing?!?!?!? All I can say is WoW! You do notice that birds don't have arms like other bipedal animals right? The bird wing did not evolve from some bump on their back that eventually turned into a wing. Something like that WOULD be evidence for ID.

Wings came from arms based on a number of evidences. First of all, the bone structure of a wing has morphologically similarities to a therapod dinosaur arm. We have fossils of proto-birds such as archy that shows that they have feathered arms. IIRC some birds are still born with claws at the end of their wing bones. Also IIRC there is evidence from embryology that shows baby birds still have claws on their wings that get reabsorbed before hatching.

What I wonder is what understanding you gained by your investigation of this issue would cause you to think that birds "sprouted stump-like appendages". You do reject evolution on a basis of understanding rather than ignorance of it don't you? One can only assume that before you claim that an idea is invalid that you would be bothered to completely understand what that idea is. Without that, what reason could there be to reject an idea that you don't understand.

If you think that evolution means that wings "sprout" then let me be the first to say I don't believe in evolution either. I also do not believe in fairy godmothers turning pumpkins into stagecoaches.

3. Forming proto-feathers long in advance of conceivable relevance to its survival? Feathers perform a NUMBER of functions for modern birds. In addition to flying, feathers provide a mechanism of thermal control. They also play a role in sexual selection and response to predation. Hence you have a situation where most male birds are more intricately colored to both attract a mate and to attract predators away from their offspring. That is why only the male cardinal is red for instance.

The evidence shows that feathers existed long before flight. Dinosaurs had feathers before there were ever birds on the scene. Wikipedia has a nice short treatment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

Because we know what feathers can do for birds today, we can assume that they also provided thermal control for dinosaurs and that they probably were also used in sexual selection. Flight came gradually once arboreal dinosaurs figured out that feathers can help you catch air.

4. What exactly prompted the changes? Different selection pressures cause different traits to either be maintained, degrade, or become advantageous. For a ground dwelling feathered dinosaur, an asymmetric feather has no use. Therefore if a baby dino is born with slightly asymmetric feathers there is no survival benefit and therefore no reason for natural selection to change the feathers of the population over time. This is not true for tree dwelling feathered dinosaurs who have learned to co-opt their feathers for gliding. A slightly asymmetric feather will make you a better glider and that is an advantage that will help you find food, escape predators, and because of that have a better chance of producing more offspring.

Obviously nature have chosen those traits because the others were not optimal, but antiquated. It sure would appear that nature has a mind, especially when given the prospect of saurian awkwardly changing into avian and somehow managing to stave off natural selection as cannon fodder.

Why would it 'awkwardly' change? This view is the hopeful monster straw man of evolution. We already know that they took to the trees. In an arboreal existence, gliding is a potential advantage especially if you already have structures that you can co-opt to help you glide better.

Its in the delicacies, the finer aspects of biology, that evolution begins to make no sense. Its easy to just say, everything changes, and nature selects the strong, and millions of years equals millions of mutations, and there you have it. But when we look at it through a fine-toothed comb, the inconsistencies become marvelously apparent.

Yet somehow this is only apparent to people who believe that dinosaurs popped wings out of their back. When you invent insane sounding misconceptions about evolution of course it sounds ridiculous.

You couldn't possibly know that by looking at bones.

Once again, yes we can know that by looking at the bones. You said nothing to refute me other than to simply assert that it is impossible. Your ignorance of how this is possible is demonstrated in your next comment.

And this is the kind of stuff that makes its way into the textbooks and quickly hailed as some sort of unassailable fact of biology. All that you know about is that there are tree-dwelling apes-- very few of them at that. You also know that bones of an extinct type of ape have been found elsewhere that is 'currently' grassy. And so you could easily be lead to follow clues that don't actually exist only to formulate some plausible scenario that will soon be extolled as empirical fact.

Not only is it currently grassy but we can tell if it was grassy back when those apes lived. Science is not limited but what YOU cannot concieve it being capable of.

We can also reconstruct the kinds of behaviors that would be allowed by their morphology by examining their remains. Or are you saying that if we find a fossil of something with fins that we cannot assume that it lived in water? What if I find some fish bones in a depositional environment that indicates a coastal formation? Then is my conclusion that it lived in shallow as opposed to deep water some fanciful scenario that will invade the textbooks and warp some impressionable minds?

Now, every fossil we have is completely well-formed. There are no transitions from one step to the other. They are all either exactly as we see them today, (Coelacanth), or they died out. There are no stepwise gradations, which is exactly why punctuated equilibrium came about. It gave them the perfect excuse fro why we shouldn't expect to see any clearcut proof.

This is more distortions and ignorance.

If a creature was not well-formed then it would not survive. All creatures that survive with enough frequency to be fossilized are well-form and so it is false to assume that transitionals should NOT be well-formed.

The definition of a transitional is not that it should be some kind of freak chimera. It is a creature that shares traits among distinctly different creatures. This is why archy is a transitional. It it a dinosaur with a whole bunch of bird features thrown in.

That is why these are transitionals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogonasus

because they are fish with amphibian like features.

In all cases they are not some freak retarded mess like you claim should exist. Once again it is obvious that you are thinking about evolution in the 'hopeful monster' sense rather than what the theory actually says. If you want a creature that is halfway between two major groups then here they are and as a bonus they are all FULLY FORMED!

The other major distortion in your quote is that punctuated equilibrium came about because of the fossil record. In no way is this true! PE was introduced to explain how evolution is possible amidst the stabilizing pressure of gene flow. When a population is well adapted to an environment then as long as that environment is stable there is no reason to evolve. Moreover, even if some new trait was to emerge, it would be very difficult for it to fix in a population due the current population's success. That is why it is hypothesized that in order for major changes in evolution to occur, the have to happen in smaller sub-populations that are isolated from the stabilizing force of the parent population. This is something that is suppored by observation of existing species and the instances of speciation that we HAVE observed.

How this relates to the fossil record is simply that a sub-population is less likely to leave around a sequence of its gradual change. This is a CONSEQUENCE of PE not the reason it was conceived.

If you want to claim otherwise, I would have to ask that you provide evidence since you brought it up.

150 years of anthropology, archeology, and biology should yield some proof, no? Those are seconds in evolutionary time but aeons of time to dig up some legitimate, tangible proof of evolution. The ENTIRE theory is supported by microevolution mixed in with inference.

The 150 years was brought up against your claim that we should have some observable examples of macroevolution at the level of taxa! Remember your comment:

nj previously writes:

This is the mechanism that can account for diversity. But, never, ever, have we seen the introduction of a completely new taxonomic category spawn from this.

In 150 years we DO have enough evidence to fully support evolution and an old earth for those who are not so blinded by their prejudices that they cannot be bothered to actually understand what those evidences actually are. We just don't have an observable instance of macroevolutionary change on the order of taxa. In other words, you shifted the goalpost pretty clearly.

Why is that meaningless? The 'point,' the one that I've mentioned twice, and now going on a third time, is that Coelacanth were supposed to be the genus that ambled onto shore and developed lungs (a ridiculous proposition for those claiming pragmatism). If todays Coelacanth use their lobbed-fins for nothing other than swimming, then that kind of puts a damper that they walked in the past.

Remember, you agreed that it was stupid to ask, "If X evolved into Y then why is there still X around?"

We would expect that whatever fin-like structure eventually used to support some weight on land near shallow waters would ALSO still be very good for acting like a fin. Since of course we are not talking about the 'hopeful monster' right?

These that I linked to before and I will do again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogonasus

are lobed finned fish that have leg-like fins. Notice how they are still pretty good for swimming while still becoming very much like a leg.

Just because SOME lobed finned fish kept their fins for ONLY swimming does not mean that OTHER lobed finned fish did the same. Remember now, "If lobed finned fish like the Coelecanth turned into amphibians then why is there still lobed finned fish like the Coelecanth?" IS a stupid question.

Therefore, the Coelacanth has not evolved, not even 350 million years of time. However, if slight changes in color, or shape of their eyes, or a more pronounced dorsal, these are unimpressive changes. And looking at fossilized Coelacanth with today's Coelacanth show that we are dealing with a creature that has not made much progress over time, as far as progress goes.

Yes sure, these changes might be unimpressive for THAT branch of Coelacanth. Just because some Coelacanth are on the branch that ended up on land does not mean that ALL coelacanth are. You are SYSTEMATICALLY FAILING to understand this point and it only reinforces the fact that you do not yet understand evolution.

Also, there is no such thing as "progress" in evolution. The modern coelacanth is not less "progressed" than a frog. It is perfectly adapted for the current environment for which it lives. A frog is not objectively "better" than a coelecanth any more than a Hummer is objectively "better" than an Indy car. The Hummer is "better" than the Indy car over terrain and in fact the Indy car probably wouldn't survive some terrain that the Hummer can. But the Indy car is going to smoke the Hummer on the track where it is obviously "better".

Jazzns writes:

Can we just both agree that the question, "If we all came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?" is a stupid and invalid question to ask?

Yes.

My follow up would then be, based on how badly you botched the implications of this in your previous comments, do you understand WHY it is a stupid question? Please explain because it seems very contradictory that you would say 'yes' here yet repeatedly fail to USE that principle in you other communication.

Jazzns writes:

The evidence can tell us that the environments that an evolved and ancestor species occupied was different or not. For living organism we can visually inspect when they diverge that the environments are different. We can also examine that a particular species does or does not have traits that are advantageous in the environment. Why you think we cannot know these things is beyond incredulous.

You know, more could be stated about what's missing from the hominid record...

Right there! You are shifting the goalposts! I was refuting your claim that we somehow cannot know what environment a creature was better adapted for by its fossil. Please NJ don't do this!

jazzns writes:

Why would that be a problem. In previous threads talking about this I have heard numbers ranging from 100 to 5000 mutations that YOU have different from you parents.

That's because the only significant mutations that affect evolution are during cell replication. All the other mutations are pointless to even discuss because they bear no reflection on evolution.

Yes! I am talking about germ line mutations! You are different from your parents by a number of genes on a factor of 100s or 1000s. These can only come from germ line mutations. You were claiming that this might be rare. My response it to show you that your assertion is false! Even within humans, enough mutation happens at each reproductive event to introduce new genetic material.

From what I know of this argument, these are non-coding genes that are assumed to have been caused in a coding error in the distant past, and that all subsequent progeny will share these specific genetic markers in a specific locus/loci. This sounds very similar to the Cytochrome C argument and could be ipso facto.

Maybe but it is my understanding that the various Cytochrome C sequences are functional. There may be reasons that a functional sequence might be reused by a 'designer' or other mechanism but there is NO reason that a non-functional sequence would be reused unless it is attained via ancestry.

I think the question is whether or not an retrogenes could be directly acquired by one individual organism from another. If it could be demonstrated that they could not, that would certainly hinder the argument.

Do you have anything to suggest that this is common and if so would result in a pattern that directly mimics what we would expect from ancestry?

Also, unrelated pseudogenes are far in excess than those that are shared.

How do you know this? I would not necessarily expect this. Do you have anything to back this statement up?

One would then have to ask how inexact it really is. How many alterations can happen independently but coincidentally, so that it no longer assumes shared evolutionary ancestry? One would have to ask that in light of differences invariably outnumbering convergent ones. I tried to consider that many divergent and contradictory phylogenies are in existence. Even the most conservative figure would at least have one of them that was bound to fortuitously coincide with another.

The more convergence you find the less and less likely it will be possible for it to happen by coincidence. The less and less likely it is a coincidence, the more strength is given to the theory that ancestry accounts for the situation better than accident or "stupid" design. It becomes a problem of compounded probabilities such as the ones that IDers like to use but in this case it uses numbers based on REAL evidence rather than ones in some invented hypothetically impossible model of evolution.

But, given the enormity of the chimp and human genome, that seems implausible, especially when half of the ID argument is geared towards tearing down some of the evolutionary arguments that sit atop of lofty conjectures.

Given that most real scientists who do ID believe in common ancestry, I don't know how the comment really fits in. Behe and others are not trying to refute the common ancestry of humans and chimps.

jazzns writes:

So then what more does it take to convince you?

Alot more. This is one footing in my mind for evolution. I'm sure any proponent of evolution wouldn't have thrown it all away because of IC.

The first thing I would do if I were you would be to recognize the fact that you are operating from a position of attacking an idea that you don't yet fully understand. If that is not obvious to you based on what I have been saying so far then might I suggest that you look inside yourself and ask yourself how confident you actually feel making some of the assertions that you do.

The same thing happened to me recently with my son. Before he was born I was told all kinds of things about immunizations and how they were bad. I was all set to be one of those crazy people who don't immunize their children until we had our preliminary visit with our pediatrician. She made me realize that I had only ever exposed myself to information from people who had a dogmatic agenda against immunizations and suggested that I look at medical sources for both the real effects of choosing to immunize and not immunize. She also suggest I look at the history of WHY these people believe that immunizations are bad. I went back home, further educated myself, and realized the horror of the ignorance I was previously in. What was worse was that the position I took in ignorance could have impacted by beloved son in highly negative ways.

My experience investigating this topic goes back 6 years now and includes a vigorous personal hobby of study along with some collegiate work in geology for majors. Like I said before, I was someone who was skeptical but very much rooting for the cause of creationism because I used to be a Pentecostal. I knew that this was important though so I knew I wanted to fully understand both sides. I read everything I could get my hands on about creationism. I have probably almost read every article on AiG and ICR. I have read a number of the standard creationist books. I took part in a christian bible study about the issue.

The difference I think is that I ALSO studied deeply about evolution and mainstream geology. I bothered to read pretty much all of the TalkOrigins site which I think most dogmatic creationists and IDers that come here scoff at without ever giving it a chance. Even though I knew I didn't 'like' what I was reading I decided to stick it out because I wanted to KNOW what these people thought about evolution and why they thought it was so solid a theory. Can you say the same about your experiences reading information about evolution?

I of course then had my classes in geology. This is where I believe most creationist operate from the most extreme cases of ignorance. I only made it up through sophomore geology and that was enough to figure out where, at least young earth creationist were fatally wrong. I think it was there that I started to notice the lying and the mental contortions that YECs go through in order to try to make their beliefs fit the evidence. There are many such as Snelling over at ICR that are flat out liars and conmen. I KNOW that because I have informed myself with enough basic knowledge to see how they craft things in such detail as to fool the uneducated. The omissions performed in the name of simplification are damning to their cause. The devil IS in the details and that is when I began to seriously suspect that the rest of their cause was similarly tainted.

Lastly, regarding your comment about IC. IC systems have been shown to develop using genetic algorithms and even the founder of the principle of IC himself admits that non-direct evolutionary paths can lead to IC systems even if he personally finds it unlikely. What we are talking about with regard to nested and matching heirarchies is solid evidence. The inability of evolution to create IC systems has been refuted or at least stands on the very weak ground of a few isolated bricks of personal incredulity. The comparison you made is therefore not very apt at all.

Regards and sorry for the length,

Edited by AdminNWR, : fix formatting (bold not properly closed)


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2006 6:36 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 11:37 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-13-2006 12:52 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 12:34 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 23 of 77 (363005)
11-09-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jazzns
11-09-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
Regards and sorry for the length

:eek:

Yeah, this one is going to take some time to unravel, but it won't be tonight. I appreciate the effort on your part, but I might have to condense it into maybe a three-part series. Eh, we'll see. It was a good post though. You covered alot of areas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2006 9:01 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jazzns, posted 11-10-2006 8:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 24 of 77 (363037)
11-10-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
11-09-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Good discussion but still no interpretations
By all means take your time. I would rather this thread move slowly with good posts unlike some threads that work more like a chatroom.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 11:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 25 of 77 (363588)
11-13-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jazzns
11-09-2006 9:01 PM


Part I
The ICR Grand Canyon project was an attempt by them to show that the radiometric dating method is invalid. They failed miserably to do this but even if they had succeeded they did not put forth any positive evidence for their pet hypothesis that the earth is young. The whole point of their effort was to try to eliminate evidence for an old earth. That is what I mean when I talk about criticizing the evidence. Many creationist arguments focus on trying show how evidence for evolution or an old earth are somehow not valid.

Hold on. You are speaking in a past tense as if ICR has ceded defeat concerning the formation and age of the Grand Canyon. Whether they are right in some instances and wrong in others is a matter of deeper investigation.

This is in contrast to OTHER efforts which try to explain the evidence, that we all accept, in a different way. There are some creationist ideas about how the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon might have formed under flood conditions. This different tactic often appears because the existence of the Coconino Sandstone cannot be invalidated. The evidence itself is so strong that it cannot be questioned and therefore it must be explained in a different framework.

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not that interested in creationist geology, but I do know a little bit about it. As well, I used to live in Flagstaff, AZ which is approximately 80 miles from the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Flagstaff is 7,000 feet above sea level and nowhere near any oceans. I have 'personally' found seashells ontop some of the mountain ridges. It was not difficult for me to find them- meaning they were not buried deep in the sediment. I don't need a PhD in geology to know that (1) Seashells should be found near a sea. (2) Seashells shouldn't be up at 7,000 feet. (3) Even in the event of massive geologic changes occuring from continental drift and subduction, these seashells should either have been pulverized or eroded into sand by now. (4) They shouldn't be on the surface layer of the earth's crust if its going to conform to the geologic column. It takes all of these fantastic geologic changes which are difficult to prove in its own right for naturalists to get those seashells where they are and to have them in the condition they are in. But it takes a flood of epic proportion to reasonably place those seashells there.

Aside from which, if you'll notice on the walls of the Grand Canyon, in places there are curved lines in solid stone, suggesting highly that the sediment was once wet and formed that way once dried. Rivers cannot produce that effect because sediment will continue downstream. Unless you think that rock can bend without breaking, there is no good reason why this phenomenon should occur. It has a technical name but I can't quite remember what its called. You may be aware of this principle already.

My MAIN argument in the OP is that when this situation happens, the creationists always invent an explanation that ignores the rest of the evidence. In the case of the Coconino Sandstone, they completely ignore the other formations and how the conditions they posit would have to be in place to form the Coconino Sandstone would be not be able to form the other formations or would destroy them.

Well formed strata is demonstrably proven that it does not take millions of years to form. It doesn't even take thousands. And the mischaracterization that it does not make it so. Its the same with stalagtites and stalagmites. This phenomenon is portrayed as taking millions of years to achieve which is patently false. Its the same with fossilization. Fossilization is said to take thousands and millions of years. Hats dating back to 1950 and cowboy boots from the 1800's have been found completely petrified, unambiguously proving that these long epochs of geologic time is not necessary.

Knowing which dates are true or not only seems to be a problem for people who don't understand how the method works and what the ratios mean. Mainstream geology has no problem adequately identifying the conditions that either make the use of the method invalid, or when the method shows something else other than age.

That's completely not true. When two or more dates on the same material are tested and each time they get conflicting answers, they simply default to the preconceived notion. For instance, Nature magazine put out an article about Australopithecus. The date came out to over 20 mya which is considered impossible since there should not have been any Australiopiths during that time. So what they did is selected nearly 30 samples of various items in order to come up with an acceptable age of no more than 4.5 Mya. The samples that conflicted with that preconceived timeline were simply discarded, assumed to have been contaminated. I seriously don't know why you think radiometric dating is accurate, but especially C14 dating.

I think these preconceived notions about the earths' history forces researchers to face these anomalies by trying to conform to the prevailing paradigm. In other words, how objective is it when there is a discrepancy between dates, they simply defer to the preconceived notion? Why even bother to conduct the experiment if you already have a date in mind?

You say this but many of the arguments you have brought forth speak otherwise. Most prominent IDers do not question the age of the earth, evolution, or common decent. What they are critical of is a notion of "pure unguided naturalistic processes".

Well, I do question the age of the earth. Its the least concerning thing in the whole debate. Like I said, both evos and creos have an agenda, which makes it difficult to believe anyone. I don't know if the earth is young or old. All I know is what I personally have seen. I've seen the damn shells myself and I've been to the USGS in Flagstaff and saw for myself how things work. That's really what it boils down to for me at this point because the debate has been so skewed, I don't know what to believe as far as that is concerned.

I also take offense to the claim that evolutionists have an "objective".

One only need to look at Scott, Dawkins, and Miller to see that I'm not lying. This isn't inclusive to every single person that believes in evolution. This is geared towards the big names who are out there spinning some yarn that they are out there trying to defend science. You can take offense to it or realize that they have vested interests in propelling the theory. Their entire lives and worldview is wrapped up in this belief. If they lose this, they pretty much have no other option as to how and why they are here. That is, no doubt, a frightening prospect for an unbeliever.

As I asked before, I would prefer you leave criticisms of motive out of this discussion. The last thing I want to drag this discussion into is the whole evolution is/not a dogma. I am not interested in that type of discussion because I do not believe it is fruitful.

That's fine, but I thought I was being objective by pointing out that many creationists, if not most, have the same agenda just in reverse. That's okay, but I can't point out the obvious?

Anyway, sorry for the long delay in writing this. I'll get to the rest of it later.


"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2006 9:01 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jazzns, posted 11-14-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Jazzns, posted 11-17-2006 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2006 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 26 of 77 (363752)
11-14-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
11-13-2006 12:52 PM


Re: Part I
Hold on. You are speaking in a past tense as if ICR has ceded defeat concerning the formation and age of the Grand Canyon. Whether they are right in some instances and wrong in others is a matter of deeper investigation.

If you can find an instance of them NOT being wrong I would like to see it. The grand canyon dating project is a demonstrable fraud. Snelling KNEW that the dates from the basalts he tested would give him the age of the source and not the rock because he spoke about it ~5 years prior. Their writeups about the Coconino Sandstone ignore fundamental evidence like I described. Beyond that they have nothing.

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not that interested in creationist geology, but I do know a little bit about it. As well, I used to live in Flagstaff, AZ which is approximately 80 miles from the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Flagstaff is 7,000 feet above sea level and nowhere near any oceans. I have 'personally' found seashells ontop some of the mountain ridges. It was not difficult for me to find them- meaning they were not buried deep in the sediment. I don't need a PhD in geology to know that (1)Seashells should be found near a sea. (2) Seashells shouldn't be up at 7,000 feet. (3) Even in the event of massive geologic changes occuring from continental drift and subduction, these seashells should either have been pulverized or eroded into sand by now. (4) They shouldn't be on the surface layer of the earth's crust if its going to conform to the geologic column. It takes all of these fantastic geologic changes which are difficult to prove in its own right for naturalists to get those seashells where they are and to have them in the condition they are in. But it takes a flood of epic proportion to reasonably place those seashells there.

Well, apparrently you do need a PhD or at least some basic schooling in geology because 1-4 are all totally wrong on a number of fundamental levels.

1. Fresh seashells should be found near a sea. Fossiliferous limestone containing seashells can be found in a number of places. The existence of seashells only indicates that the area was once underwater. Beyond that you are only projecting your own ignorant and hopeful assertion that a flood had anything to do with it.

2. The evidence indicates that where you currently live was not always 7000 ft. In fact, the evidence indicates that the area where you live has transitioned from land to ocean a number of times in the past. So if you want to claim that seashells being at 7000 feet is evidence for anything, you must realize that you are also IGNORING evidence that would lead you to a different conclusion that WOULD explain all the evidence. This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

3. There is NO evidence to suggest that certain natural artifacts MUST be destroyed and there is PLENTY of evidence that shows how geologic processes can and DO preserve these things. In fact, even in the most 'violent' of tectonic forces, fossils are often preserved to the point that they deform with the rock they are buried in. Guess what that means. That means the rock and the fossil contained within had to be solid or else there would be no physical reason for a fossil to "bend" with the rock. Fossils survive in some amazing circumstances and the geologic processes leave their marks to show us exactly how a particular fossil came to be in the position that it is. Do a search on this site for 'fossil strain' for some previous discussion about it.

In short, #3 is TOTALLY based on your personal incredulity and COMPLETELY ignores the evidence to the contrary.

4. I don't even know what you are using to support this. It makes no sense at all. We know that seashells get buried by natural processes and we can watch this happening today. In fact, because of where they live, marine fossils are MORE likely to get buried by natural processes than exposed at the surface. This statement of yours is not only contrary to the evidence, it is contrary to common sense.

5. You didn't have a number 5 but I do. =)

If you got these on top of the rim of the grand canyon then they must be on top of the Coconino Sandstone. This formation is unambiguously a land formation. Not only is there NO evidence that it was created underwater, there IS evidence that it is a desert formation. If you want to know why we can go into the details but suffice it to say that the shells you are looking at were put there after whatever process decided to dry out a vast ocean, bring in an unfathomable amount of sand using only wind, have animals walk around making burrows and leaving tracks, then bring the ocean back at some point to drop your shells. If you think this all happened by or during a global flood, then you need to figure out how and if you do then you will be the first one and I would be glad to see you in Stockholm to pick up your shiny medal.

Aside from which, if you'll notice on the walls of the Grand Canyon, in places there are curved lines in solid stone, suggesting highly that the sediment was once wet and formed that way once dried. Rivers cannot produce that effect because sediment will continue downstream. Unless you think that rock can bend without breaking, there is no good reason why this phenomenon should occur. It has a technical name but I can't quite remember what its called. You may be aware of this principle already.

Actually I am familiar with this argument and more familiar with why this argument is totally bogus.

First of all, we know that rock deforms plastically (i.e. doesn't fracture) under heat and pressure. We can test this in the lab. Second, my previous comments about fossil strain (see #3 above) totally refute the 'soft sediment' hypothesis. Where the rocks are bent, the fossil and microstructures of the rock are also bent. This simply would not happen if the rock was 'squishy' when it was bent. If you disagree, the go ahead and try this experiment, get a bucket of mud, drop in some chicken bones, now bend and stretch the chicken bones, without breaking them, by only manipulating the mud. You will also need to stretch each individual partical of dirt and sand in the mud in the same direction that the bones go. Good luck.

Well formed strata is demonstrably proven that it does not take millions of years to form. It doesn't even take thousands.

This is a false statement by omission. Some rocks form in a matter of minutes, some undeniably take thousands if not millions of year. There is NO valid creationist explanation for why limestone, evaporites, granite, metamorphic rocks, or any well ordered fine sediment rock would not take the vastly long periods of time that they obviously should without fundamentally altering the physics AND chemestry of the universe. How you are supposed to get meters upon meters of gypsum, salt, etc during the middle of a raging world flood is beyond me and so far has been beyond creationists. There is something fundamental about a rock that requires constant cycles of drying to form that tends to invalidate the world being covered in water. This is especially true for these kinds of deposits that have MORE "flood" deposits on top of them.

And the mischaracterization that it does not make it so. Its the same with stalagtites and stalagmites. This phenomenon is portrayed as taking millions of years to achieve which is patently false. Its the same with fossilization. Fossilization is said to take thousands and millions of years. Hats dating back to 1950 and cowboy boots from the 1800's have been found completely petrified, unambiguously proving that these long epochs of geologic time is not necessary.

THis is a favorite hat trick of creationists and AGAIN it is relies upon IGNORING the evidence. Under certain conditions and given a different chemistry, lime/calcium will percipitate out of water faster and create stalagtites and stalagmites in a matter of weeks/months/years. But this does not meant that these are the conditions that exist in the areas where REAL geologists who DO examine the conditions claim that certain formations take a lot longer.

The same problem exists for fossilization. Yes you can create and find situations where things become well preserved quickly. But if you are going to claim that this is how it ALWAYS happens you have to do so in IGNORANCE of the other evidence that shows that it can and does often take a long time.

That's completely not true. When two or more dates on the same material are tested and each time they get conflicting answers, they simply default to the preconceived notion. For instance, Nature magazine put out an article about Australopithecus. The date came out to over 20 mya which is considered impossible since there should not have been any Australiopiths during that time. So what they did is selected nearly 30 samples of various items in order to come up with an acceptable age of no more than 4.5 Mya. The samples that conflicted with that preconceived timeline were simply discarded, assumed to have been contaminated.

This is pure and aggregious equivocation! Dating fossils and dating rocks is a very different kind of activity! First and foremost, you DON'T radioactive date fossils!

I seriously don't know why you think radiometric dating is accurate, but especially C14 dating.

Let me ask you this NJ, did you even read the article I linked about the isochron method? Please answer that first.

Second, if you are going to claim that scientists throw out data to fit some preconception then I think I am going to have to question how you know this. All you are doing his is putting out an assertion with no way for your audience to examine its voracity. Even if there was some dates that were disregarded, how are we supposed to know if there was not a very good reason to do so. Remember NJ, these types of scientific endevors are forensic by nature. There are often cases that arise that mean certain things cannot be dated or information is later obtained that shows that certain dates are either invalid or point to a different thing. I'll point to my previous example of how sometimes when radiometric dating a rock, it gives you the last time the rock underwent a heating event. The evidence for this may not be discovered until after the rock has been dated so for a short time their may be some mystery as to why a particular rock dates younger in comparison to its neighbors.

The only people who worry about these mysteries are people trying to discredit the science. They often do so by omitting the relevant evidence that the professionals ARE aware of in their investigation. SO you go onto some creationist website and read about such and such date being wrong while in reality the situation is far more complicated. There IS a reason why the people who investigate these things dedicate their lives to their study. Proper investigation into these things OFTEN requires more expertise than some asshat on the internet. The devil is in the details and so far you have no details.

I think these preconceived notions about the earths' history forces researchers to face these anomalies by trying to conform to the prevailing paradigm. In other words, how objective is it when there is a discrepancy between dates, they simply defer to the preconceived notion? Why even bother to conduct the experiment if you already have a date in mind?

Because often there is more to be known about WHY the dates are weird than just to pidgeon hole things. There are no scientists who get accolades for figuring out, "yep things are just like we knew them to be!" Your charges of what essentially amounts to FRAUD are both aggregious and evidenceless.

Well, I do question the age of the earth. Its the least concerning thing in the whole debate. Like I said, both evos and creos have an agenda, which makes it difficult to believe anyone. I don't know if the earth is young or old. All I know is what I personally have seen. I've seen the damn shells myself and I've been to the USGS in Flagstaff and saw for myself how things work. That's really what it boils down to for me at this point because the debate has been so skewed, I don't know what to believe as far as that is concerned.

You have seen the shells yourself but have you also seen the layers that are beneath them? Have you understood the implications of all the evidence combined? Do you even know what all the evidence is? Are you just ignoring all that evidence because you are so convinced by some "damn shells" that you don't think you need to both questioning that you might be wrong or that you might be ill informed?

One only need to look at Scott, Dawkins, and Miller to see that I'm not lying. This isn't inclusive to every single person that believes in evolution. This is geared towards the big names who are out there spinning some yarn that they are out there trying to defend science. You can take offense to it or realize that they have vested interests in propelling the theory. Their entire lives and worldview is wrapped up in this belief. If they lose this, they pretty much have no other option as to how and why they are here. That is, no doubt, a frightening prospect for an unbeliever.

So your response it so list a handful of folks who happen to incorporate evolution into their theology? You think this is somehow convincing?

By the way, you mentioned Miller. This wouldn't be the famous Miller who is the author of biology textbooks? The same Miller who is a professed CHRISTIAN!? If it is the same Miller, what is his agenda? If it is the same Miller then aren't you embarassed to comment about people and things for which you haven't bothered to check out? How frightening a prospect is it going to be for him if evolution is wrong?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-13-2006 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 27 of 77 (364331)
11-17-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
11-13-2006 12:52 PM


Friendly Bump for NJ
There is no rush and no time tables on replies. I just didn't want you to forget about this thread unless you want to let it go. If so, just let me know.

In the mean time here are a few pictures of fossil and rock strain. I used to have some better pictures but I can't seem to find them anymore. I'll look harder later.

http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/geolsci/dlr/106s_03/4day/d0501.jpg
http://www.ualberta.ca/~jwaldron/gallerypages/fabrics.html

{ABE:
To see the strain in the fossil, remember that both of those animals naturally have bilateral symmetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_symmetry
}

Edited by Jazzns, : Added symmetry comment and wikipedia link.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-13-2006 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 77 (364914)
11-20-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
11-13-2006 12:52 PM


Request intent to continue
Hey NJ,

Again no rush, I just want a quick indicator to know if you intend to continue.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-13-2006 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:38 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 29 of 77 (365216)
11-21-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jazzns
11-20-2006 12:29 PM


Re: Request intent to continue
Again no rush, I just want a quick indicator to know if you intend to continue.

Sorry Jazzns, yes, I intend to finish it. I apologize. I got started on some other debates and forgot about it until another member reminded me. I will likely respond tomorrow with Part II. Let me know how that works for you.


Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2006 12:29 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 11-21-2006 7:04 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1442 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 30 of 77 (365230)
11-21-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Request intent to continue
That is great NJ. I don't mean for this to be any kind of commitment nor to take away from any other discussions you would rather have. I think it is perfectly reasonable to temporarily table this discussion when other interesting threads come up.

Perhaps as a rule of thumb, we should simply acknowledge when we are going to be unable to reply right away just so we don't leave the other person hanging. I am sure that I will need to do this at some point too.

Good contributions to the UCLA thread by the way. I was nice to have someone with your expertise involved in the discussion.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:38 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:11 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017