Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 181 of 295 (447576)
01-09-2008 7:59 PM


To those who know who they are,
We don't really need the content-free posts, there's plenty of substance that's been posted to respond to.
--Percy

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 182 of 295 (447581)
01-09-2008 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
01-09-2008 9:45 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Percy,
It can be seen that you were arguing against the possibility of gradual transition through tiny evolutionary steps
Percy from day one on this site I have always said I believed in change over time. I have never said it did not happen.
What I cannot accept is that there was enough time to change to where we are today.
If life appeared 3.8 billion years ago...
Prokaryotes appeared about 2.6 billion years ago...
Eukaryotes appeared about 1.5 billions years ago...
Multicellular life appeared about 700 million years ago...
Taken from chart here:http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/...s/less/les4/Vles4nb.html
From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took 3.1 billion years.
Now if this is a scientific fact that it took that long for this process to take place, which to me seems like a long time for such little progress.
How is it that in the past 700 million years we have been able to accomplish coming from multicellular life forms to where we are today. Which seems such a short time for so much progress.
Then factor in 5 extection events:
450 MYA 27% of all families and 57% of genera extinct.
375 MYA 19%of families and 50% of genera extinct.
251 MYA 57% of families and 83% of genera extinct.
205 MYA 23% of families and 48% of genera extinct.
65 MYA 17% of families and 50% of genera extinct.
11,000 years ago most major large mammals extinct in ice age.
About 8,000 years ago the largest extenction event ever began when modern man took charge.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/
Now if these facts and figures are scientific evidence and I look at it with an open mind taking in account it took 3.1 billion years to get from single cell life to multicellur life forms, with all the extinction, 143% of the families, and 288% of the genera and no telling what in the ice age of 11,000 years ago, come to the conclusion that everything proceeded in a long drawn out generation to generation of evolution to get us to where we are today. There would have to have been billions of dead bodies left behind with all that death. Taking into consideration that these extinction events was not controled by natural selection and survival of the fittest it leads me to believe that there would have to have been a lot of that sudden appearing of creatures or if they evolved there would have to have been a lot of those creatures who were deformed as they would not be a full grown anything. With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.
Conclusion: If I did not believe in an outside source I could not look at this evidence and come to the conclusion to accept the position that is put forth on this forum concerning evolution of the species.
I am beginning to see why some evolutionist would call themselves christian evolutionist. They know that everything could not have happened without some outside help.
Have fun,
Edited by ICANT, : added link for extinction information

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 01-09-2008 9:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by DrJones*, posted 01-09-2008 11:49 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 184 by Omnivorous, posted 01-09-2008 11:59 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 185 by Taz, posted 01-09-2008 11:59 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 188 by anglagard, posted 01-10-2008 2:29 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 6:55 AM ICANT has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 183 of 295 (447586)
01-09-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.
How many fossils should we have? show your work.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 11:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 184 of 295 (447587)
01-09-2008 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.
How many do we have?

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 11:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 185 of 295 (447588)
01-09-2008 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.
How do you explain the fact that we have not a single fossil of the passenger pigeon? There used to be millions and millions of them flying around. It was probably the most populous bird species on the planet before it went extinct.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 11:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 12:47 AM Taz has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 186 of 295 (447594)
01-10-2008 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Taz
01-09-2008 11:59 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Taz,
How do you explain the fact that we have not a single fossil of the passenger pigeon? There used to be millions and millions of them flying around. It was probably the most populous bird species on the planet before it went extinct.
If I remember correctly everything I read about this little fellow he was very high on the food chain and that is why he went extinct.
In the 19th century it is estimated there were 5 billion passenger pigeons in North America as the the white man moved inland they disappeared very fast. The major decreese between 1870 and 1890 after which they were so depleted they could not recover.
What is so amazing about this is that at one time there was only 2 and they increased to over 5 billion but when their population got so low (not one bird mind you) they could not recover.
This is one of the most amazing things about creatures springing up using natural selection and survival of the fittest. You have to have 2 to start and they can survive and produce millions. But when the populations get low they can't survive. Something is wrong with this picture of evolution as presently taught.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Taz, posted 01-09-2008 11:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2008 2:03 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 7:15 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 191 by Taz, posted 01-10-2008 10:27 AM ICANT has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 187 of 295 (447597)
01-10-2008 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
01-10-2008 12:47 AM


As it is taught
Something is wrong with this picture of evolution as presently taught.
Well, guess what: it isn't taught that way. (unless it is being taught very wrongly). Of course, the fact that you know pretty much nothing about it doesn't deter you from making pronouncements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 12:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 5:03 PM NosyNed has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 188 of 295 (447601)
01-10-2008 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
What I cannot accept is that there was enough time to change to where we are today.
If life appeared 3.8 billion years ago...
Prokaryotes appeared about 2.6 billion years ago...
Eukaryotes appeared about 1.5 billions years ago...
Multicellular life appeared about 700 million years ago...
Taken from chart here:http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/...s/less/les4/Vles4nb.html
From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took 3.1 billion years.
Now if this is a scientific fact that it took that long for this process to take place, which to me seems like a long time for such little progress.
How is it that in the past 700 million years we have been able to accomplish coming from multicellular life forms to where we are today. Which seems such a short time for so much progress.
Well, considering that it looks like the earth had to undergo change in order to create and sustain an environment which embraces enough chaos to promote evolution while remaining stable enough to allow survival, it should be no surprise that multicellular life took a while to develop and thrive. The elements of chaos and change include atmospheric constituents, development of oceans, a series of meteoric bombardment/volcanic catastrophes, surface temperature fluctuations, and a variance in radiation bombardment due to the above, to list a few off the top of my head. Upon examination, there must be the right mix of both a chaotic and changing environment along with enough stability for each new development to thrive for there to be any evolution.
Of course, multicellular life may have evolved several times in the past only to get stopped cold by such past chaos. Also, in contrast, life itself once well established influences the environment and tends to stabilize conditions around a more moderate mean. Current conditions (meaning environment, not physical law) were not the same as in the past.
Then factor in 5 extection events:
450 MYA 27% of all families and 57% of genera extinct.
375 MYA 19%of families and 50% of genera extinct.
251 MYA 57% of families and 83% of genera extinct.
205 MYA 23% of families and 48% of genera extinct.
65 MYA 17% of families and 50% of genera extinct.
11,000 years ago most major large mammals extinct in ice age.
About 8,000 years ago the largest extenction event ever began when modern man took charge.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/
Now if these facts and figures are scientific evidence and I look at it with an open mind taking in account it took 3.1 billion years to get from single cell life to multicellur life forms, with all the extinction, 143% of the families, and 288% of the genera and no telling what in the ice age of 11,000 years ago, come to the conclusion that everything proceeded in a long drawn out generation to generation of evolution to get us to where we are today.
Thanks for helping to make my point .
Also, I think it is important to note that when normal educated people read 50% of this gone, then later 50% more gone, they mean 50% of the remainder. The percentages don't add up like you say .
. There would have to have been billions of dead bodies left behind with all that death. Taking into consideration that these extinction events was not controled by natural selection and survival of the fittest it leads me to believe that there would have to have been a lot of that sudden appearing of creatures or if they evolved there would have to have been a lot of those creatures who were deformed as they would not be a full grown anything. With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.
There were and are, sometimes entire formations of hundreds to thousands of feet thick and thousands of miles in lateral extent, of little more than millions or billions of fossils. I know, I've seen them, a lot. Why haven't you?
Second, a lot of life may have failed to fossilize or have been subducted into the earth and turned into volcanic lava or metamorphic rock.
Third, I am curious as to why those who make groundless attacks upon biology and geology, all without even the most minimal education and/or understanding, can't get their stories straight (or maybe I do). There's too few fossils, there's too many fossils, evolution takes too long, evolution happened too quick. It's like trying to keep track of Mitt Romney's stand on political issues.
Conclusion: If I did not believe in an outside source I could not look at this evidence and come to the conclusion to accept the position that is put forth on this forum concerning evolution of the species.
I am beginning to see why some evolutionist would call themselves christian evolutionist. They know that everything could not have happened without some outside help.
Have fun,
"They know"
I find it interesting that anyone could reach full maturity or even advanced age claiming they already know everything and therefore don't need to consider any external input to intrude upon their self-declared, self-perfection and absolute knowledge. I would find it personally disturbing to claim greater knowledge of every subject than everyone else regardless of background or education because such a position resembles that of individuals in the throes of late puberty or the first stages of Alzheimer's.
But to each their own, I suppose.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity
Edited by anglagard, : to/too, in one case

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 11:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 189 of 295 (447614)
01-10-2008 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took 3.1 billion years.
Now if this is a scientific fact that it took that long for this process to take place, which to me seems like a long time for such little progress.
How is it that in the past 700 million years we have been able to accomplish coming from multicellular life forms to where we are today. Which seems such a short time for so much progress.
There are two primary possibilities for why life was single-celled for most of the history of life on this planet:
  1. For a long time conditions were not favorable for multicellular life, so single-celled life outcompeted any incipient evolutionary forays into multi-cellular life.
  2. Evolution of traits favorable to the teaming up of individual cells was the long and difficult part of the evolutionary history of life. Once multicellular life finally emerged it exploded into a wide variety of life forms and body plans because of their ability take advantage of huge numbers of previously unexploited ecological niches.
Moving on:
Now if these facts and figures are scientific evidence and I look at it with an open mind taking in account it took 3.1 billion years to get from single cell life to multicellular life forms, with all the extinction, 143% of the families, and 288% of the genera...
As someone already explained, the percentages aren't additive. If someone told you about a South Pacific island where 50% of the population was wiped out by an epidemic once every century, you wouldn't then conclude that over the past 10 centuries 500% of the population had been lost, right? That's just not the way percentages work in this context, plus you seem to be forgetting or ignoring that families and genera, just like populations, are constantly replenished with the passage of time.
You claimed to be approaching this with an open mind, and maybe you even believe that, but your inherent resistance to the idea of evolution is causing your mind to make ridiculous logical and math errors in order to avoid the conclusions you feel uncomfortable with.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 11:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 12:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 190 of 295 (447616)
01-10-2008 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
01-10-2008 12:47 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
If I remember correctly everything I read about this little fellow he was very high on the food chain and that is why he went extinct.
This is irrelevant to the major point, but I'll correct this anyway. Being anywhere on the food chain except at the very top provides no advantage. To say a creature is at the top of the food chain means that it is not prey for any predator. Carnivores are typically at the top of most food chains. Being anywhere other than at the top of the food chain means being prey for something. Speculation about the passenger pigeon seems to be that it was prey for human beings (in which case what happened to all the pigeon recipes, but that's a different matter).
ICANT writes:
What is so amazing about this is that at one time there was only 2 and they increased to over 5 billion but when their population got so low (not one bird mind you) they could not recover.
There was unlikely to have ever been a time in the passenger pigeon's evolutionary history when their population was reduced to a single pair. Species are not produced suddenly but gradually in small transitional steps, so there was never any "first passenger pigeon pair," no Adam and Eve of passenger pigeons. Populations of evolutionary ancestors of passenger pigeons experienced slow and gradual evolutionary change until they finally evolved into the modern but unfortunately now extinct form.
This is one of the most amazing things about creatures springing up using natural selection and survival of the fittest. You have to have 2 to start and they can survive and produce millions. But when the populations get low they can't survive. Something is wrong with this picture of evolution as presently taught.
For the umpteenth gazillionth time, what you think evolution is isn't being taught, except by creationists at their websites and in their books and lectures. New species do not begin with a single pair. Species evolve as populations. For sexual species, the genetic diversity of a single pair is likely far too low for the species to be viable, inbreeding being only one of the problems.
Evolutionary theory has been scientifically developed and elaborated based upon ever increasing mountains of evidence, but it isn't complete or perfect, and we're not trying to claim that it is. But the criticism's you're making are not about anything that evolution actually says. Where we could be having a discussion about evolutionary theory, we're instead engaged in a series of corrections to your misconceptions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 12:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 11:14 AM Percy has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 191 of 295 (447645)
01-10-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
01-10-2008 12:47 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
You didn't answer my question. If fossilization is as frequent and easy as you made it out to be, how come we have not a single fossil of this extinct creature that used to number in the millions and billions? Surely, this would be a sign that perhaps fossilization ain't that common to begin with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 12:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 10:55 AM Taz has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 192 of 295 (447653)
01-10-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Taz
01-10-2008 10:27 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Taz,
Surely, this would be a sign that perhaps fossilization ain't that common to begin with?
You did notice the dates that this bird went extinct did you not.
It was about 117 years ago.
I admit I don't know much about fossils but I would think that would be a little bit short on time for something to turn to rock. But maybe I am wrong. If I am could someone explain it to me.
Taz could you supply the group or groups that have been searching for these fossils.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Taz, posted 01-10-2008 10:27 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 11:26 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 195 by Taz, posted 01-10-2008 11:32 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 193 of 295 (447657)
01-10-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
01-10-2008 7:15 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Thanks Percy,
For the umpteenth gazillionth time, what you think evolution is isn't being taught, except by creationists at their websites and in their books and lectures. New species do not begin with a single pair. Species evolve as populations. For sexual species, the genetic diversity of a single pair is likely far too low for the species to be viable, inbreeding being only one of the problems.
Let me try to understand this.
I have always thought there was one single cell life form that appeared out of the absence of anything.
Are you now telling me that there were gazillions, billions, millions, or hundreds of thousands of them that came into existence at the same time.
And are you telling me the same thing about all the different creatures on our planet. If so:
Before this revelation I thought there ought to be a lot more fossils than there are. But with millions more of each creature that tells me there should be mountains of fossils.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 7:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 11:36 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 197 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 12:15 PM ICANT has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 194 of 295 (447659)
01-10-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by ICANT
01-10-2008 10:55 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
You did notice the dates that this bird went extinct did you not.
It was about 117 years ago.
I admit I don't know much about fossils but I would think that would be a little bit short on time for something to turn to rock. But maybe I am wrong. If I am could someone explain it to me.
You're not thinking this through, not even a little. Once again your resistance to evolution is leading your thinking down irrational pathways. You haven't bothered acknowledging any of the explanations of your many errors in this thread, so I'm not even going to bother explaining the problems with yet another one.
When evolution is shown wrong it will be by people who understand what it actually says, and most certainly by people who can say things that are actually true and draw conclusions that actually make sense. Criticizing evolution for things it doesn't say with logic that makes no sense and evidence that isn't true is a pointless exercise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 10:55 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 195 of 295 (447662)
01-10-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by ICANT
01-10-2008 10:55 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:
You did notice the dates that this bird went extinct did you not.
It was about 117 years ago.
I don't know much about fossils, since I'm not a fossil-ologist (pardon the bad grammar ). Are you saying that it takes longer than 100 years for an animal to be fossilized? If this is the case, how do you explain the fossils we've found that show degradable parts of the animal?
I admit I don't know much about fossils but I would think that would be a little bit short on time for something to turn to rock. But maybe I am wrong. If I am could someone explain it to me.
You're also missing a very important part. The passenger pigeon was around for a lot longer before colonization of the Americas. If there were millions to billions of them and if fossils should be that common, you'd think that there was enough time and chances for them to be fossilized.
You sound like an animal absolutely has to go extinct in order for it to be fossilized. Is this what you are saying?
Taz could you supply the group or groups that have been searching for these fossils.
I don't have any reference for you. Are you saying there are fossils of the passenger pigeon and that we haven't found any because we haven't been looking?
Perhaps you'd like to suggest to your fellow creationists who are working in the field to start searching for passenger pigeon fossils to prove that fossilization does indeed happen more easily and more often?
But if you have to ignore questions, don't ignore this one. Are you suggesting that an animal has to go extinct in order for it to be fossilized? You really sounded like the passenger pigeon just came into being 117 years ago and then went extinct in a year so fossilization could only happen from 117 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 10:55 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024