Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 241 of 385 (564271)
06-09-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by killinghurts
06-06-2010 11:10 PM


quote:
Hi Bob, thanks for having the courage to reply, seems the other creationists don't want to have a bar of defining kind.
Glad to have this discussion! Courage is not required - I have nothing to fear. Either my beliefs are correct or they are in error and need to be corrected.
quote:
You seem like an educated person, so you must have heard of the Urey-Miller experiment. Can you explain how this experiment failed to provide even the slightest evidence for abiogenesis?
Or to put it more bluntly (and I'm not trying to be nasty here), If you conclude that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why is it that when scientists recreate an environment predicted by science that would closely support abiogenesis, that a black tea pot isn't created instead of amino acids (the very molecule that is critical for life as we know it)?
If anything the Miller-Uray experiment demonstrates the absurdity of abiogenesis. Miller-Uray and subsequent ilk have at best been able to produce a few amino acids and other compounds that contribute to the formation of more advanced organic molecules. The most successful of experiments to model abiogenesis (unless there is one I am unaware of) was able to produce only one of the four nucleotides required for DNA formation.
Keep in mind too that these experiments are conducted using highly artificial environments supposedly based upon the atmospheric composition of the earth several billion years ago. However, this supposed mixture has been revised and revised in an effort to get better results from origin of life experiments.
Here's some of the steps that still must be overcome before abiogenesis is evidenced:
1. All four nucleotides must be produced at the same time
2. nucleotides must be organized into a coherent DNA or RNA molecule
3. A genetic code must be established - one that not only codes proteins but also provides serves the many other functions of the current genetic code in parallel
4. The complex mechanism for unzipping and replicating DNA must be duplicated.
5. A simple cellular body must be devised to contain the genome
6. animo acids need some mechanism to be stitched together to form functional proteins
7. Only left handed optical isomers must be created
Once you get to that point, then you have to figure out how to generate the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell - for which there is no clear evolutionary pathway - and that's just the first of many hurdles to cross once you've got a live cell on your hands.
Taken from another perspective - do we see any evidence of complex intelligent (or even semi-intelligent) organization in nature apart from living organisms? Surely if such organization were possible from a pool of goo then we would see other evidence of inorganic materials forming semi-intelligent organized systems?
quote:
Do you think advancements in astronomy would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of astrology?
Do you think advancements in medicine would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of ancient demon possession?
Severly retarded? No. Potentially crippled? Yes. Obviously there are a lot of unevidenced hypotheses out there - and there is certainly no point in wasting time on most such theories. I understand why atheistic darwinists would have every reason to ignore the supernatural as a possible theory - why look for something that you don't believe exists if there is no observable evidence for it? However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by killinghurts, posted 06-06-2010 11:10 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2010 12:29 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2010 12:30 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 244 by Peepul, posted 06-09-2010 12:32 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 06-09-2010 1:56 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 248 by misha, posted 06-09-2010 3:23 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 242 of 385 (564275)
06-09-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


If anything the Miller-Uray experiment demonstrates the absurdity of abiogenesis ... (snip) ... inorganic materials forming semi-intelligent organized systems?
This is off topic here, but I'd like to discuss it in another thread if you'd care to propose the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 243 of 385 (564276)
06-09-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?
Well, you usually do. The question of why you do so is up to your conscience. But of course you do.
If you lose your spectacles, then you pursue your search for them as though the idea that God sent a flotilla of angels to bear them up to heaven was completely ridiculous and could be ignored. You keep on searching for your spectacles as though there was a naturalistic explanation, and as though the explanation involving God and his angels could just be ignored.
When you understand why you behave in this way, then you will also understand why biologists ignore the "goddit by magic" hypothesis.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 244 of 385 (564277)
06-09-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


quote:
Glad to have this discussion! Courage is not required - I have nothing to fear. Either my beliefs are correct or they are in error and need to be corrected.
Great attitude!
Have a look at some of the work of Szostak and Paegel - they have gone beyond Miller / Urey.
Szostak Lab: Home#
Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:38 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 245 of 385 (564287)
06-09-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:35 PM


But that is exactly what has happened. Mainstream atheistic scientists have ruled out an intelligent supernatural Creator as "unevidenced" and yet advanced abiogenesis through chemical evolution - a hypothesis with striking evidence against it. The only logical explanation for such behavior is a bias toward their atheistic darwinistic 'religious' dogma.
Since we know so little about how life could arise from non-living matter how could it be falsified? Right now, abiogenesis is in the discovery mode. They are trying to find the most plausible scenario, be it DNA first, RNA first, Protein first, or completely different chemistry such as PNA. It reminds me of what Lord Kelvin said in 1895, "Heavier than air flying craft are impossible".
And you are right. Scientists are biased. They are biased towards concepts that are evidenced and testable. How is that a bad thing? Also, how do you explain the fact that about 30% of biologists who accept evolution are also theists, not atheists. Are you saying that tens of thousands of christians are involved in a conspiracy to quash any scientific work related to a supernatural designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:35 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:48 AM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 246 of 385 (564288)
06-09-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


Hi Bob!
As noted, Milley/Urey is probably off-topic in this thread, but I would like to comment on one thing:
BobTHJ writes:
I understand why atheistic darwinists...
Most people who accept mainstream theories in science like evolution are not atheists. Myself, for example.
Dr Adequate framed the issue pretty well. For most things you're pretty much like the rest of us in that you know the supernatural isn't involved. The key question is why you think the supernatural is involved in anything. Is it evidence driving you or something else?
To sum up, you're talking to both atheists and non-atheists, and we're all wondering about your evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 247 of 385 (564290)
06-09-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:35 PM


But that is exactly what has happened. Mainstream atheistic scientists have ruled out an intelligent supernatural Creator as "unevidenced" and yet advanced abiogenesis through chemical evolution - a hypothesis with striking evidence against it. The only logical explanation for such behavior is a bias toward their atheistic darwinistic 'religious' dogma.
While Creationist lie-sites like to portray Evolution as an atheist conspiracy, in fact most of the scientists who initially formulated the theory, and before that the many other scientists who abandoned special creation as an explanation, were not not atheists. They were just scientists who follow the evidence.
Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure. Naturalistic (not atheistic, naturalistic) science has done a rather better job of explaining and understanding the world around us.
This is not atheism vs. religion; it's science vs. religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:35 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4627 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 248 of 385 (564293)
06-09-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


BobTHJ writes:
However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?
I see it pretty simply.
I am also a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial SPIRITUAL evidence of His existence. THEREFORE: I have no reason to ignore a SPIRITUAL hypothesis that assumed His intervention.
HOWEVER: I have yet to experience scientific evidence of His existence. THEREFORE: I have reason to ignore a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis that assumed His intervention.
God, being spiritual (supernatural), must act in spiritual (supernatural) ways. If it is possible that these spiritual (supernatural) acts intersect with the natural world via miracles then they would not leave scientific evidence. If a miracle were to leave scientific evidence of how it occured it wouldn't be a miracle. When it comes to speciation and common descent we have scientific evidence, therefore I accept a scientific cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 06-09-2010 3:47 PM misha has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 385 (564295)
06-09-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by misha
06-09-2010 3:23 PM


Evidence of Miracles
misha writes:
If it is possible that these spiritual (supernatural) acts intersect with the natural world via miracles then they would not leave scientific evidence.
What if an intelligent supernatural creator (Bob's term) placed the genes for hair inside a reptile (not one of the familiar examples, I know, but I'm trying to stay on-topic and keep the focus on kinds). Wouldn't this be a scientifically observable miracle? Wouldn't any miracle that "intersects with the natural world" leave evidence behind that could be scientifically examined?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by misha, posted 06-09-2010 3:23 PM misha has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 250 of 385 (564300)
06-09-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Granny Magda
06-07-2010 7:17 AM


quote:
What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.
Of course not...many young-earth creationists consider this a broad falsification test for the YEC model. A God of truth would not create a young-world that was deliberately deceptive to look like an old-world. Either the data matches a young-earth, or the YEC model is wrong. I don't think you'll get much argument from creationists on this point.
quote:
A desire for order alone is not enough to explain the pattern of nested hierarchy. After all, any kind of order could have been imposed. Organisms could show similarity based only on size, habitat or location.
Agree.
quote:
In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.
Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.
quote:
Yes, you have indeed linked to Dr Wile many times before. Despite the fact that he is an ignoramus. Wile's claim that there are "NO FEATHER IMPRESSIONS preserved" is flat wrong for example. He is either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or he has chosen to ignore it.
If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.
quote:
It also seems odd that you should use the opinions of evolutionist researchers to bolster your claims. Feduccia and Ruben are not creationists. They believe that dinosaurs evolved, albeit from different reptile ancestors to those favoured by most researchers. Do you believe that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, why cite Feduccia or Ruben? If your only intent was to show that there are minority opinions in biology, you are making a non-point; there are always minority opinions in science, that's how science works.
My point was to demonstrate that like many factors of darwinian evolution there not only are minority opinions, but the majority opinion frequently shifts in an effort to force the theory to fit new data. To some extent, this isn't a problem (and is indeed good science), but at a certain point the theory is stretched to fit so many failed predictions that its validity as a whole comes into question. Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.
quote:
It's a problem because one could use that argument to justify anything. Feathered mammals? That's because God wanted it that way. No feathered mammals? That's because God didn't want them. Literally anything could be justified using this kind of post hoc excuse. An answer that can be equally applied to everything is no kind of answer at all.
Yes and no. A simple answer like that - if not testable and falsifiable can still be valid - but certainly doesn't help much. However, there are some tests that we can use. Since the YEC model is based upon the Bible, and the Bible reveals to us the character and attributes of God, we know that God would not design that which does not within His character. The Bible also provides other constraints which can be formed into tests - such as the size of Noah's Ark, descriptions of animals, etc.
quote:
As has been pointed out many times already, the Theory of Evolution isn't supposed to tell us how life arose. It would be equally true whatever the actual origins of life. Further, I see no problem with assuming that life began somehow. We know this. Life exists after all, it must have begun somehow, at some point. All that remains to be seen is how life arose, a question that would be better settled by sober analysis of the evidence, not by asserting supernatural causes.
And as I pointed out many times darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life. Life must exist in order for common-ancestry evolution to run its course - so some origin of life must be assumed. They may be distinct concepts but attempting to separate them leads me to suspect you're trying to sweep the nasty problem of abiogenesis under the rug.
quote:
But even if these events had a supernatural cause, they would still have left detectable evidence for their occurrence. Just because the cause is supernatural, doesn't mean that it would not leave evidence of the actual event itself. The flood for instance would have left vast swathes of evidence of its passing. The Babel event would be detectable in the archaeological record. Neither can be found.
The geological record supports the concept of a global flood rather well (sediment layers laid down rapidly during a catastrophic event instead of over long periods of time) - I have seen considerable research from creationists on this issue. If you disagree perhaps you'd like to show me evidence to the contrary?
quote:
If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
Your first sentence here summarizes rather well the point I've been trying to make regarding the inherent flaw in naturalistic science.
quote:
You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what.
I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed (and I hope by now I have demonstrated a willingness to review any data - within the limits of my time). As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic - but if you wish to start another topic for it I'd happily participate as my time allows.
Common descent applies within baramins - so DNA evidence should aid in placing a creature within a baramin as all creatures within the same baramin would share a common ancestor. It's nowhere near as arbitrary and vague as you make it out to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 06-07-2010 7:17 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 06-09-2010 5:03 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 254 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2010 8:08 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 06-09-2010 9:38 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 251 of 385 (564301)
06-09-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 4:48 PM


BobTHJ writes:
quote:
In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.
Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.
And what would that evidence be?
If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.
You haven't presented any evidence supporting anything Wile says, primarily because Wile himself presents no evidence. If you'd like to present some evidence for kinds or baraminology we'd be more than willing to examine it.
quote:
You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what.
I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed...
And what would that evidence be?
As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic...
If human/chimp shared ancestry has any bearing on kinds or baraminology then it would be very precisely on-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 252 of 385 (564304)
06-09-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Peepul
06-07-2010 8:26 AM


quote:
assuming that there are no intermediate steps between raw chemicals in solution and something extremely complex, such as a cell.
As I pointed out in a previous post there are MANY intermediate steps that must be overcome. I don't think anyone suggests that if abiogenesis were true that a cell suddenly "poofed" into existence from non-organized inorganic material. However, the sheer number and complexity of these intermediate steps makes abiogenesis all the more unlikely.
quote:
assuming that there is only one way to get life - the way we happen to have it
Yes, life could exist in other forms - precursors to life as we know it today. I'm familiar with the RNA World theory. The big problem here is that its an unevidenced assumption - we don't see life existing in these other forms (at least not any forms that would demonstrate a clear evolutionary pathway to DNA-based life). As everyone here has tried to tell me over and over again, I thought 'real scientists' didn't bother with unevidenced assumptions?
quote:
If you make these assumptions you can indeed get astrononical numbers, but scientists don't do that. Creationists do.
Creationists do not make the first assumption (at least any creationist willing to seriously examine the issue) - and as I've demonstrated darwinists make the inverse of the second assumption despite having any supporting evidence.
quote:
But even if there were no experimental evidence, a supernatural assumption is not reasonable. This is because not a single phenomenon that has been understood proves to have a supernatural explanation. The track record of naturalistic explanations is superb. The track record for the supernatural is non-existent. The supernatural has been removed from many domains by science.
Agree with your last sentence - but as I've pointed out several times now it is to the detriment of science. It makes sense for many things to have a naturalistic explanation - Put yourself in my shoes for a moment: God is a God of order - if He created the fundamental scientific laws that govern our universe it would make sense for him to allow them to take their course. This however does not mean that God has not supernaturally intervened in His creation - and if he has (for example, by originating life) then naturalistic science will never be able to determine that.
Perhaps the track record of naturalistic science is seen as being so superb because it has been successful at finding many of the naturalistic phenomena in our universe. No one doubts however that there are many phenomena we do not yet understand - and as of yet naturalistic science has failed to reveal them. It is quite possible for some subset of these phenomena to be supernatural - and if so naturalistic science will forever be blinded to them.
Edited by BobTHJ, : omitted a "the"
Edited by BobTHJ, : A few other spelling and grammar mistakes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Peepul, posted 06-07-2010 8:26 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 06-09-2010 6:50 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 385 (564311)
06-09-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 5:50 PM


Please Focus on the Topic
How many consecutive off-topic posts are you planning to make? Can I get an estimate?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 5:50 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 254 of 385 (564318)
06-09-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 4:48 PM


Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
HI Bob. I an see that you're snowed under, so please feel free to take as long as you like replying.
Granny writes:
What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.
BobTHJ writes:
Of course not...many young-earth creationists consider this a broad falsification test for the YEC model.
Consider YEC falsified then.
Evolution is the central principle behind almost all modern biology. Do you really think that biologists are so stupid and incompetent that they have based an entire century of work around something that doesn't even look true?
The overwhelming majority of biologists agree that life looks evolved. The overwhelming majority of geologists agree that the Earth looks old. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that life does indeed look evolved and that the Earth looks old.
A God of truth would not create a young-world that was deliberately deceptive to look like an old-world. Either the data matches a young-earth, or the YEC model is wrong. I don't think you'll get much argument from creationists on this point.
I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken here. There are some YECs who do engage in this kind of argument; it's called Omphalism. Ever heard the argument that God created starlight "in transit", with the appearance of having travelled for millions of years? That's a form of omphalism. I agree with you that suggesting a deceitful God is not desirable, but I really don't see what other option you have.
Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.
Do feel free to share.
If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.
A number of dinosaur species have been identified as feathered. One example is Sinornithosaurus.
Now those certainly look like feathers. Here is a link to the same image in a higher magnification.
Wikimedia Error
An interesting feature of these feathers is that they share a characteristic with bird feathers; they have been shown to contain the remains of melanosomes - colour-producing organelles. Here is an extract from a very readable article on the subject.
quote:
Under the extreme magnification of an electron microscope, Zhang looked at the filaments of the dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus, as well as the true feathers of the early bird Confuciusornis. The microscopes revealed a number of small structures all less than a micrometre long. In shape and size, they are identical to the melanosomes of modern birds. There include two broad categories. The phaemelanosomes are almost spherical in shape and produce phaeomelanin, a reddish-brown or yellow pigment, while the eumelanosomes are more rod-like and produce black-grey eumelanin.
Note that these melanosomes were found both in the sophisticated feathers of Confuciusornis and in the downy feathers of Sinornithosaurus, providing strong evidence that these "dino-fuzz" structures really are true feathers. Here is a link to the original abstract;
Fossilized melanosomes and the colour of Cretaceous dinosaurs and birds | Nature
Please bear in mind that this is just a small sample of the evidence for non-avian dinosaur feathers.
My point was to demonstrate that like many factors of darwinian evolution there not only are minority opinions, but the majority opinion frequently shifts in an effort to force the theory to fit new data. To some extent, this isn't a problem (and is indeed good science), but at a certain point the theory is stretched to fit so many failed predictions that its validity as a whole comes into question. Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.
I'm not going to read your link. I'm not going to argue bare links. Please make your arguments in your own words, or how am I to know that you truly understand what you are linking to?
Suffice to say that your claim about the ToE being "stretched" is a fantasy. Every single time a new species is found, it fits into the nested hierarchy of evolution. Every single new fossil fits into that pattern. Every new genome described provides an opportunity to falsify evolution; it never happens. Instead, the ToE has seen its most important predictions verified. Darwin predicted a hereditary mechanism that allowed for descent with modification. If evolution were not true, there would be no reason for such a mechanism to exist. The discovery of genetics was an enormous vindication of Darwin's theory.
It's also worth mentioning that Darwin lived an awfully long time ago. Modern biology has come a long way since then. For all that Darwin may have got some things wrong, he got much more absolutely right.
Since the YEC model is based upon the Bible, and the Bible reveals to us the character and attributes of God, we know that God would not design that which does not within His character. The Bible also provides other constraints which can be formed into tests - such as the size of Noah's Ark, descriptions of animals, etc.
So you get your evidence from the Bible? Very scientific.
Still, let's try to apply this to our example. You were asked why God didn't create feathered mammals. What Biblical evidence can you cite to explain God's reasons? What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?
And as I pointed out many times darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life.
And no matter how many times you say it, it will remain nonsense.
Evolution is not wedded to naturalistic abiogenesis. Any number of modes of origin could be compatible with evolution.
God could have created life... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Aliens could have seeded life upon the ancient Earth... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Life could have arisen through unguided naturalistic chemical processes... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
The fact that many Christian theistic evolutionists believe that God used supernatural means to create the very first life - which subsequently evolved and diversified - supports this.
I think that what you're getting at is more that evolutionists tend to be "wedded" to the idea that all life shares a common origin. This is pretty much true, but then, the genetic evidence for this is overwhelming.
The geological record supports the concept of a global flood rather well (sediment layers laid down rapidly during a catastrophic event instead of over long periods of time) - I have seen considerable research from creationists on this issue. If you disagree perhaps you'd like to show me evidence to the contrary?
Can you think of a physical mechanism which would sort ammonites into discrete strata based on species? It would have to be a process that would also sort them into a nested hierarchy that exactly resembled evolution. Also, it would need to ensure that rocks of the exact same age, but on the other side of the world, contained the same species in the same environment. Then it would have to do the same with every other creature in the same stratum. It would need to exclude any species that would appear anachronistic (Precambrian rabbits) and any sediment that would lead to an anachronistic radiocarbon date.
Can you think of a mechanism that could do that? In a flood?
I can think of a mechanism, but it doesn't involve a flood. It involves evolution and hundreds of millions of years.
Granny writes:
If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
BobTHJ writes:
Your first sentence here summarizes rather well the point I've been trying to make regarding the inherent flaw in naturalistic science.
Well if you want to consider it this a flaw, I suppose I agree insofar as it goes. However, given that the track record of scientific achievement since methodological naturalism became the norm, it is a flaw I am willing to suffer quite gladly. It seems a small price to pay for things like vaccines, sanitation, antibiotics...
I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed (and I hope by now I have demonstrated a willingness to review any data - within the limits of my time). As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic - but if you wish to start another topic for it I'd happily participate as my time allows.
I'm not sure it is off-topic. If baramins are truly useful measures, you should be able to give us some indication of exactly how the "human baramin" and the "chimp baramin" differ, a measure that we can then apply to other ape species (including human ancestors).
Common descent applies within baramins - so DNA evidence should aid in placing a creature within a baramin as all creatures within the same baramin would share a common ancestor.
I agree, but unfortunately for you, the human and chimp genomes are extremely similar. Our DNA is far more similar to a bonobo than any other animal, so why isn't it in the same baramin? Your only answer is to defer to the alleged authority of the Bible, which rather marks this as an exercise in religious apologetics rather than open scientific enquiry.
It's nowhere near as arbitrary and vague as you make it out to be.
No? Then why does this baramin enthusiast group moles together with (of all things!) marsupial moles, but still insist that dormice are different enough to mice that they deserve a baramin of their own? If moles and marsupial moles are of the same kind, why not humans and apes?
Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Forgot link.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 2:57 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 385 (564329)
06-09-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 4:48 PM


BobTHJ writes:
Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.
Gee, what do you know, another rule 5 violation of the Forum Guidelines. You do realize, I hope, that your link is completely refuted by this link. Of course I guess you'll just respond with this other link, and then I'll have to respond with yet another link, and we'll just keep firing the links back and forth and oh what a great discussion we'll have!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM BobTHJ 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