I've run into old-Earth-young-life creationists before.
That would be an internally consistent viewpoint, absent other data.
I find it interesting that one can accept the age of the earth, and life itself, to be on the order of billions of years and yet human life to be ten thousand years or less when there is no independent evidence other than religious myth supporting the latter.
In other words, Dredge accepts the radiometric evidence for billions of years, but then insists on the validity of biblical genealogy for the age of the human species. This is my understanding taken from Dredge's posts on this thread. Perhaps I have missed something.
As a scientifically trained person, I just find that to be a curious and questionable way of thinking.
And this does not contradict the fact that I believe he is trolling us with the alien engineering business. It is not clear to me what he really believes.
Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well!
They absolutely were.
quote:Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
quote: The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not commonâ€”and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. . .
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil recordâ€”geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)â€”reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. --Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff -
You haven't shown that the fossil record is incomplete since you haven't dug up every fossil there is. The only thing that you can show to be incomplete is the search for fossils.
A great deal of knowledge is sought after without a desire for "practical use". Much of that knowledge is later found to be of enormous "practical" use, of course. I'm sure we could all look up examples.
If everybody took the attitude that "practical" is the only measure of the need for knowledge, by now we'd have the most refined stone axes, but nobody would have discovered metals.
This video (YouTube) is from the American Museum of Natural History. Without an understanding of a UCA and the genetic bush that sprang from it, this stuff would be meaningless.
I watched this video and I can't see why the theory of common descent (UCA) is important to any of it. So please explain what you mean, as I fear you are in the grip of some sort of delusion that I can perhaps help you escape from.
from "Humans Are Not 98% Genetically Identical to Chimpanzees", lifesitenews.com:
"First, the 98% figure is probably overstated. An article in Science puts the actual figure at 94%. (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, June 29, 2007). But even these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic makeup - that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions. The vast majority of our DNA, known as "non-coding DNA" - sometimes called "junk DNA" because it was once thought not to have function - is very different in humans from most non-coding genes found in chimps and other apes. However, recent research has found that, contrary to previous belief, this repetitive DNA isnâ€™t "junk" after all, but has distinct purposes."
from "The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong", evolutionnews.org:
"You have probably heard that our DNA, the stuff that makes us human, is only 1% different from chimps. The claim that we are little more than apes is now part of the Zeitgeist of our culture, having been propagated in the popular press for nearly forty years. However, that statement and the conclusions drawn from it are false. Letâ€™s look at the first claim, that we are only 1% different from chimps. That measurement only compares base changes in human and chimp DNA. It doesnâ€™t include other kinds of changes to the DNA, like deletions and insertions or rearrangements. In addition, because of the sequencing methods used, repetitive DNA is not included. Now that complete or nearly complete genome sequences for humans and chimps are available, a better picture of our differences and similarities is emerging. A 2007 essay in the journal Science, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%," says this (the pdf is here ): Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of "humanness" versus "chimpness." To be specific, in addition to the 1% distinction already noted, entire genes are either duplicated or deleted between the two species, sometimes in long stretches called segmental duplications. Such duplications represent a 6.4% difference between chimps and humans. There are also insertions and deletions within genes, which affect the structure and function of the proteins they encode. That contributes another 3%, according to some estimates. And there are entirely new genes, specific to humans. There are also changes that affect the timing and amount of gene expression. These changes include the insertion of new regulatory sequences upstream of genes. For example, some 6% of our genome is unique Alu insertions, as they are called. And Alu sequences are known to affect gene expression. In addition, there are human-specific increases in DNA methylation that affect gene expression in the brain, and increased RNA modifications in the brain. These changes would not be detected by simply comparing DNA sequences. Yet they affect gene expression and interaction. Indeed, by one measure, 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans. Then there are DNA rearrangements. How genes are organized along chromosomes, and even the chromosomes structures themselves can be different. Our Y-chromosomes are strikingly different from those of chimps, for example. This was a surprise to researchers, given the relatively short time our species supposedly diverged from one another. Rearrangements are also not included in the 1% number, and are difficult to quantify. It should be apparent that we are only beginning to discover important differences between chimps and us, so our numbers are incomplete. In fact, there is no clear way even to count the changes. Beyond that, we do not even know yet how many or which of these differences are functionally important. Perhaps not all are. However, it would be a mistake (one that has been made before) to assert that none of them are functionally significant, as the Encode project demonstrated. From the same Science paper: Could researchers combine all of whatâ€™s known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I donâ€™t think thereâ€™s any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pï¿½ï¿½bo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "In the end, itâ€™s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences." [Emphasis added.]"
believes the earth to be something 'more than 10ky' in age, which would hardly qualify him as a legitimate old earther.
But we may never really know, considering the cryptic and sometimes contradictory nature of his posts.
Poor edge; so easily confused - but God bless you for doing your best.
I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began billions of years ago as bacteria. Over time, more complex life-forms appeared - giving an overall appearance of "evolution". I don't believe this " evolution" is the result of a natural process of biological evolution, but the result of miracles performed by a divine Creator. Then man was created instantaneuosly from dirt about 7,000-10,000 years ago. This is my belief ... as opposed to my "aliens" theory, which is my scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (you understand of course that a belief and a scientific explanation can be mutually exclusive).
Poor edge; so easily confused - but God bless you for doing your best.
True enough. I am often confused by people who blow trivialities out of proportion with inconsistencies and fanciful tales.
I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began billions of years ago as bacteria.
So, you accept the scientific evidence for old ages and a sequence of life forms over time.
Then man was created instantaneuosly from dirt about 7,000-10,000 years ago.
And here, you reject the scientific evidence for older ages and the evidence for the progression of human ancestors.
This is my belief ... as opposed to my "aliens" theory, which is my scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (you understand of course that a belief and a scientific explanation can be mutually exclusive).
If it is a 'scientific explanation', please inform us of your evidence for such alien intervention, particularly such data that eliminate the possibility of biological evolution.
I submit that your 'aliens theory' is not a scientific theory but is still just a belief.
In fact, I would say that it is a 'belief' that you do not really believe.
Over time, more complex life-forms appeared - giving an overall appearance of "evolution". I don't believe this " evolution" is the result of a natural process of biological evolution, but the result of miracles performed by a divine Creator.
Okay, at last, this is your actual belief. Why did you not just say this from the beginning.
Why all the smokescreen about aliens? Are you admitting to trollism?
Maybe I'm wrong but I think Dredge is satirizing science with his "aliens" stuff. That's how I've been reading it anyway. If I'm wrong, or if it's just that the satire isn't getting through, the discussion gets too confused to follow since his opponents think he's talking about a view of his own, which he's not. But it certainly does get confusing. Since he thinks llfe started billions of years ago I disagree with him about some pretty basic stuff anyway. I suppose this is probably his way of accepting the Catholic nonsense about evolution, but all that is too bizarre for me to follow anyway.
Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
I will ask again, which novel phyla are you talking about?
What organism from the Ediacaran biota is the evolutionary ancestor of trilobites?
"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobites group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (eg, early arthropods) do not seem to exist" - Wikipedia, "Trilobite".
Your evidence of Darwinian evolution leading to the Cambrian explosion does a very good impression of spontaneous generation ... which is hardly surprising - both concepts are products of nineteenth-century superstition.