Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

No, this is not correct. There is only microevolution.If you set out to walk to the opposite coast you do it through a series of single steps.Evolution of, for example, the primates operates through a series of small steps that over time add up to a large step. Looking back on the process we can say that a species change has taken place between points x and y, and can call that macroevolution, but it was really just a series of small microevolutions that added up over time.Information changes at each small step, sometimes added, sometimes subtracted, but always changed.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your responses are completely off the wall.I'm no longer going to bother trying to explain things to you. It seems to be a complete waste of my time.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The problem is that creationists are talking nonsense. St. Augustine warned about this very thing, but creationists have ignored that too:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

​

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Some things such as laughter might have a cultural component as well.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It sounds like you believe in the myth of "the fall," where there can't be any improvement in the genome--only degredation due to "sin."Sorry, but that is not reflected in real world evidence.The idea that humans are born sinful or wicked is itself about the most evil idea that has ever come from the fevered minds of shamans in all of human history.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How many micros does it take for a macro?Seriously!Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.There is no magic line that must be/cannot be crossed. Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one. But over time those little changes can add up. When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.The lines drawn between these "species" are arbitrary, as again, each generation is almost exactly the same as the previous. But when you look at long temporal spans you see significant changes.Those little changes are micros, and lots of them add up to macros.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Absolute non sequitur. Your answer doesn't address the question in any way.A micro is change, not an addition or loss (although an addition or loss may cause that change). Each micro takes the individual farther from the original. It's like the old "telephone" game where one person gives a message to the next, and so on down the line. Eventually the message hardly resembles the original. That's what we are talking about here! Change. Eventually the population hardly resembles the original population. When those changes are significant, they can be called a macro although there was never a macro change all at once. The macro is only seen when looking at long time periods and in retrospect. Nonsense! The macro is just a measure of change from the original population. In terms of human evolution it is not something that occurs from one generation to the next. Glad to hear it, but that's a non sequitur again. And belief has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence. As is shown on these threads daily, when it comes to creationists, belief gets in the way of learning (as Heinlein noted). No, all information does not need an ultimate source; each individual gets his "information" from his parents. That's all the source we need to understand evolution, because we are tracking change over time, not origins.And you ignored the point I made, in which I explained micros and macros. You seem to want some miraculous change, all at once or something, giving instant "new functional genetic information." Sorry, this comes in the form of a lot of micros, not as an instant macro. Whatever.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think the 10% figure is a myth.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not so. In my own archaeological research I tested a site recently that was dominated by a component we dated at about 5,600 years ago.From that component I was able to recover a lot of archaeological data, but also pollen, macrofloral remains, protein remains from various stone tools and the soil, a large number of bones (mammal, bird, and fish), and shellfish, as well as human remains--all from a time before the purported flood. From that evidence we could tell a great deal about the environment at about 5,600 years ago. And we could tell a great deal about how the people who lived there were making their living.And, the mtDNA from one of the skeletons matched the mtDNA of individuals still living in the same area. That disproves the flood right there.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Radiocarbon dating, along with artifact typologies and stratigraphy. Also obsidian hydration, but that is nowhere near as accurate.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Most of the radiocarbon dates were from a component about 5,300-5,800 years ago, with a few stretching back past 7,000 years ago.Artifact typologies dated later components, confirming the stratigraphy (older toward the bottom, younger toward the top).Obsidian dating supported those age estimates.There was no evidence of a flood in the site deposit. So, based on this one site you either have to move the flood past 7,000 years or admit that it is a myth.(And there are a lot of sites around the world that are older--no global flood deposits there either.)If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Throwing rocks off the mountain will only get you a chevy.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You're right, I forgot this was a free for all thread! The site I tested was occupied for several thousand years, with more occupation at certain time periods and less at others.The dating included 31 radiocarbon samples taken from a variety of proveniences and materials. When there were questions, additional dates were done to clarify those questions.Your suggestion of dates conflicting makes no sense. People occupied that site for a long time, not just one season. Our dating was able to determine the duration of that occupation. The dating methods supplement each other. There was no evidence that any of the dating we did was inadequate.You might not like to see dates which disprove the global flood, but you can't just hand wave them away because you don't like them. You have to come up with evidence, and show how the dates, or the dating methods, are in error. Easy! Flood deposits have a particular characteristic. They can be readily identified. First, depending on the speed of the water you get sorting of cobbles, pebbles, etc. Slow moving water will deposit larger grains than standing water. After a large flood, when the water is carrying a load of materials, those will settle out in a predictable manner. Expect to see silt and clay deposits. The clay deposits can be pretty dense and compact.What we had in this site was normal soils laid down in a normal manner over thousands of years, augmented by what the occupants brought to the site--shell, bone, rocks, wood (charcoal and ash), plant materials (macrofloral remains and pollen), etc.Better stick to what you know something about. You're not doing too well at showing there was a global flood.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's pretty convenient, having the largest historical event of all time being free-floating in time. Then you can always say, "Well, you looked in the wrong place." This silly flood has been placed anywhere from 4,000 years ago to 550 million years ago and beyond.Sorry, that's the way myths work, not scientifically verifiable events.The date of about 4,350 years ago is the one selected by biblical scholars. If you don't like that date, come up with a better one. Without examples this doesn't make any sense. I am an archaeologist and I regularly deal with soils that are 4,350 years old. I find the lack of flood evidence telling. Don't you? This is in Free For All. The normal rules don't apply.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That is due to uplifting. It is a phenomenon that is well understood.The claim that these sea shells are related to a global flood has been refuted so often that it has been given a number: Claim CC364

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.