I'm sure you meant geographic separation, rather than geologic separation.
How embarrassing . I didn't even notice that I did that. I think I'm generally a bit more literate than that.
I did read the origin too but forgot that
Well, there's this one example that he used that I was hesitant to mention, but it made the point unforgettable to me. You know, the one about "If a European were to join a tribe in Africa, he would obviously quickly become chief because of his superior traits, but as the generations went by, his superior traits would be lost as he interbred with the natives."
Hard to forget he said that. Sigh, we've come a long way since the 1850's...
Hello. As a Christian philosopher, I try to clear up any misconceptions. I have attended a seminar concerning the ages of rocks and rock layers, and its incoherency with the theory of evolution is of great magnitude. Fossil records show that there are indeed layers upon layers of rocks, but these layers are falsely dated by carbon-14. Carbon-14 has been used to date recent objects such as potato chips, and have found them to be some 1,000 years old. Coincidence? I think not. Furthermore, if the earth were even 250,000 years old, the moon would be embedded in the earth's crust. And for all those who believe in the Big Bang theory...Draw a picture of nothing, and then draw it EXPLODING. Some theory.
We do try to stay on topic here, so please keep your replies to this thread focused on macro-evolution. We have another forum full of threads on Dates and Dating and yet another focusing more on The Big Bang and Cosmology.
Find one of our many forums and either pick a thread or start a new one. If you do start a new thead in an appropriate forum, please give it a descriptive title.
You brought up that you or I have never seen an irreducibly complex organism created, but also i have never seen anything macro-evolve either
the ironic part is that "irreducable complexity" is an end result actually predicted by evolutionary theory. evolutionary algorithms in computer systems routinely create irreducibly complex systems.
this may be a hard concept to fathom, but here's a good example. we'll use teh old mousetrap example. supposing that mechanics functioned by reproduction and genetics, here's how the old irreducably complex moustrap might have evolved: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Mousetraps.html
also, ic is an argument from ignorance. it's saying "i don't see how that could have evolved, therefore it must not have" which is a blatant logical fallacy. also, to assume that all knowledge is had by humans and they are always correct is to put humans in the place of god, which to a believer it blasphemy.
second, "macroevolution" is a creationist term. species and deliniations of animals are human classifications. changes in phyla and taxa are not essentially the same as speciation in that one thing "macroevolves" to another. it is the product of many, many results of speciation.
edit, also, to newguy even though it's off topic: rocks aren't dated with carbon 14.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-22-2004 02:28 AM
A great example of a geologically recent dramatic macroevolutionary event is the radiation of the Hawaiian silverswords into tree, bush, etc. forms, all from an unimpressive-looking herbaceous California tarweed. Start here:
You brought up that you or I have never seen an irreducibly complex organism created, but also i have never seen anything macro-evolve either, could you please direct me to were i can read up and find out what macro-evolutionary events I am missing out on.
Talkorigins also has another FAQ with more instances.
While macroevolution often takes a long time, it sometimes occurs quite quickly. Polyploidy is a fast evolutionary mechanism that accounts for most of the instances of observed macroevolution of which I'm aware (obligate endosymbiosis accounts for some as well). Polyploidy is the wholesale multiplication of sets of chromosomes. For example, the offspring polyploid might have 24 chromosomes from a parent specie with 12 chromosomes - or it might be the result of hybridization of two parent species, with the resulting polyploid having full (or nearly so) sets of chromosomes from both parent species.
Polyploidy results in macroevolution from one generation to the next, so we don't have to wait around for eons to see the results. Many common food plants are polyploids (e.g. bananas, wheat, potatoes). Polyploidy has also resulted in the observed macroevolution of modern species. Polyploidy is more common in plants, but it does occur in animals as well. To my knowledge, there is only one known polyploid mammal, the Red Viscach Rat - it has nearly twice the contingient of chromosomes of its close relatives - the exception is the sex chromosomes, which are not duplicates. Note that doubling of the sex chromosomes would have led to an evolutionary dead end through Natural Selection, which is probably one of the reasons polyploidy is so rare in mammals (and other organisms with similar sex chromosomes).
[revised to use little blue box quotation - thanks for the UBB pointers in Style Guides for EvC, Sylas!]
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-30-2004 11:00 AM
Your post shows that you know absolutely nothing on the subjects you talk about. Therefore, being the guy that I am, I shall correct you on each point.
C-14 dating is not used on rocks, as, amazingly, rocks are inorganic and therefore contian no carbon to date. (Contaminants aside.) As for the potato chips comment, C-14 can't date anything that young without giving a false reading.
As for the moon arguement, it's pure crap. The rate at which the moon is reciding is so small that it is almost undetectable. Also, the rate at which it is receding is not linear, it's exponential.
As for your comment of the Big Bang, you obviously have no clue as to what you're talking about. One, the Big Bang was not "nothing", it was singularity. Two, it was not an explosion. It is the expansion of space-time.
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website
Well, the statement made concerning the dating of recently-produced objects, such as chips, was of a general nature, and is meant for things that are most commonly dated, such as rock layers. The earth is not as old as you think. The earth's magnetic field is weakening, and if the earth was billions of years old, there would be no magnetic field. The earth was a product of design, not spontaneous combustion. Where in hell did this "singularity" come from? If the Big Bang did occur, what caused it? How did the gases get there to spread out over the universe? Where can we see "macro-evolution" occurring? Don't even try to discredit my information because I say I'm a philosopher. Well, do you believe there's a God?
P.S. A fossilized object is said to have been petrified, and fossils are dated with carbon-14. The common rock is dated with such methods as strontium-rubidium, etc.
This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 06:12 PM
That statement was not for you...and what makes you say that I'm wrong? Are you right? It is along the lines of macro-evolution, but the other statements were logical information used to make a POINT, like most other people did on here. Unfortunately, there are those people who like to put out boolsheet to annoy the hell out of people. So...that's all.
God is outside of space and time, so he wasn't CREATED. He's there, and always was there. We have yet to comprehend infinity. (That's why everyone doesn't know where we go when we die.) That's why we humans use time to record our activity on Earth. While God may interact with nature, he doesn't have a place in nature. God is the source of all concepts, such as goodness. How could we have a standard or a concept without a source? He IS everything that exists, including the concept of existence. God isn't some religious boolsheet that someone decided to come up with. Peace
DISCLAIMER: All posts hereafter are responses to other posts.
This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 06:38 PM