quote:
Originally posted by themediator:
3)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with. If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution. If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution. Even now, it disproves some of evolution. The truth is, there is no time that is perfect that doesn't disprove some portion of evolution. It all depends what you believe. Every evolutionist believes something a little different than another. Kinda like politics, people can be republican but one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.
There are several flaws in your arguement. I readily admit that that a 4.5 billion year age of the planet is an estimate. However, even with a 10% margin of error ( which is a huge error standard by scientific standards) the earth's age fall's within an age rang of 4 to 5 billion years. This "disparity" of time in no way invalidates evolution. True, evolution takes eons to diversify life, but nowhere does Darwin's TOE say " for evolution to occur, we need a 4.5 billion time frame or the theory is invailidated." There are competing views about some of the mechanics of how evolution occurs ( ie slowly over time, in rapid bursts of diversification,etc. None of these Theories ivalidate TOE, they merely try to find the best model to describe how TOE occurs over time.)
Secondly, estimates of the earth's age are not derived by biologists. The estimate is derived from geological and astropychsical disciplines of science. If you don't like the estimate, let's at least blame the right people for messing it up. ; )
Also, evolution never says anything about "life" creating itself. TOE actually depends on life begetting life ( and passing on their genetics) to new generations. If you are interested in various theories about the genesis of life, see the abiogenesis thread. Its creationsim that demands that life be "created".
And then we come to the word kind. In the context you use it in, it is wonderfully vague. Are we talking about species? Genus? Family? Please be more specific in your definition of kind. Additionaly , what do you think evolution is, other than the change of species over time. Your very own words "We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds" fits within the TOE. Your comment at the end, "but that is not evolution" seems to indicate to me that you don't really understand the basics of evolutionary theory, considering the first part of that statement lends support, not refutation, to TOE.
Also, the diversification of species takes large amounts of time, and as such, would not be visible to an observer within our lifespans, or even a few thousand years. However, fossil records and genetics both support TOE , and the diversification of species. Even in short periods of time, evolution can be seen ( ie thousands of years) . Mankind, through specific breeding programs ( ie pressure on a population via selective breeding for various traits) has led to modern corn, large cows, and various dog breeds as a few examples. Without the benefit of understanding TOE, we still were able to use the princicples behind it to change various species. If you find wild corn, you will note that it is much smaller and radically different than the corn we grow commericially. Likewise, farm cows are much larger than their wild cousins. Farmers have long understood that if you breed your best crops, or animals, their offspring would be better than if you were to breed your worst crops and animals. Just like gravity, evolution can be utilized even without a firm understanding of its mechanic (ie macroevolution, genetics , ect.) Dogs breeds are another interesting example. Dogs are the descendants of wolves, but by selective breeding, we have developed a wide range of dogs. Some only remain within the same species because the can breed with intermediary dogs. For example, a Saint Bernard isn't going to breed with a teacup poodle, but since they other breeds with which they can mate, they remain the same species. However, if you put both of these breeds in a geographically isolated region without intermediary breeds, they could no longer breed. If left alone , both populations would change due to pressures on both populations ( which would not be the same due to different sizes, ecological niches, ect) and over time grow farther and farther apart genetically. Without genetric drift, eventually there genetics would differ enough that even with intermediary breeds, they wouldn't be able to interbreed. Then they would no longer be seperate species by morphological and geograhical forces, but by genetic barriers.
An example would be horses and donkies. While they can breed, their offspring are infertile. Since they can't share genetics between themselves (between horses and donkies) they are considered different species. If mules were fertile, then horses and donkies wouldn't be different species, just different looking realitives of the same species.
™ Version 4.2