Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
48 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,068 Year: 19,104/19,786 Month: 1,524/1,705 Week: 330/446 Day: 69/59 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Peg
Member (Idle past 3221 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 136 of 217 (523909)
09-13-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by NosyNed
09-13-2009 8:55 AM


NosyNed writes:

It has never been about the origin of life.

Dawkins book The Selfish Gene is a book about evolution yes?

And in that book he speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an organic soup, yes?

He then goes on to describe how a molecule developed that had the ability to reproduce itself.

If evolution isnt about, or has never been about the origin of life, why does Dawkins, one of the worlds leading and most respected evolutionary scientists, go into such detail to explain how the first living cell came into existence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 09-13-2009 8:55 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Tanndarr, posted 09-13-2009 9:47 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:49 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 11:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 137 of 217 (523918)
09-13-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:15 AM


Everyone has opinions
Just because Dawkins says something it doesn't mean what he says is necessarily about evolution.

quote:
Artists are lost: they don't have any subject! They used to have religious subjects but they lost their religion and now they haven't got anything.

Physicist Richard Feynman from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character)

I notice that Feynman is commenting on art and this neither brings art into the realm of physics (well, not any more than anything else) and it doesn't deter at all from anything that he says about physics. Authors can comment on any damn thing they like in their books, but might have a harder time editorializing in a proper paper.

Abiogenesis has implications for evolution and I think it's safe to say that most modern research in abiogenesis wouldn't be happening if it weren't for evolution; but that doesn't mean that the two are the same. Abiogenesis: How life started. Evolution: How life changes over time.

Simple really...took me longer to memorize the ten commandments.

Edited by Tanndarr, : I can't spell worth a damn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 138 of 217 (523920)
09-13-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:15 AM


Peg writes:

If evolution isnt about, or has never been about the origin of life, why does Dawkins, one of the worlds leading and most respected evolutionary scientists, go into such detail to explain how the first living cell came into existence?

Why do some books on homebuilding have chapters about the origin of lumber?

Peg, do you really think that Dawkins believes evolution includes the origin of life just because he opens chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene with some speculations about it? He even says he's writing about the origin of life in that chapter: "The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative..."

A hundred and fifty years ago Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. Except in the minds of creationists, there was no confusion then and there is no confusion now.

Note that no one is saying that evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated. Life had to begin before evolution could happen, and we believe that evolutionary processes conceptually similar to selection and mutation, but at a chemical level, must have been operative. But despite the obvious relationship, pre-life processes that we're barely beginning to understand must necessarily have also possessed very different qualities from evolution.

Creationism itself provides one of the reasons for the importance of understanding the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, since some creationists believe that God created the first life and that evolution was responsible for the subsequent diversity of life.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2009 2:20 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 217 (523927)
09-13-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:15 AM


If evolution isnt about, or has never been about the origin of life, why does Dawkins, one of the worlds leading and most respected evolutionary scientists, go into such detail to explain how the first living cell came into existence?

Dawkins in the selfish gene writes:

Darwin's theory takes over from where the story of the slow building up of molecules leaves off.
The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition nobody was around to see what happened.

He draws a line between the two. The two subjects are obviously related to the subject of 'life'. The origin of biology itself is obviously a topic of interest to a biologist.

The selfish gene is principally about replicators (the title of the chapter to which you are referring). Dawkins talks (very) briefly about a pre-replicator world and then talks about the first replicators and so on. His central thesis is that where there is replication + inheritance there will be evolution which is why he also talks about memes in the book too.

{abe: heh - didn't see Percy's reply}

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Modulous has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 140 of 217 (523931)
09-13-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
09-13-2009 9:49 AM


Evolution as seen by creationists
Percy writes:

A hundred and fifty years ago Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. Except in the minds of creationists, there was no confusion then and there is no confusion now.

quote:
“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.../creationist_age_earth.html


To this we can add:

quote:
Evolution: All sciences with which creationists disagree.

Seriously, most creationists distrust and dislike science. It is normal for those individuals not to have studied it much, or to have simply failed to learn the details of that which they disagree. To expect them to use definitions as they are used by scientists is simply too much to hope for. Their arguments are based on faith and carried out through apologetics.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 141 of 217 (523969)
09-13-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
10-31-2008 2:02 PM


subble writes:

Yes, it is.

Evolution can be described by the phrase "descent with modification." Change in the population of various organisms across generations has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. Thus, it is an fact.

Simple as that.

Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals. We'll put the evidence for avian's on hold for now cuz I don't want to stress you out.

I mean, as has been stated already, a FACT requires evidence, so prove your claim of descent by modification/MACROEVOLUTION has actually happened in the real world and in the animal kingdom leading up to we human beings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 10-31-2008 2:02 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 7:43 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 152 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:10 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 142 of 217 (523972)
09-13-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Modulous
09-13-2009 11:05 AM


Modulous writes:

He (Dawkins) draws a line between the two. The two subjects are obviously related to the subject of 'life'. The origin of biology itself is obviously a topic of interest to a biologist.

The selfish gene is principally about replicators (the title of the chapter to which you are referring). Dawkins talks (very) briefly about a pre-replicator world and then talks about the first replicators and so on. His central thesis is that where there is replication + inheritance there will be evolution which is why he also talks about memes in the book too.

Here is the crux of the issue. No evolutionist denies or ignores the value of abiogenesis as the first step of the macroevolution process. Only when creationists refer to the two issues simultaneously do evos sanctimoniously claim they just don't get it. Well we do get it, and very clearly. You believe that life magically appeared spontaneously around 3.5 billion years ago in that pool of primordial ooze, and immediately there after the process of macroevolution began as simple proteins evolved into varied and diverse enzymes and bacteria which split into other types of life forms leading to more and more complex forms of life. What we creationists are waiting for is evidence that one actual species/type of animal has ever evolved into another species/type of animal. That's the crux of your belief system after all, so produce evidence of it if you can and put this issue to bed once and for all.

Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory. Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 11:05 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2009 6:51 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 144 by jacortina, posted 09-13-2009 6:57 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 2:55 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 8:25 AM Archangel has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 143 of 217 (523975)
09-13-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:43 PM


More creationist propaganda
Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory. Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.

False! Typical uninformed creationist propaganda.

Evolution will work equally well if:

1) Some deity (Old Man Coyote, perhaps) poofs life into existence
2) Life begins naturally
3) Life is seeded here by aliens,
4) Humans from the future time travel back to start it, or
5) Other

It is only creationists who try to dishonestly claim otherwise.

Face it, evolution is a fact!


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 144 of 217 (523977)
09-13-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:43 PM


Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory.

Weather cannot happen without a planet to happen on. But climatology and meteorolgy do not deal at all with planetary formation.

Why is that? Because they deal with things AFTER the planet forms.

I don't see ANY whining about Germ Theory not addressing the origin of life and it certainly depends on life existing.

Theories deal with what they deal with and don't have to deal with more than that just because you and other creationists want it to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 145 of 217 (523982)
09-13-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:21 PM


Hi Archangel, welcome to the fray, sorry to add to the dogpile here.

Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, ...

Here is a bit of evidence from the fossil record for Pelycodus:

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_gradual.htm

quote:

Click to enlarge

Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.

What you see is a series of snap shots of a species population, covering many generations, with a gradual trend to larger individuals over time, eventually reaching the point where the largest end population, Pelycodus jarrovi (before being clasified as Notharctus venticolis) is several times larger than the original population Pelycodus ralstoni. In between these two on the main branch are arbitrary speciation classifications made because the population had changed traits sufficiently to warrant this. At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.

Also visible are three branches, where the population divided into non-interbreeding daughter populations, each descended from a common ancestor population, as show by the lines. These are non-arbitrary speciation events, as the population divided and separated to the point where interbreeding no longer occurred. The first two branches apparently became extinct, but the third branch, Pelycodus frugivorus developed into a parallel population distinct from Notharctus venticolis.

This is descent with modification. The time lapse between the bottom and the top of this graphic covers about five million years.

We can also see the same thing happening in the Asian Greenish Warbler ring species:

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/GreenishWarblers.html

quote:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.

The changes in each of the variety daughter populations distinct from the other daughter populations shows descent with modification, and this is sufficient for the two end ring varieties to prevent interbreeding: they are too different to be mates.

There are many such examples in the living world today and in the fossil record.

... which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, ...

No, descent with modification just means that the daughter population/s is/are different from the parent population.

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation. The amount of change does not need to create a whole new species de novo nor even be genetically incompatible with previous generations (although it is hard to mate with dead ancestors), it just needs to be different.

Over many generations of such change you will see more accumulated differences, especially where two daughter populations become reproductively isolated, as with the Pelycodus example above, and yet even here it is not necessary to form a new taxon in the process.

... show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals.

If you are really interested we can cover this as well. Part of it is covered by the therapsids, a series of species that show the gradual development of mammalian characteristics from reptile ancestors:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hanga.../therapsd.htm

quote:
... The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. ...
...
In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.
...
The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian:
...
The therapsid-mammal transition was completed with the appearence of the Morganucodonts in the late Triassic. This group is described by paleontologist T.S. Kemp:
"The axes of the two jaw hinges, dentary-squamosal and articular-quadrate, coincide along a lateral-medial line, and therefore the double jaw articulation of the most advanced cynodonts is still present . . . The secondary dentary-squamosal jaw hinge had enlarged (in the Morganucodonts) and took a greater proportion if not all of the stresses at the jaw articulation. The articular-quadrate hinge was free to function solely in sound conduction." (Strahler, 1987, p. 419)
Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years.

Emphasis added - please note that the amount of time required for PART of the transition you asked about took 40 million years, not a generation.

I mean, as has been stated already, a FACT requires evidence, so prove your claim of descent by modification/MACROEVOLUTION has actually happened in the real world and in the animal kingdom leading up to we human beings.

And in spite of your attempt to move the goalposts from the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in population from generation to generation - to accumulated changes of phylogenic significance (to humans anyway), there is still abundant evidence for it.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : s


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:21 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 7:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 146 of 217 (523997)
09-14-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:43 PM


Here is the crux of the issue. No evolutionist denies or ignores the value of abiogenesis as the first step of the macroevolution process.

I deny it. It is, however, an important step in the history of biology.

Only when creationists refer to the two issues simultaneously do evos sanctimoniously claim they just don't get it.

No. When creationists say that since there is little evidence about how life originated this proved the theory of evolution wrong, they need to be corrected since the theory of evolution is an explanation for how life evolves.

When creationists say that without evidence of abiogenesis, the whole of natural history must be false, they should be corrected since not knowing what happened fifty years ago does not mean we don't know what happened yesterday.

Well we do get it, and very clearly. You believe that life magically appeared spontaneously around 3.5 billion years ago in that pool of primordial ooze...

I don't believe in magic. I believe that life began to live on earth billions of years ago. There are a number of possible explanations as to how this happened which others have elucidated. Given the track record for 'mundane physical and chemical processes' for being the answer to mankind's difficult questions about seemingly awe-inspiring phenomenon, I'm inclined to place my bets there.

What we creationists are waiting for is evidence that one actual species/type of animal has ever evolved into another species/type of animal. That's the crux of your belief system after all, so produce evidence of it if you can and put this issue to bed once and for all.

I'm not sure what a species/type of animal is. I should also point out that it isn't just animals that have evolved! Evidence that all life is related has been presented. Evidence that populations change over time has been presented. This isn't the thread to go into the evidence, but feel free to find or start a thread on the subject. Might I suggest this, as a possible starting point?

Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory.

I guess there are tens upon tens of thousands of scientists engaging in disenguous propaganda then. Thank the Lord that the stalwart creationists are here to correct them! No, not really. The processes are different, the second process could exist without a natural origin of life. *poof* the first life appears via magic or god or time travelling scientists or...then *mutate/selection* it evolves.
Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.

By all means try. I've been posting here over four years now - feel free to examine my posts for evidence of dishonesty and pseudoscience. How life got here, and what happens to it when it is here are seperate questions. It is amazing how often creationists like to conflate the two and insist that if the origin of life was not natural that proves that it cannot evolve. It's like saying that if it can be proven that aliens created the solar system that proves that planets can't orbit the sun. It's a massive non-sequitur. Of course, if you have anything more substansive than throwing around claims of 'propaganda' and 'dishonesty' I'm always willing to hear it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 147 of 217 (524020)
09-14-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
09-13-2009 7:43 PM


Razd writes:

Here is a bit of evidence from the fossil record for Pelycodus:

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_gradual.htm

I must sincerely compliment you on at least finally posting something that from an evolutionists point of view can be considered evidence of evolution in all of the examples you document here. For the sake of time, I will deal with the first evidence you offer and apply it to all of the evidence as my reasoning/criticism remains consistent and the same for all of it. Although I disagree with your sciences definition that this fossil record for Pelycodus is evidence of macroevolution speciation in any way, even according to what evolution generally accepts as a reasonable definition of macroevolution, this example fails since it is still called a Pelycodus, all be it a larger version after your alleged 40 million years of evolution. It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.

Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do. This is the cause of much frustration for both sides since you feel we are denying what you consider obvious evidence and what we feel you accept incredible and unsupportable conclusions which in many cases are manufactured results by zealous evolutionists who love to create a convincing back story and a complete history for a find where none truly exists at all.

Here is the creationist explanation for this alleged fossil record and for the increase in size of this animal which I believe is more a case of rapid adaptation than macroevolution. What we have here are a series of fossil finds of the same animal at different ages when they met their unfortunate demise. And I hold up as evidence of how ludicrous your apologetics link is as it attempts to solidify its claims by saying this:

At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.

This claim is just incredible for a couple of reasons. ONE, that it implies that every fossil example at every strata level are somehow, miraculously not only complete enough examples, but are all the same approximate age at the time of their individual death. But even more incredibly, that they were able to extract genetic material in order to test the change in alleles in fossils going back 40 million years, or even 10 million years. The claim is ridiculous and defies scientific reason and current capabilities. But for some unknown reason which I will never understand, you alleged intellectuals lack the common sense to see through these blatant misrepresentations and inconsistencies in what your own accepted science says in the normal course of defining accepted science. Here is what I mean using the explanation of the extraction of mt DNA from Neanderthal Man according to your own accepted link of Talk Origins:

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

So tell me, assuming that this accepted understanding of the limitations of DNA's survivability of between 50,000 and 100,000 years, on what realistic premise do you ask me to accept this so called "change in allele evidence" for fossils going back from, according to my source, between 50 and 55 million years to the Eocene Age. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

With all due respect to you, I rest my case as a skeptic who must oppose and reject your stated evidence on the grounds that it defies standards and practices which the known science of DNA extraction claims is possible. It also exposes more of the inconsistencies which causes we common sense creationists to reject your claims of being a valid and honest science.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 7:43 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM Archangel has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3221 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 148 of 217 (524024)
09-14-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Coyote
09-13-2009 6:51 PM


Re: More creationist propaganda
Coyote writes:

Face it, evolution is a fact!

Its funny, even though its been explained to me over and over, and the explanation is that evolution is only about decent with modification, I still dont believe that one kind of animal evolved into another kind. DNA doesnt work like that. And as Archangle said "you cant have evolution without having abiogenesis first"

But no one is able to prove abiogenesis...something that apparently happened naturally back then, but doenst happen naturally any more.

no one builds anything solid on a missing foundation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2009 6:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 9:10 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 149 of 217 (524033)
09-14-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:43 PM


To Archangel
First up: Want to say that while you are a harsh critic, you are also very good. Keep up the good work.
I think there might be a bit of confusion when you use the word "species". New "species" do occur, but as RAZD writes
Over many generations of such change you will see more accumulated differences, especially where two daughter populations become reproductively isolated, as with the Pelycodus example above, and yet even here it is not necessary to form a new taxon in the process.
So they might be classified as a new species or they may not. However as you correctly pointed out this still doesn't equate to the information increasing evolution where one type or kind (hopefully a better definition) of animal gives rise to a completly different type/kind of animal.
There are many examples of a
RAZD writes:

change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation

However this again does nothing for goo-to-you-via-the-zoo type evolution.
btw, have you read http://cre.../arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use?
Again, welcome, and awesome to have you here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 1:00 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 150 of 217 (524042)
09-14-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Peg
09-14-2009 7:33 AM


Re: More creationist propaganda
peg writes:

Its funny, even though its been explained to me over and over,


"bang head here"
and the explanation is that evolution is only about decent with modification,

ding! you get a cracker. correct.
I still dont believe that one kind of animal evolved into another kind.

so you don't believe it, therefore it's not true. Well, that settles it. pack up and go home everybody! Peg's solved it. No need to further refine it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Do not look at the man behind the curtain...
DNA doesnt work like that.

You know this how?
And as Archangle said "you cant have evolution without having abiogenesis first"

Then Archangle is a fool for saying something so patently false. Evolution, whether it is fact or fiction, need have absolutely nothing - zip, zilch, nada, none, nein, nyet - with abiogenesis.

Evolution is, as you have already stated in your one accurate statement, descent with modification.

But no one is able to prove abiogenesis...something that apparently happened naturally back then, but doenst happen naturally any more.

And you know this how? for the first part, I don't think it's been proven yet, but that is still besides the point. I don't believe there's any reason why it couldn't happen again, and might not be happening right now somewhere

no one builds anything solid on a missing foundation.

So, because of one missing piece of a much larger puzzle (a missing piece, which I hasten to add, is not required for this essentially stand-alone theory to work) we should, as you say, throw the baby out with the bath-water?

Shame on you.

"We don't know everything, therefore we know nothing" isn't a very intelligent thing to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:33 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019