Evolution

  • 310 Replies
  • 26031 Views
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #210 on: November 19, 2015, 06:37:03 AM »
All these tests hinge on a test done long ago.
A man put a piece of meat in a glass container.
A piece of bread was put in another glass container.

Wow. out of nowhere, worms and flies formed.

See there is proof life can form from nothing.

GOD gives life. It comes no other way.
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #211 on: November 19, 2015, 08:03:09 AM »
How did the first life form evolved?
Abiogenesis.
See the Miller-Urey experiment for how organic matter can arise out of inorganic and random processes.
They did no such thing. All what they did was made a few amino acids. That's like me dropping toothpicks and creating a few letters and saying that books evolved from an explosion from a book factory. Plus the ingredients they made was 90% toxic to life. Would you drink water that had 90% cyanide? Plus, they had to seal off the ooze containing the amino acids and that's not how nature works. And one more thing is that you can't make amino acids without oxygen because the UV light will destroy it. You can't make amino acids with oxygen because the oxygen will oxydize and destroy them.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #212 on: December 05, 2015, 05:45:53 AM »
Let me spell it out for you.
WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #213 on: December 05, 2015, 06:17:26 AM »
I offer irreducible complexity as an important consideration.
The fact that a cell has many vital mechanisms that would have had to form all at once for the cell to exist, eat (Get energy), excrete waste, reproduce etc. I find this very compelling against gradual evolution.
An eye being a supreme example. I can not see how an eye could form slowly, one bit at a time.
Even if this was possible, all the different systems forming would have taken more time credited to the earth, by an order of magnitude.
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #214 on: December 05, 2015, 06:46:50 PM »
I offer irreducible complexity as an important consideration.
The fact that a cell has many vital mechanisms that would have had to form all at once for the cell to exist, eat (Get energy), excrete waste, reproduce etc. I find this very compelling against gradual evolution.
An eye being a supreme example. I can not see how an eye could form slowly, one bit at a time.
Even if this was possible, all the different systems forming would have taken more time credited to the earth, by an order of magnitude.
Amen.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #215 on: December 06, 2015, 03:15:17 PM »
I offer irreducible complexity as an important consideration.
Very well, lets see what you have.

Quote
The fact that a cell has many vital mechanisms that would have had to form all at once for the cell to exist
Quote
Like what?

Quote
, eat (Get energy),
Why do you assume it has to eat? Virae dont.

Quote
excrete waste,
Why do you asume it will excrete waste? Virae dont.

Quote
reproduce
proto ARN (which is the commonly accepted first ADN-like molecule) can self-replicate under the right conditions. Of course, this replication is random and slow, which means that the ARN that developed duplication mechanisms had an advantage, and outperformed them.

Quote
I find this very compelling against gradual evolution.
Personal opinion is not an argument in science

Quote
An eye being a supreme example. I can not see how an eye could form slowly, one bit at a time.
Bacteria have light receptors. Some of them evolve so it happened to have the mucus layer around the receptors in a slightly diferent shape, which confered higher sensibility. Some light receptors growed in groups. Others changed their sensibility to diferent light frequencies. The principle of biophotosensitivity is enough to understand how the eye may have evolved.

Quote
Even if this was possible, all the different systems forming would have taken more time credited to the earth, by an order of magnitude.
Do you have any valid, scientific, peer-reviewed paper published in a reputed journal as a source to back up your outlandish claim?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #216 on: December 06, 2015, 03:20:18 PM »
You have to prove that life can come from non life and also prove the existence of two-celled and three-celled creatures.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #217 on: December 06, 2015, 03:31:26 PM »
Thanks Luke. I agree.
Conker,
A virus is not a living cell. You know that.
Light receptors are not eyes.
I can not prove creation. You can not prove evolution.
I can offer my beliefs and you can offer yours.
It is a beautiful thing freedom of choice!
Also to banter with a self proclaimed knee biter would surely be a mistake.
If Lucy was a distant relative of yours, that is fine. (Oh wait, Lucy was a proven fraud)
I will never accept I evolved from a monkey.
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #218 on: December 06, 2015, 04:05:42 PM »
You have to prove that life can come from non life and also prove the existence of two-celled and three-celled creatures.

You didnt asked me that. You said something that is false. Do you at least aknowdlege that irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution (both theory and fact)?

Quote
Thanks Luke. I agree.
Conker,
A virus is not a living cell. You know that.
No, but neither was the origin of life. Viruses evolve. The characteristics of a living organism (not a cell) could eventually arise from a primordial non-living organism. This organisms can be compared to viruses (altough viruses are several orders of magnitude more complex and specialized than the autocatalysts that originated them)

Quote
Light receptors are not eyes.
No, but eyes are light receptors. Latin isnt the same language as French, Spanish and Italian, but French, Spanish and Italian are all latin-like (romance) languages, and all evolved from Latin.

Quote
I can not prove creation. You can not prove evolution.
Except evolution of organisms has been proved. Via direct observation, fossil record, DNA historical marker tracing, etc. If you instead refer to Abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living organisms), that is not a tennent of evolution, and has little to do with it.

Quote
I can offer my beliefs and you can offer yours.
That is correct.
Quote
It is a beautiful thing freedom of choice!
Correct, unless you mean that scientific consensus, theory and evidence should be treated the same as inane belief. Science is to know. We believe what we know, but we dont know all that we believe.

Quote
Also to banter with a self proclaimed knee biter would surely be a mistake.
Missed the joke, haven't you? Go read the five-book trilogy of Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Probably the funniest prose I've ever read. SPOILER: its a quote from it.

Quote
If Lucy was a distant relative of yours, that is fine. (Oh wait, Lucy was a proven fraud)
I cannot find any respectable source for that claim. Can you please provide it?

Quote
I will never accept I evolved from a monkey.
Ok. Others never accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Others didnt accept the Earth is round. Others dont accept galaxies are moving appart. Some people dont accept quantum mechanics. Others dont accept even Newtonian physics, and Gallilean relativity. That's fine, because your BELIEF is IRRELEVANT. What's important, are hypothesis, and theories, and most of all, evidence. Evidence is the only thing that we can know, by definition. You are free not to believe in evidence, but then I ask of you to be consequent, and reject all evidence. Back to Aristotelian physics. Back to Galeno's medicine. Back to the good ol' times where a third of the world died of illness or war. Feel free to. But dont take me with you! I like my internet connection.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #219 on: December 06, 2015, 04:28:23 PM »
Sorry Conker, I did miss the joke about the kneebiter. I shall consider reading the Trilogy, but 5 books
might be difficult right at this time.

As for Lucy, I could offer some more dogmatic views to its fallacy, but, I will supply this link for your consideration. A fair evaluation is always best.
Here is the opening remark for the evidence. Believe what you will.

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 04:37:07 PM by Frank Lee »
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #220 on: December 06, 2015, 04:35:14 PM »
Rather than responding to the entire post above me, I'll respond to the Lucy fossil. It's true that the Lucy fossil is a fraud, but other fossils like it have been found. They're claim to fame is the fact that they have angled femurs. What they failed to tell is that all tree climbing apes and monkeys have angled femurs to grasp the tree better. They'll also say that Lucy have bigger bones than most monkeys. So? A Great Dane has bigger bones than most dogs. That doesn't mean that there evolving into a elephant, nor doesn't it mean that it evolved from a chihuahua.   
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #221 on: December 06, 2015, 04:38:59 PM »
The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #222 on: December 06, 2015, 04:45:31 PM »
The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.

Good point! I could not agree more!
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #223 on: December 06, 2015, 04:49:01 PM »
Sorry Conker, I did miss the joke about the kneebiter. I shall consider reading the Trilogy, but 5 books
might be difficult right at this time.

As for Lucy, I could offer some more dogmatic views to its validity, but, I will supply this link for your consideration. A fair evaluation is always best.
Here is the opening remark for the evidence. Believe what you will.

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76
Apologetics Press is not an accepted journal for scientific sources. Please point to the ACTUAL source of such a claim, if there is one. I couldnt find it in the claimed sources that are considered valid, but I may have missed something. As an easy tool, Thomson-Reuter's Web of Science contains a Master Journal search, which contains reliable journals.

Rather than responding to the entire post above me, I'll respond to the Lucy fossil. It's true that the Lucy fossil is a fraud,
Citation needed

Quote

but other fossils like it have been found.
I accept this.

Quote
They're claim to fame is the fact that they have angled femurs. What they failed to tell is that all tree climbing apes and monkeys have angled femurs to grasp the tree better.
I fail to see the relevance.


Quote

They'll also say that Lucy have bigger bones than most monkeys. So? A Great Dane has bigger bones than most dogs.
And an elephant has a bigger brain that you. Does that mean that its more intelligent than y-me?

Quote
That doesn't mean that there evolving into a elephant, nor doesn't it mean that it evolved from a chihuahua.   
they evolved*
No, but both chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same species, Canis Lupus. They could also probably interbreed if the size diference isnt very big, or if helped. Indeed, if the physiological difference was given enough time, they would probably become two different species.

The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Nice source. Here, I have opinions, too!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #224 on: December 06, 2015, 05:24:51 PM »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #225 on: December 06, 2015, 05:32:33 PM »
Sorry Conker, I did miss the joke about the kneebiter. I shall consider reading the Trilogy, but 5 books
might be difficult right at this time.

As for Lucy, I could offer some more dogmatic views to its validity, but, I will supply this link for your consideration. A fair evaluation is always best.
Here is the opening remark for the evidence. Believe what you will.

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76
Apologetics Press is not an accepted journal for scientific sources. Please point to the ACTUAL source of such a claim, if there is one. I couldnt find it in the claimed sources that are considered valid, but I may have missed something. As an easy tool, Thomson-Reuter's Web of Science contains a Master Journal search, which contains reliable journals.

Rather than responding to the entire post above me, I'll respond to the Lucy fossil. It's true that the Lucy fossil is a fraud,
Citation needed

Quote

but other fossils like it have been found.
I accept this.

Quote
They're claim to fame is the fact that they have angled femurs. What they failed to tell is that all tree climbing apes and monkeys have angled femurs to grasp the tree better.
I fail to see the relevance.


Quote

They'll also say that Lucy have bigger bones than most monkeys. So? A Great Dane has bigger bones than most dogs.
And an elephant has a bigger brain that you. Does that mean that its more intelligent than y-me?

Quote
That doesn't mean that there evolving into a elephant, nor doesn't it mean that it evolved from a chihuahua.   
they evolved*
No, but both chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same species, Canis Lupus. They could also probably interbreed if the size diference isnt very big, or if helped. Indeed, if the physiological difference was given enough time, they would probably become two different species.

The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Nice source. Here, I have opinions, too!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1. Maybe the evolutionist won't accept anything that goes against their theory.

2. The relevance is that they think the angled femur proves that its evolving into a human but when actually it's just a tree-climbing ape.

3. That's exactly my point. Just because it has bigger bones doesn't mean it's evolving into something else.

4. I bet if all we found of the Great Dane and chihuahua were bones then we would either conclude that there different kinds or one evolved into the other.

5. Can you prove that one kind evolved into another? 
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #226 on: December 07, 2015, 01:51:46 AM »
http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.com/2012/01/lucy-missing-link-australopithecines.html?m=1
This article explains the Lucy hoax.
That's a blog. Not a valid source. If the blog links to a good source, why not link to it instead?


Sorry Conker, I did miss the joke about the kneebiter. I shall consider reading the Trilogy, but 5 books
might be difficult right at this time.

As for Lucy, I could offer some more dogmatic views to its validity, but, I will supply this link for your consideration. A fair evaluation is always best.
Here is the opening remark for the evidence. Believe what you will.

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76
Apologetics Press is not an accepted journal for scientific sources. Please point to the ACTUAL source of such a claim, if there is one. I couldnt find it in the claimed sources that are considered valid, but I may have missed something. As an easy tool, Thomson-Reuter's Web of Science contains a Master Journal search, which contains reliable journals.

Rather than responding to the entire post above me, I'll respond to the Lucy fossil. It's true that the Lucy fossil is a fraud,
Citation needed

Quote

but other fossils like it have been found.
I accept this.

Quote
They're claim to fame is the fact that they have angled femurs. What they failed to tell is that all tree climbing apes and monkeys have angled femurs to grasp the tree better.
I fail to see the relevance.


Quote

They'll also say that Lucy have bigger bones than most monkeys. So? A Great Dane has bigger bones than most dogs.
And an elephant has a bigger brain that you. Does that mean that its more intelligent than y-me?

Quote
That doesn't mean that there evolving into a elephant, nor doesn't it mean that it evolved from a chihuahua.   
they evolved*
No, but both chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same species, Canis Lupus. They could also probably interbreed if the size diference isnt very big, or if helped. Indeed, if the physiological difference was given enough time, they would probably become two different species.

The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Nice source. Here, I have opinions, too!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1. Maybe the evolutionist won't accept anything that goes against their theory.
What is an evolutionist? Someone who accepts evolution? Call me Relativitionist, too. Maxwellian. Farenheitian. Lorentzian. Etc. To accept evolution is no different than accepting thermodynamics or relativity.


Quote
2. The relevance is that they think the angled femur proves that its evolving into a human but when actually it's just a tree-climbing ape.
I would rather fancy a source.

Quote
3. That's exactly my point. Just because it has bigger bones doesn't mean it's evolving into something else.
Every living being is constantly evolving. If selection pressure is low enough (such as in very stable enviroments such as certain oceanic areas), then this living organism will drift very slowly, instead of the punctuated evolution streaks we observe in other organisms. This slow evolution may be be optimal enough to make an organism not to speciate. I suggest you read modern analysis of Lucy, because the big bones of Great Danes compared to chihuahuas and other canidae preciselly show that Great Danes are drifting apart from their common ancestor (possibly an aparently now extint ancestor to the grey wolf).

Quote
4. I bet if all we found of the Great Dane and chihuahua were bones then we would either conclude that there different kinds or one evolved into the other.

No. Why would we do that? Great Danes and chihuahuas are contemporary. Its pretty clear that they both share an ancestor. Geological evidence would then show the evolutionary tree (possibly. In the specific case of dogs, human selection breeding is an incredibly high pressure selection that accelerates evolution. Since fossils are a very rare occurence, the fossil record would probably be very scarce, although geological  evidence would show they are contemporary)

Quote
5. Can you prove that one kind evolved into another? 
What is a kind? Dont you mean species?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #227 on: December 07, 2015, 07:50:33 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
This shows what they consider evidence of Lucy turning into a human and they mention the angled femur. Failing of course to mention that tree climbing apes also have angled femurs.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #228 on: December 07, 2015, 08:03:29 AM »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #229 on: December 07, 2015, 08:17:51 AM »
http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.com/2012/01/lucy-missing-link-australopithecines.html?m=1
This article explains the Lucy hoax.
That's a blog. Not a valid source. If the blog links to a good source, why not link to it instead?


Sorry Conker, I did miss the joke about the kneebiter. I shall consider reading the Trilogy, but 5 books
might be difficult right at this time.

As for Lucy, I could offer some more dogmatic views to its validity, but, I will supply this link for your consideration. A fair evaluation is always best.
Here is the opening remark for the evidence. Believe what you will.

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of

Rather than responding to the entire post above me, I'll respond to the Lucy fossil. It's true that the Lucy fossil is a fraud,
Citation needed

Quote

but other fossils like it have been found.
I accept this.

Quote
They're claim to fame is the fact that they have angled femurs. What they failed to tell is that all tree climbing apes and monkeys have angled femurs to grasp the tree better.
I fail to see the relevance.


Quote

They'll also say that Lucy have bigger bones than most monkeys. So? A Great Dane has bigger bones than most dogs.
And an elephant has a bigger brain that you. Does that mean that its more intelligent than y-me?

Quote
That doesn't mean that there evolving into a elephant, nor doesn't it mean that it evolved from a chihuahua.   
they evolved*
No, but both chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same species, Canis Lupus. They could also probably interbreed if the size diference isnt very big, or if helped. Indeed, if the physiological difference was given enough time, they would probably become two different species.

The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Nice source. Here, I have opinions, too!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1. Maybe the evolutionist won't accept anything that goes against their theory.
What is an evolutionist? Someone who accepts evolution? Call me Relativitionist, too. Maxwellian. Farenheitian. Lorentzian. Etc. To accept evolution is no different than accepting thermodynamics or relativity.
Work with as I'm experimenting putting my two cents in between yours so if it turns out bad than forgive and hope evolution will fix it automatically.

An evolutionists believes in evolution just as a young earth creationist like me believe in a young earth and it was created.


Quote
2. The relevance is that they think the angled femur proves that its evolving into a human but when actually it's just a tree-climbing ape.
I would rather fancy a source.

I gave you one above to see.

Quote
3. That's exactly my point. Just because it has bigger bones doesn't mean it's evolving into something else.
Every living being is constantly evolving. If selection pressure is low enough (such as in very stable enviroments such as certain oceanic areas), then this living organism will drift very slowly, instead of the punctuated evolution streaks we observe in other organisms. This slow evolution may be be optimal enough to make an organism not to speciate. I suggest you read modern analysis of Lucy, because the big bones of Great Danes compared to chihuahuas and other canidae preciselly show that Great Danes are drifting apart from their common ancestor (possibly an aparently now extint ancestor to the grey wolf).[/quote]

Yeah but there's huge amount of differences between apes and humans and Lucy has a tree-climbing ape.

Quote
4. I bet if all we found of the Great Dane and chihuahua were bones then we would either conclude that there different kinds or one evolved into the other.

No. Why would we do that? Great Danes and chihuahuas are contemporary. Its pretty clear that they both share an ancestor. Geological evidence would then show the evolutionary tree (possibly. In the specific case of dogs, human selection breeding is an incredibly high pressure selection that accelerates evolution. Since fossils are a very rare occurence, the fossil record would probably be very scarce, although geological  evidence would show they are contemporary)[/quote]

So why do we say that the protoceratops evolved into the triceratops if the former the equivalent to the chihuahua?

Quote
5. Can you prove that one kind evolved into another? 
What is a kind? Dont you mean species?
[/quote]

A specie is a dog in the canine kind. A kind is the group of canines.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #230 on: December 17, 2015, 11:24:46 AM »
The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Look up a photo from when you were a child. You have no photos between then and now. Now you're an adult.

Is it safe to say that you "evolved" from child to adult, even when we have no proof you passed the stages in between?

The fossil record is a dispersed yet biased collection of "photos" over millions and millions of years. That most of the "photos" are lacking is not the fault of the paleontologist; it's my fault, I am too dynamic and my tectonic forces are too strong.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #231 on: December 17, 2015, 11:30:06 AM »
The fossil record proves nothing other than a bunch of animals died. To say that x fossil evolved into y fossil is like saying the pony evolved into the mustang.
Look up a photo from when you were a child. You have no photos between then and now. Now you're an adult.

Is it safe to say that you "evolved" from child to adult, even when we have no proof you passed the stages in between?

The fossil record is a dispersed yet biased collection of "photos" over millions and millions of years. That most of the "photos" are lacking is not the fault of the paleontologist; it's my fault, I am too dynamic and my tectonic forces are too strong.

1. I've been waiting for you since you PMed me. Hiya!

2. Comparing my childhood pictures is different from comparing which fossil goes where. I still have resemblance, bacteria to dog does not. Can you rove that one fossil evolved into another? Also how old the fossil is?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #232 on: December 17, 2015, 11:37:33 AM »
1. I've been waiting for you since you PMed me. Hiya!

2. Comparing my childhood pictures is different from comparing which fossil goes where. I still have resemblance, bacteria to dog does not. Can you rove that one fossil evolved into another? Also how old the fossil is?

Hey, your prayers have been heard... ;)

No, it's exactly the same concept. What I want to show you is the fossil record that is incomplete. By definition. Look around now; in the last x years 1 billion of people have died, yet now we wouldn't be able to find 206 billion bones (cremations aside).

Now picture the dynamics of the Earth over much much much longer times.

From bacteria to dog is from Precambrian to now; that's a lot of photos you missed there!

The dog is a great example of evolution by itself:



The Husky and Chihuahua. Both look very different. Both are dogs. Both come from the same original species which is the wolf.

Or do you advocate that even the Husky and the Chihuahua are "created" separately? ???

Fossil ages are usually derived from stratigraphy; the formation the fossil has been found. Absolute dating is using radioactive decay. You believe that exists or also not?
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #233 on: December 17, 2015, 11:52:59 AM »
1. I've been waiting for you since you PMed me. Hiya!

2. Comparing my childhood pictures is different from comparing which fossil goes where. I still have resemblance, bacteria to dog does not. Can you rove that one fossil evolved into another? Also how old the fossil is?

Hey, your prayers have been heard... ;)

No, it's exactly the same concept. What I want to show you is the fossil record that is incomplete. By definition. Look around now; in the last x years 1 billion of people have died, yet now we wouldn't be able to find 206 billion bones (cremations aside).

Now picture the dynamics of the Earth over much much much longer times.

From bacteria to dog is from Precambrian to now; that's a lot of photos you missed there!

The dog is a great example of evolution by itself:



The Husky and Chihuahua. Both look very different. Both are dogs. Both come from the same original species which is the wolf.

Or do you advocate that even the Husky and the Chihuahua are "created" separately? ???

Fossil ages are usually derived from stratigraphy; the formation the fossil has been found. Absolute dating is using radioactive decay. You believe that exists or also not?

First, I believe in micro evolution but that's it. Now to take the dog analogy, would you say that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? If all we found were bones and I found a chihuahua buried under a Great Dane then what is stopping me to conclude by that logic that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? BTW I used to own a husky back when I was on Alaska.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #234 on: December 17, 2015, 11:59:33 AM »

Quote
The dog is a great example of evolution by itself.
The Husky and Chihuahua. Both look very different. Both are dogs. Both come from the same original species which is the wolf.
Or do you advocate that even the Husky and the Chihuahua are "created" separately? ???

Fossil ages are usually derived from stratigraphy; the formation the fossil has been found. Absolute dating is using radioactive decay. You believe that exists or also not?

First, I believe in micro evolution but that's it.

Why stop there? What's the difference between macro- and micro-evolution in your world?

Quote
Now to take the dog analogy, would you say that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? If all we found were bones and I found a chihuahua buried under a Great Dane then what is stopping me to conclude by that logic that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? BTW I used to own a husky back when I was on Alaska.

Cool, they're amazing animals.

But yes; based on fysiology and fossil analysis if the only 2 fossils we would have are the Chihuahua and the great Dane, a paleontologist would put them in the same clade as they share the typical "dog characteristics" (I suppose teeth is a good indicator).

So all the other dog fossils are destroyed by me, Earth, and this is what we have to work with.

That's why paleontology is never finished or "the perfect reality" and hence the language paleontologists use ("we assume", "it is estimated", etc.). The incompleteness of the fossil record doesn't allow for absolute statements.

You have to live with that if you want to do this kind of research.

But you're advocating that it's all pure fantasy; those thousands of scientists every day are just making stuff up? ???
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:08:01 PM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #235 on: December 17, 2015, 12:18:59 PM »

Quote
The dog is a great example of evolution by itself.
The Husky and Chihuahua. Both look very different. Both are dogs. Both come from the same original species which is the wolf.
Or do you advocate that even the Husky and the Chihuahua are "created" separately? ???

Fossil ages are usually derived from stratigraphy; the formation the fossil has been found. Absolute dating is using radioactive decay. You believe that exists or also not?

First, I believe in micro evolution but that's it.

Quote
Why stop there? What's the difference between macro- and micro-evolution in your world?

Because that's all we observe. We see canines (a kind) produce canines. We don't see bacteria producing canines and bananas.

Quote
Now to take the dog analogy, would you say that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? If all we found were bones and I found a chihuahua buried under a Great Dane then what is stopping me to conclude by that logic that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane? BTW I used to own a husky back when I was on Alaska.

Quote
Cool, they're amazing animals.

Thanks. I had to give him away when I moved down here in Florida.
Quote
But yes; based on fysiology and fossil analysis if the only 2 fossils we would have are the Chihuahua and the great Dane, a paleontologist would put them in the same clade as they share the typical "dog characteristics" (I suppose teeth is a good indicator).

My analogy is in reference to dinosaurs like the ceratopsians. Scientist put them in chronological order instead of saying that they're just like the canine and they all existed at the same time.

Quote
So all the other dog fossils are destroyed by me, Earth, and this is what we have to work with.

That's why paleontology is never finished or "the perfect reality" and hence the language paleontologists use ("we assume", "it is estimated", etc.). The incompleteness of the fossil record doesn't allow for absolute statements.

You have to live with that if you want to do this kind of research.

But you're advocating that it's all pure fantasy; those thousands of scientists every day are just making stuff up? ???

No I'm advocating that they are coming to the wrong conclusions. Sure, we have fossils and such but they didn't evolved from each other. How come we don't see the two-celled and three-celled creatures if bacteria evolved into dogs? Also to restate my question how do we know how old a fossil is?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #236 on: December 17, 2015, 12:37:18 PM »
Because that's all we observe. We see canines (a kind) produce canines. We don't see bacteria producing canines and bananas.

No, because you skip too many steps.

Do you see a seal and a sea lion having been evolved from a common ancestor? They have certain very similar characteristics but also some unique factors (making it 2 species).

Or the famous brown->polar bear example?

Quote
My analogy is in reference to dinosaurs like the ceratopsians. Scientist put them in chronological order instead of saying that they're just like the canine and they all existed at the same time.

Again you're skipping some steps.

The evolutionary tree and taxonomical organization of the finds is much bigger.

And of course; during the time of let's say the Ceratopsia all kind of other fossil species were around; they are found in formations of the same ages as those ceratopsians. Also bacteria were around then. The whole array of fossils from an age gives the paleo-biodiversity of that age. Our understanding of that is very small; too many species are completely missing because they didn't fossilize or rather the ones that were lucky enough to be fossilized are destroyed by the forces of the Earth (erosion, tectonics, burial, etc.). That's why species can be placed first in 1 taxonomy group but then get reclassified based on new finds, new analysis or new insights from other fossils.

Quote
No I'm advocating that they are coming to the wrong conclusions.

Have you studied the same data, an example data set or so, to make that claim? And what would be the right conclusion then in your eyes?

Quote
Sure, we have fossils and such but they didn't evolved from each other.

That's a statement, but without some reasoning (other than your religious beliefs) I don't understand how you ended up with this?

Quote
How come we don't see the two-celled and three-celled creatures if bacteria evolved into dogs?

This is silly. This is comparing a baby photo with an old age one.

Some steps smaller, otherwise it's non-sense.

Multicellular fossils are found since the Precambrian; the Ediacaran fauna you're familiar with?

The Cambrian explosion was the time when this already multicellular life evolved into a broad variety of more complex species. It is postulated (evolution is triggered by catastrophical events, same as human evolution or evolution of ideas or the evolution of a forum or whatever kind of evolution; evolution is all around) that this happened due to the Earth going from a snowball/slushball to a less frigid planet (yes, I've had my frigid youths, you young man...).

Quote
Also to restate my question how do we know how old a fossil is?

Like I said:
1 - relative dating - using formation ages, most are based on graptolites and ammonites (Paleozoic & Mesozoic) and microfossils such as foraminifera. "Modern" terrestrial formations are often dated using mouse teeth
2 - absolute or radiometric dating - using the decay of isotopes by measuring the ration between parent isotope and child isotopes
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #237 on: December 17, 2015, 01:06:10 PM »
Because that's all we observe. We see canines (a kind) produce canines. We don't see bacteria producing canines and bananas.
Quote
No, because you skip too many steps.

Do you see a seal and a sea lion having been evolved from a common ancestor? They have certain very similar characteristics but also some unique factors (making it 2 species).

Or the famous brown->polar bear example?

I see them coming from a common ancestor yes. But it was a seal like creature for the first example and a bear for the last example. If all we see in nature is bears producing bears then how can you say that bacteria evolved into a bear?

Quote
My analogy is in reference to dinosaurs like the ceratopsians. Scientist put them in chronological order instead of saying that they're just like the canine and they all existed at the same time.
Quote
Again you're skipping some steps.

The evolutionary tree and taxonomical organization of the finds is much bigger.

And of course; during the time of let's say the Ceratopsia all kind of other fossil species were around; they are found in formations of the same ages as those ceratopsians. Also bacteria were around then. The whole array of fossils from an age gives the paleo-biodiversity of that age. Our understanding of that is very small; too many species are completely missing because they didn't fossilize or rather the ones that were lucky enough to be fossilized are destroyed by the forces of the Earth (erosion, tectonics, burial, etc.). That's why species can be placed first in 1 taxonomy group but then get reclassified based on new finds, new analysis or new insights from other fossils.

But isn't that proof by lack of evidence? We know it evolved but the proof is not there. The theory is driving the evidence instead of the evidence driving the theory.

Quote
No I'm advocating that they are coming to the wrong conclusions.

Quote
Have you studied the same data, an example data set or so, to make that claim? And what would be the right conclusion then in your eyes?

Of course I haven't delt with the data first hand but from viewing both sides I conclude that a creator created everything about six thousand years ago.

Quote
Sure, we have fossils and such but they didn't evolved from each other.
Quote
That's a statement, but without some reasoning (other than your religious beliefs) I don't understand how you ended up with this?
I'll provide a link in the next post.

Quote
How come we don't see the two-celled and three-celled creatures if bacteria evolved into dogs?
Quote
This is silly. This is comparing a baby photo with an old age one.

Some steps smaller, otherwise it's non-sense.

Actually it's not. If one bacteria evolved into what we see today then where are the two-celled and three-celled creatures? They are obviously in the next step of evolution but we don't find any.
Quote
Multicellular fossils are found since the Precambrian; the Ediacaran fauna you're familiar with?

I'll take a look at that.
Quote
The Cambrian explosion was the time when this already multicellular life evolved into a broad variety of more complex species. It is postulated (evolution is triggered by catastrophical events, same as human evolution or evolution of ideas or the evolution of a forum or whatever kind of evolution; evolution is all around) that this happened due to the Earth going from a snowball/slushball to a less frigid planet (yes, I've had my frigid youths, you young man...).

The Cambrian explosion is supposed to explained the lack of transitional fossils. Again that's proof by lack of evidence and again the theory is driving the evidence instead of the other way around.

Quote
Also to restate my question how do we know how old a fossil is?
Quote
Like I said:

Sorry I must've missed it.
Quote
1 - relative dating - using formation ages, most are based on graptolites and ammonites (Paleozoic & Mesozoic) and microfossils such as foraminifera. "Modern" terrestrial formations are often dated using mouse teeth
2 - absolute or radiometric dating - using the decay of isotopes by measuring the ration between parent isotope and child isotopes

1. Basically the rocks date the fossils am I right? If so then how do then what date the rocks?

2. Radiocarbon dating has many flaws as I'll provide a link on the next post.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #238 on: December 17, 2015, 01:11:33 PM »
Here's an article on carbon dating.

http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.