Confused about evolution

When I see Helen start to post I just sit back and enjoy. I know that I don't have to enter the conversation any longer. Keep up the good work Helen

 

I second that vote.

XDX,
Again, if you really want truth, you'll find it in the Bible, not at atheist.org. If you want more on the evolution debate and fossil records, check our Ken Ham's stuff at answersingenesis.org.

 

No sir ree -- that is all I would need to blindly trust anything they make up!!

I like the fact however that the link between atheism and darwinist evolutionism is clearly seen there.

It is soooo obvious.

that is why I prefer sites like www.ICR.ORG instead.

 

I have largely moved on from this site, but some things just beg for a response.

To borrow a line from Pauli, YEism is not right. It is not even wrong.

It would be too generous to call YEism “wrong.” To say that it is wrong gives it too much credit. It does not even step to the plate and offer the world’s scientists a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory. It cannot be wrong because there is not even any substance with which to judge its validity or lack there of.

Instead it offers nothing more than a set of fallacious criticisms of actual science.

So where to begin? What about Bob?

“The "stories told" about the 3.5 billion year geologic column "layering" of fossils would make the column on average 100 miles deep. In places where the column due to wind and erosion etc has "piled high" we have about 1 mile max.”

Bob has had to modify this story of his. He used to tell us that you could not find the whole geologic column in any one location, as if that matters. It was repeatedly pointed out that this is not true and he was given dozens of locations where the whole sequence can be seen.

So he modified, eventually, his story to say that all the layers might be there, but that they are not thick enough for him. Alas, this is not advancing his case either. Just ask Bob if he can provide a single reviewed, published reference for his basis of how thick all these layers should be.

He will not have one because the idea is made up from whole cloth.

“The horse series is a good example of how atheist darwinist [sic] fraud works. They arranged the fossiles [sic] of different animals in sequence to LOOK like a horse was evolving -- but that sequence matched NOTHING in the geologic column in terms of actual sequences found.”

Once again, so what? The fossils really are in the right order. So what does he mean?

Bob is complaining that you cannot find all of the fossils in one nice, neat pile at a single spot. No one knows why it should be the case that he expects this. My ancestors, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on, are not all stacked up at the same place. Why should they be? But they existed, as do I.

So it is with fossil horses. The sequence took tens of millions of years. Horses move around you know. The fossils, scores of genera and many more species, are found mostly in North America with the exceptions being side branches that wandered off in another direction both geologically and evolutionarily speaking.

Bob will respond to this with a bunch of out of context quotes about horses which I have no intention of reviewing again.

 

Who’s next? DHK.

“Evolution goes contrary to the laws of science and even science itself. Science is knowledge based on observation and then classified. Science always needs an observer. There was and still is no one to observe evolution taking place. In the beginning of Creation, the only one that was there was God himself. No evolutionist was there. There was no observer.”

Someone is observing the fossils.

Someone is observing the genetics.

Someone is observing the various features of extant life.

You can observe without directly observing. Should we also free all criminals convicted without eyewitnesses or is forensics allowable?

If you would like to read about one good area where observations of today’s life, direct observation even in DHK’s terms, show support for evolution, try the book Endless Forms Most Beautiful. YEism has no real answer for such observations.

“They use circular reasoning to prove their point which is illogical. How do you know how old the layers of the column are? Answer: The age of the fossils tells us how old they are. How do you know how old the fossils are? Answer: The age of the layer of the geological column tellus us so.”

If only it were so.

Some specific fossils are so predictably found together that you can identify diverse strata by the presence of the same combination of fossils. But this observation only tells you that such layers exist.

As it turns out, sometimes you can date these layers. As it turns out, layers with the same sets of fossils date to be the same age over and over again no matter where you look. So we accept that when we find these very same index fossils in a layer that cannot be dated directly that it is a good assumption that we can apply the same dates that were found at other locations. The consistency of the combinations of index fossils and the corresponding ages tells us that this a good and logical method.

YEism offers no explanation for this sorting by both form and isotopic ratios.

“As I mentioned many fossils are found in shale. Interestingly enough there has been marine fossils found in shale rock upon some of the higher mountain tops. Now, how could that happen? It shoots their theories to pieces. The only way that could be accounted for is by the Flood described in Gen.6-9. Much of the shale is on the continental shelves. It is almost always found near water, because it is formed as a result of water. To find shale on the top of a mountain is an anomaly, highly unusual, out of place--and marine fossils?? An evolutionist can't explain that.”

Can’t explain that?

Uplift. You can go around to many spots in the world today and observe land being uplifted. To say that such an observable process “shoots their theories to pieces” is an embarrassing statement to make.

 

One more. Responding to a series of posts my also require a series of posts. Helen.

“This is false. There are some extremely complex forms at the bottom of the fossil record. The trilobite is an excellent example. It is the ‘index’ fossil for the Cambrian (if you find a trilobite, you are in the Cambrian strata by definition). One type of trilobite had a complex eye (two of them, actually) which has no relation to the idea of the evolution of the eye. It appears fully formed, complex, and functional from the start. The same can be said of other features of various organisms whose fossils are found in the Cambrian strata.”

You must pay very close attention to what is happening here. Sure there were “complex” life forms in the Cambrian. We even get an example. But a couple of keys points were ignored.

The chief point of the part to which she was responding was that the fossil record shows a collection of life that changes with time. This is ignored.

You might also get a more interesting response if you ask about the kinds of complex life that are not found in the Cambrian. An oak tree? No way. No complex plants of any kind. Tetrapods? Of course not. You will not find any mammals or reptiles or birds or anything familiar to you. Fish? Well, you might find some very primitive fish, depending on how you define it, but you will not find a bass or a shark or a parrot fish.

The fossil record preserves a progression of forms that develop over time. New forms come into being as others go away. There are even a few who find a good form and keep it. Common descent offers a satisfying answer for why we see what we see.

YEism? Why do we see such an arrangement? Some will suggest ecological niches. Humbug. Do you not see some form of extant life occupying almost all niches where there is life today? There is no reason to suggest such strict segregation in the past. There would of necessity be some overlap in range of forms that scientists say were separated by millions of years if they all really lived at the same time. Some will suggest some sort of hydraulic sorting. Just try and get them to explain the details in a way that fits observation instead of some vague description.

And about those trilobite eyes… I have read where the fossils do show changes in trilobite eyes with time as opposed to them being found initially complete and finished.

 

Now for this next part, I am going to respond before I quote. You will see why.

Helen tries to make a point that it took so long to get from single cell life to multicellular life with their short generation times that it is not possible to then get to complex life with their longer generational times in the time that remains. She is confusing two different things here and hoping you don’t notice.

In short, she hopes that you are unware that there is vastly more genetic variation among the prokaryotes (bacteria, which are almost all single celled) than there is among the eukaryotes (plants, animals, etc.). I have pointed this out to Helen several times with many different references and she has never responded with any substance. Only once did she even acknowledge a post and that was to say that she did not personally like the individual being cited, ignoring that facts don’t care if you like the messenger or not. So there is not a problem with getting enough favorable mutations.

The truth is that the barrier to the evolution of complex life was not how many mutations needed to accumulate. Far more beneficial mutations have accumulated in the single celled organisms than have accumulated in the multicellular organisms since. No, the two most likely road blocks were the evolution of eukaryotes or the evolution of the differentiated cells of multicellular life. The most likely choice is the evolution of the eukaryotes. This happened through a symbiotic relationship between multiple single celled organisms living as a single cell. The remnants of the merger can be seen in the organelles of your own cells and of other eukaryotes. They still function much like their own little cells and even have their own genes completely separate from those in the nucleus. And this jump from prokaryote to eukaryote was likely a difficult step and the one that prevented the jump from single celled life to more complex life. We are, after all, only 500 million years after the Cambrian Explosion and look at what has developed since. Almost everything you know.

Let YEism explain why chloroplasts are still much like blue-green bacteria or why your mitochondria are essentially little bacteria living in your cells.

So, a statement was made about how the fossil record shows jawless vertebrates evolving into jawed fish and then amphibians and then reptiles. How does she respond?

“The mathematics and genetics of this occurring make it impossible. How many mutations would all that take? Considering that all known mutations reduce specificity, how are they going to get the increases in specificity required? Considering also that the evidence points to at least a thousand expressed negative mutations to one potentially positive expressed mutation, how are they going to get past the millions of negative mutations to get positive on top of positive on top of positive, etc., to get a hand from a fin? It is pure imagination and has not a shred of genetic evidence which makes it more than that.”

Hmmm. Notice something? There is absolutely nothing in there that addresses the statement. These fossils exist. She does not even attempt to deny that they exist. She instead tries to slip in a fallacious argument about genetics which has no factual basis, as shown above.

And there is genetic evidence, contrary to the claim. In the same way the genetic testing can tell you if your daddy is your daddy, genetic testing can and does confirm the relationships suggested by the fossils. It is called the twin nested hierarchy and is a huge problem for any YE model but is a natural consequence of common descent. And don’t let anyone try and confuse you with talk about similar animals being naturally similar genetically and with talk of the same genetic bits being used over and over. The testing is mostly on rare genetic events that have no bearing at all on such things. But YEers are good at obfuscation. They must be by the nature of what they are defending.

If you want to do some reading about how genetics supports evolution, try The Making of the Fittest.

Then there is another statement about the evolution of mammals from reptiles. (If you want to see the sequence, go to the archives at the bottom of the main page and look for a post by me with the word “transitionals” in the title. Or, here is the URL http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=13522 ) Again, these fossils exist. A long, detailed line of fossils connecting reptiles and mammals. There is not even an attempt to say that they do not exist. They unquestionably do. Instead it is the same discredited response about accumulating mutations and generational times which ignores reality.

 

With regard to the evolution of the fish from previous vertebrates it is said that there is “not a shred of genetic evidence.”

This is just not true. For a technical discussion of such evidence please see some of the following.

Takezaki et al.(2003) Molecular phylogeny or early vertebrates:Monophyly of the agnathans as revealed by sequences of 35 genes, Molecular Biology and Evolution 20:287-292.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/2/287

Winchell et al (2002) Evaluating hypotheses of deuterostome phylogeny and chordate evolution with new LSU and SSU ribosomal DNA data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:762-776.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/5/762

Furlong et al.(2002) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis supports monophyly of Ambulacraria and cyclostomes. Zoological Science 19:593-599.
http://www.lacim.uqam.ca/~chauve/Enseignement/BIF7001/H05/PHYLOGENIE/BIF7001-Phylo-ZoolSci19.pdf

So you see, there actually is genetic evidence to support the fossil evidence that was simply dismissed, contrary to what you were told. And you will never, ever, see YE ideas published in places where experts in the filed must review it and approve of it. Those with the appropriate background can see through their shenanigans in a heartbeat. So they do not even try to convince those who are knowledgeable. Instead, they prey upon the gullible layperson who has no independent ability to judge the merit of what they have to say.

YEism is unable to let the marketplace of ideas judge their work. Only the real scientists put everything out there to be so judged and weeded.

 

Now let’s look at a couple of details there.

“Considering also that the evidence points to at least a thousand expressed negative mutations to one potentially positive expressed mutation…”

Can we ask that Helen provide a peer reviewed citation for this claim? I strongly suspect that this is another one of those YE numbers that sounds good. But even that does not matter.

What is important is not the ratio of beneficial mutations to bad but how quickly bad mutations are eliminated from the population. And science has a pretty good grasp on how this goes. For most life, we can observe that harmful mutations are eliminated at a much greater rate they are generated. Only in the most complex forms of life, like humans, are the error rate and the error elimination rate close to being equal and is there still some uncertainty about which side of the line we lay.

For most of life, we have measured the rates and it is far, far from being problematic.

If you want a good overview of how this works and why many other of Helen’s claims about population genetics are wrong, try reading The Cooperative Gene. Many of her claims about genetics and populations and mutations and so on can be answered with a short period of time spent with the relevant literature.

“Considering that all known mutations reduce specificity, how are they going to get the increases in specificity required?”

Another one of those YE phrases that creep into the conversation. Ask Helen to provide a peer reviewed source for the claim that this is true.

Let’s go with an example. Scientists like to point to antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution in action and YEers like to make this claim about a reduction in specificity. I have given this example to Helen in the past, so she is aware of it. (http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=17883&postcount=227 ) I’ll leave out the names of the chemicals and genes for simplicity.

Vancomycin works by attacking a specific chemical in the cell wall of bacteria. Here is how the resistance evolved. First there is a gene which codes for a protein to detect the antibiotic. This then calls for two other genes to be expressed when it is detected. One makes a replacement chemical for the cell wall which is not attacked. The other goes and destroys the target chemical itself.

I am not sure how evolving a system to detect the antibiotic and then to respond by eliminating the target chemical and replacing it with a different chemical a chemical that is not vulnerable is a reduction in “specificity.” I think that there is also a good chance that it qualifies as the evolution before our eyes of an irreducibly complex system, that is one that does not work unless all the parts are in place.

 

“That argument is a false one. There is no reason at all to assume that a giraffe would be in the same environment as a jellyfish. Nor would I feel comfortable, personally, living in the sort of swampy area that insects, mosses, and ferns thrived in. I would prefer higher ground. There is no reason, in other words, to assume that all fossils should be mixed together in the fossil record.”

That again? You might not be comfortable doing so, but there can be made a long list of organisms that inhabited some specific ecological niche but that are never found together in the fossil record. For example, the marine reptiles evolved to fill a very similar niche to that filled by the cetaceans today, even evolving very similar bodies. But you won’t find them fossilized together.

“Actually, when we realize the first light came to the earth from the quasar that used to be associated with our black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and that the sun itself, a generation I star, did not light up immediately…”

Except that Helen forgets that we have done these calculations before. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has been weighed and it is about 3 orders of magnitude too light by mass to be as bright as the largest quasars. Furthermore, even the brightest quasars are much too dim to have been as bright as the sun if placed at the center of our galaxy. The mass of the central black hole constrains the ultimate possible brightness of the resulting quasar. It is called the Eddington limit. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way is simply incapable of ever having been nearly as bright as she proclaims. It sounds good, but the facts do not support it.

“Which is why the evolutionists are stuck with the idea of a ‘snowball earth’ despite the evidence that the matrix around the boulders could only form in warm water….”

As has been pointed out to Helen before, the snowball earth theories and related theories say that the snowball period would have been immediately followed by a period of extreme warmth as the CO2 that accumulated in the atmosphere while it could not be removed by weathering caused a runaway greenhouse effect. So the oceans would have been warm and the ratio of carbon isotopes in these layers supports this mechanism.

“The Bible is quite clear that there was one continent in the beginning (which, by the way, required science a few thousand years to agree with), and that the continents were not divided until the time of Peleg. This gives ample time for the kiwis and all other animals to migrate.”

Ignoring, of course, that ocean crossings are not the only barrier to such long migrations across land that has been devastated and can be expected to be completely devoid of food sources for a while, by animals with very specific dietary requirements in some cases and by populations that have been reduced to minimal numbers, often a single breeding pair. And don’t forget all those hungry predators being released at the same time.

So you see that YEism is built upon a bunch of false statements about science. Don’t let anyone try and convince you that you cannot believe what can be empirically observed. You don’t have to ignore your lying eyes.

Oh well, time for me to re-retire. Enjoy.

 

To borrow a line from Paul opposing the lies of atheist darwinism -

 

Bob said
“The "stories told" about the 3.5 billion year geologic column "layering" of fossils would make the column on average 100 miles deep. In places where the column due to wind and erosion etc has "piled high" we have about 1 mile max.”

Here is the classic factless, detail-intolerant response from a true believer in atheist darwinism as he rejects science, scripture and reason.

Notice that in this simple case above - I have not said anything about finding ALL the mythical geologic column layers as stated by evilutionists. But as usual believers in atheist darwinism merely infer ASSUMPTIONS FOR DATA they can not PROVIDE.

I state that the sedimenatry layers of the geologic columns found today are at MOST 1 mile thick even though the Atheist Darwinists would "Tell stories" that amount to 100 miles of Geologic column.

The point remains UNNADDRESSED by UTEOTWs sidestepping, misdirection and "dancing" around the inconvenient details.

UTEOTWs bait and switch responsse directs the reader AWAY from the problem of NOT HAVING the average depth predicted by the theory to the point of losing 99% of it -- to ANOTHER question of whether the COMPLETE sequencial layering COULD EVEN BE FOUND AT ALL.

"Me thinks the lady protests to much" -- to jump into this Evolutionist pit when the topic raised in my post was the EXTENT of the DEPTH predicted is standard "misdirection policy" on the part of believers in atheist darwinism in their endless quest to avoid truth.

That sad argument from Atheist darwinists is easily translated as "reviews by scientists that are not opposed to the Bible don't count. How many athiests agree with you".

How sad.

My reference above is from Morris and Parker - "What is Creation Science" where they admit that the column is supposed to be on average above 100 miles but is FOUND to be on average only ONE mile - UTEOTW's
whining about these authors NOT being peer reviewed is as always -- vaccuous.

BTW - they do say that in places where the layers pile up due to wind, water erosion it gets up to 16 miles in spots INSTEAD of a 100+ mile average that piles up in places to 200 miles.

But as usual - UTEOTW's comments are only USEFUL in exposing his own faith in mythology over scripture, science and reason.

In Christ,

Bob

 

" My reference above is from Morris and Parker"

No real geologist reference. No peer reviewed reference.

Point made by you yoursef. You cannot point to any source that has been reviewed by real, working geologists. Because nothing in YE can withstand such review.

 

Bob said
“The horse series is a good example of how atheist darwinist fraud works. They arranged the fossils of different animals in sequence to LOOK like a horse was evolving -- but that sequence matched NOTHING in the geologic column in terms of actual sequences found.”

When the atheist darwinist appears to be confounded by the facts of nature you know you have them in a glaring weakness.

But in this case we have a very bad situation because NORMALLY we would LIKE to claim that true believers in atheist darwinism actually ACCEPT THE LIGHT known to atheist darwinists -- at a MINIMUM!!

But in the sad case of UTEOTW - this just isn't true.

ATHEIST DRAWINISTS have already debunked and dumped the failed "lamentable Horse Series" -- but UTEOTW simply "pretends" to still cling to it!!!

How sad.

My argument is that Atheist Darwinists first PRESENTED the fraudulent series as FACT -- even publishing it as the best DEMONSTRATED fact of evolution only to later have to admit that regarding THEIR OWN fossil SERIES presented as FACT "IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"

Wrong.

I am complaining that EVEN ATHEIST DARWINISTS admit to a problem with their OWN STORY TELLING - whereas the blind BELIEVERS in atheist darwinism CLING to these dead stories ANYWAY.

And of course - this has been pointed out to you about 100 times - only to find you pretending not to understand the discussion.

Surely you have more pride in your work than that UTEOTW!

Why sacrifice science, reason and christianity to this false god UTEOTW when EVEN the Atheist DARWINISTs won't go along with you any more on your failed defenses of the dEBUNKED horse series fraud??

Oh that reminds me -- in your post you did state that ANY FaCTS quoted from well-known well accepted atheist darwinist sources that are SHOWN to reject what you blindly cling to -- will no longer be read by you!!

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

UTE, hope you are a corn farmer. You have enough straw men there to scare away flocks of birds!

 

So, as an example, you call it a strawman to reply to a claim of no genetic support for the evolution of fish from early chordates with a list of papers that work out the phylogeny of early chordates through genetics.

You call it a strawman to counter a claim that all mutations reduce specicivity with an example and a request for support of the claim.

You call it a strawman to point out in general the weaknesses of you population genetics arguements and then suggest a book where the details are fleshed out.

And so on... If those are strawmen then I guess you learn something new every day.

The fact remains that YEism is bad, bad science that cannot standup to scrutiny by the experts so instead it plays on the uninformed.

 

Morris and Parker have not been quoted here - but UTEOTW knows they are Christians and so that is enough to get him going after them --

This is their quote --

Notice that they are simply reporting what is IN the literature when it comes to what is SUPPOSED to have been piling up for 4 billion years.

Obviously that is Atheist Darwinist myth - so it wont actually be FOUND to be that deep in real life -- all they can do at that point is report what myth being promoted by atheist darwinists and their following of untrue-believers.

UTEOTW's argument is that we can not trust anyone but a Geologist "TO READ".

How amazing!!

But not wanting to leave UTEOTW completely in the dark -- here is a Geologist in favor of YEC -- maybe UTEOTW will allow him to read for him.

http://www.icr.org/article/242/

Err umm-- NOT! No way such a Bible tolerant POV is going to be allowed in UTEOTW's true-believerism slavish devotion to atheist darwinist doctrines.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Go Bob - Go Bro'!

Wayne