Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Dec 30, 2001.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    CHET
    Barbarian, please give us your absolute best evidence for evolution.

    THE BARBARIAN
    Best evidence for evolution?
    Hard to say, but directly observed macroevolutionary events would have to be at the top.
    There's quite a number of speciations in that category now.

    Of course, we could point to the fossil record, which clearly shows evolutionary progressions, and to modern genetics and biochemical data like that for cytochrome c which independently verify the phylogenies obtained by anatomical and fossil data.
    We also have the acknowledgement by the Institute for Creation Research that new species, genera, and families evolve from old ones.

    We have the remarkable genetic evidence for a common ancestor between man and apes in the remains of a former chimpanzee telemere in human DNA. We also have psuedogenes and other noncoding DNA in common, which make no sense at all, except in terms of evolution. We have a remarkable sequence of tetrapods from lobed fin fishes to fish with limbs unable to walk on land, to fish that could, to amphibians, and so on. All with consistant anatomical transitions which can be explained no other way.
    There's lots more. But we'll stop here.


    CHET
    You said, "Its hard to say".
    Its hard because there are not evidences. Just wrong conclusions from the observations. Which is to be expected if you have an already assumed idea that evolution took place.


    You said, “directly observed macroevolutionary events would have to be at the top.

    Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that macro-evolution is observable? Where is this observed please. Tell me where one observation has been found in one kind turning into another kind. Like a cat turning into a dog.


    You said “Of course, we could point to the fossil record, which clearly shows evolutionary progressions,

    I am amazed. O.K. tell me where there are any transitional fossils were we can see one kind turn into another. Specifically an ape into man. In the fossil record. By the way, how do fossils form?


    You said, “and to modern genetics and biochemical data

    So a reproduction proves evolution?


    You said, “We also have the acknowledgment by the Institute for Creation Research that new species, genera, and families evolve from old ones

    Please point me to an article. I did a search on ICR and could not find such statements. Could you please tell me what a “species” is?


    You said, “We have the remarkable genetic evidence for a common ancestor between man and apes in the remains of a former chimpanzee telemere in human DNA. We also have psuedogenes and other noncoding DNA in common

    O.K. your observation leads you to believe in a common ancestor. My observation leads me to believe in a common designer. I can take the lug nuts off a chevy and use them on a buick. Does this mean that automobiles evolved from an airplane 2.5 million years ago? And where does the common ancestor originate? What was the first living thing?


    You said, “to fish with limbs unable to walk on land, to fish that could, to amphibians, and so on

    Huh? Was this the latest Disney cartoon?


    You said, “which can be explained no other way.

    Let me give you an analogy. This is a picture of how evolutionary scientist are.
    In scientific study they took a frog and wanted to measure how far it could jump. They said, “jump frog jump!” It jumped 5 feet. They cut off a leg, and wanted to measure how far it could now jump. “jump frog jump!” they said. It jumped only 3 feet. They cut yet another and said, "jump frog jump" it could only jump 1 foot. They cut the last leg, and yelled, “JUMP frog JUMP!” The frog jumped 0 inches. Therefore these highly educated scientist concluded that with no legs, the frog goes deaf.


    THE BARBARIAN
    You said, "Its hard to say".
    Its hard because there are not evidences.


    Rather, because there are so many.
    Remember, evolution was discovered by creationists. How could they have assumed something contrary to what they believe?
    That [one kind turning into another, such as a cat into a dog] is not macroevolution. Macroevolution is the evolution of new species. Microevolution is variation within species. Presently, scientific creationists, such as the ICR consider the evolution of new species, genera, and families to be a fact.

    One could check out the talk.origins archives for a list of observed speciations. Or one could read John Woodmorrap's "Ark Feasibility Study" to learn what sorts of evolution are accepted by creationists. Woodmorrape believes that all cats, for example, evolved from a single kind on the Ark. This would amount to the evolution of new families, at least. Generally, they don't tell this to their followers, however.
    Maybe the best example is the transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals. There are numerous examples, with all sorts of intermediate levels. Sometimes, the animals are so precisely intermediate (e.g. Diarthrognathus) that it's impossible to say to which class it belongs.

    [Regarding the ‘ape to man’ request for evidence] You've been misled. Apes and men are too specialized for one to have evolved into the other. However, we do have evidence that chimps and humans very recently had a common ancestor.


    By the way, how do fossils form?

    The most common way is mineral replacement of tissues. But there are things like casts and fossil foot prints, and insects in amber, and so on.


    So a reproduction proves evolution?

    I don't know what you mean. What I was talking about was that (for example) cytochrome c variation will give you the same phylogenies that early biologists prepared based on anatomical data. So will genetic comparisons. In science, confirmation from several independent sources is considered compelling.


    You said, “We also have the acknowledgment by the Institute for Creation Research that new species, genera, and families evolve from old ones”. Please point me to an article. I did a search on ICR and could not find such statements. Could you please tell me what a “species” is?

    Sure. John Woodmorappe's "Ark Feasibility Study". In a personal email, he confirmed to me that he thought the limit of variation is the family.

    A species is an interbreeding population of organisms.


    O.K. your observation leads you to believe in a common ancestor. My observation leads me to believe in a common designer.

    Won't work. Psuedogenes are "glitches" in the DNA. A telomere inside a chromosome is evidence of chromosome fusion, which explains why humans and chimps have different numbers of chromosomes. Why would a designer build the same goofs into both species? Makes no sense. And why would the remains of that telomere be sitting right where it would have to be to indicate evolutionary change?


    What was the first living thing?

    Earliest living things we know about were cyanobacteria. We have very ancient remains in the form of stromatolites. These are still forming today, in the same way as those ancient ones.


    You said, “to fish with limbs unable to walk on land, to fish that could, to amphibians, and so on”
    Huh? Was this the latest Disney cartoon?


    Nope. We have fossils of just those fish. Acanthostega, for example.
    http://www.personal.u-net.com/~paleomod/p97/aca.htm
    You can find more details on the subject in the excellent book "At the Water's Edge".


    CHET
    For lack of time I will only comment on a couple of things:
    The most common way is mineral replacement of tissues. But there are things like casts and fossil foot prints, and insects in amber, and so on http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-143a.htm http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-081b.htm http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-010b.htm http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-037b.htm


    Sure. John Woodmorappe's "Ark Feasibility Study". In a personal email, he confirmed to me that he thought the limit of variation is the family.

    This man is not part of ICR. So he does not represent ICR. You have your terms backwards, Macro is the evolution from one kind to another, i.e. Chimp to Man. Micro evolution (even though I don't use the term because it is deceptive) is a variation, like the 250 types of dogs. But you still have a dog. A dog will not turn into a cow. There are limits on the variations. Natural selection can't produce a different kind of animal, only make that animal good. The limits, and the variations are encoded in the DNA the God has designed. And God don't produce "goofed" DNA. But through years of reproduction something could go wrong. For example, if you copy a computer program over and over and over and over eventually a file may get lost or corrupt. God in His greatness has designed a "program" that has been reproducing itself for 6 thousand years.


    THE BARBARIAN
    This man is not part of ICR. So he does not represent ICR.

    The ICR promotes his book, in which he admits to the evolution of these taxa. I think you will find most other members of the ICR will at least concede that new species and genera evolve.


    You have your terms backwards, Macro is the evolution from one kind to another, i.e. Chimp to Man.

    No. The term means the evolution of new species. Initially, creationists denied that new species evolved, and they agreed with the scientific definition of "macroevolution". But as it became apparent that new species do evolve, they made their own definition, first at the level of genera, and then back to families. I expect that will change in the near future to include even higher taxa.
    Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is variation that produces new species.


    …But you still have a dog. A dog will not turn into a cow.

    Is that what you think macroevolution is about? If I believed that, I wouldn't like it, either.


    There are limits on the variations.

    Problem is, no one can say what those limits are. We can't find even one organism on Earth that is anywhere near the supposed limits. There's no evidence for them.


    Natural selection can't produce a different kind of animal

    No, that's wrong. For example, we have very good evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals.
    "Design" is the activity of a limited creature who must figure things out, I find the attribution of "design" to God to be somewhat blasphemous. God had no need to design anything. He created without any consideration at all, perfect in His understanding of His will and His creation.
    The problem is explaining how we and chimps ended up with precisely the same goofs. That makes no sense, except in terms of common descent.


    JOHN WELLS
    Here is a cut-n-paste from Barbarian's link:
    Acanthostega possessed fishlike gill bars. These bones inside the rear of the head support the gill filaments of fish. The presence of gills shows that Acanthostega lived in water, not on land. But why then did it have legs? Perhaps these legs were inherited from a terrestrial ancestor. The presence of gill bars strongly suggest that this was not the case, as internal fishlike gills would have been lost quickly by any terrestrial ancestor. Aquatic amphibians whose ancestors were terrestrial all have external gills outside the head, not internal ones like Acanthostega. Thus, the presence of internal gills in the head of Acanthostega, suggests that legs originally evolved in an aquatic creature, for some aquatic purpose, not for locomotion on land.
    The ribs of Acanthostega are thin, possibly too thin to support the weight of the soft tissue of the body, the stomach and other organs. The spine is very flexible, which is great for swimming, but bad news for a terrestrial tetrapod, because a more rigid spine is needed to support the body on land. This indicates that Acanthostega was well adapted for life in the water, but incapable of excursions onto dry land. Thus, legs probably evolved initially for an aquatic use, not for locomotion on land, though evolution later adapted them for that purpose.

    [Much of what is written there is] subjective opinion injected as truth. Every evolution related article I've ever read is full of this brainwashing!


    THE BARBARIAN
    Scientists always treat evidence like this. Notice that they build a case by carefully considering what is, not what they'd like it to be.

    Notice that it points out that the creature could not be evolved from a terrestrial creature since it has internal gills which would collapse and suffocate the animal out of water. It also points out that the animal could not walk on land because the spine would not have been able to support it.
    The other evidence, while suggestive is not as conclusive. But the whole presents an animal with legs that could not have walked on land, or be descended from such an animal.

    Because we have a fish with limbs, yet unable to walk on land, we can conclude that it used limbs to get around under water. Because we see fish doing that today, it's not much of a surprise.

    But since we first find the femur, and tibia and fibula, and phalanges of tetrapods on a fish that clearly is not a land dweller, it's pretty obvious what happened when we find later examples with strong limbs and spine, and the lateral line system lost, and the otic notch of amphibians.
    Such transitional animals make no sense at all, except in light of evolution. Creationism can merely shrug and say "it's a mystery". But Evolution explains why we see such animals.
    “living fossils” are just animals that existed for a very long time without evolving very much. They are important to evolutionary theory, since they validate one of its major predictions.

    Fitness has meaning only in terms of the environment. Evolutionary theory says that natural selection will tend to improve fitness in organisms. If an organism is well-adapted to the environment, and selective pressures do not change much for a very long time, then the theory predicts that natural selection will prevent evolution from occurring. And that is what we see. Are there many of these cases? No, it is rare for conditions to stay the same for so long. But it happens now and again, and when it does, we see just what evolutionary theory predicts.

    "Polystrate fossils" haven't been a problem for science for a long time. Here's a link to the work of a Christian geologist who solved the "problem" over 100 years ago. Suffice to say, it's not what the ICR presents it to be. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

    The major problem with the fossil record, from a creationist point of view, is how to reconcile the sorting of fossils with a sudden, one-time flood. It's impossible to do so.

    First, the fossils are sorted according to age, with oldest at the bottom of the geologic column, and the youngest at the top. Various independent dating methods have confirmed this to be true.

    Once creationists supposed "differential escape" could explain the results, with the fast mammals outrunning the flood waters more rapidly than slow reptiles. But this could not explain how sloths could outrun velociraptors, or oak trees could outrun pine and ferns.

    Another attempt was "hydrologic sorting", in which the shape of the organism determined where it settled in the column. But streamlined icthyosaurs and bulky ammonites ended up in the same strata, below streamlined whales and bulky nautilids. So that didn't work.

    Where are all the human fossils? Seems like a great question.
    Turns out fossilization is very rare. Most organisms on land decay and disappear, or are scavenged and their fragments scattered.
    Let's put this into perspective by thinking about the many millions of people who lived in Europe since history began. Where are all their bodies? Mostly decayed and gone to the dust from which they came. Bodies normally don't last very long after death. We might ask why the soil of woods are not choked with the remains of animal bodies.

    Subduction is not a possible answer. For a continent to be subducted in a few centuries, it would produce such heat that the seas would boil. There is friction, and the heat it produces must be accounted for.

    [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN WELLS
    Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,(a) show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions(b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) Many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.(c) These observations, together with the occurrenceof compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.(d)

    a . Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]; Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol. 204, No. 3, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

    b . Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

    c . Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116; Sunderland, pp. 111–114; David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22; Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

    d . Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

    Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, and many others. Other remains, such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil, present similar problems. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

    Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmenia and in Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian and Precambrian rocks—rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.


    THE BARBARIAN
    Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve…

    There's quite a number of these. All of the ones I know about were found in crevices in the rock. That doesn't mean they were laid down with the rock. If you have a checkable source for one that wasn't, I'd be pleased to see it.


    Other remains, such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil, present similar problems.

    Let's go over them, one at a time. I'm interested in what bothers you about them.


    Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.

    You can see that in the US. There are folded mountains that have cretaceous rock folded back over more recent deposits. But no geologist is puzzled about that.


    Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmenia and in Arizona.

    Not far from where I live are the notorious "Paluxy Man Tracks", supposedly made by humans contemporary with dinosaurs. Problem is, some of them have chisel marks, and others don't look anything like human footprints. In fact, it was creationists from Loma Linda U. who officially debunked that nonsense.


    Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.

    Especially pterosaurs. Many of them lived on the coast,and fed on fish in the coastal seas. I'm interested in the land animals, though. Which ones are you speaking of, and where?
    Let's get started on it. Put one forward with a checkable source, and we'll see what comes up.


    ED
    Originally posted by The Barbarian: "Polystrate fossils" haven't been a problem for science for a long time. Here's a link to the work of a Christian geologist who solved the "problem" over 100 years ago. Suffice to say, it's not what the ICR presents it to be. ]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

    It is amazing how evolutionists tiptoe around an issue while proclaiming to provide evidence. The whole issue with polystrate trees is that they extend through geological layers that evolution claim to represent millions of years.

    The article you cited states:
    As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

    Just because it isn’t considered a problem by evolutionists does not make it a non-problem. Here your source states that the polystrate tree was embedded by its roots rapidly and then was able to stand erect for thousands of years for a slow deposit. Thousands of years is a very generous estimate considering the geological layers represent millions of years. I challenge any evolutionist to point to a half-buried thousand year old tree. He never explains why evolutionists have such incredible faith as to believe a dead tree can stand in place for thousands of years without rotting or falling down. He is critical of how creationists point to the polystrate trees observed in the making from the Mt Saint Helens catastrophe. His best defense against creation is “most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits”. How does this disprove the flood? No creationist claims that there must be volcanic deposits present. As usual, this argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors and rabbit trails to take the reader away from the question ‘how did this tree stand so long?’

    This argument is similar to Darby South’s article ‘A Whale of a Tail’. In this article, Darby tries to tap dance around the 80 foot whale fossil found in the rock quarry in California. This whale was at a 45-50 degree angle in layers of diatomaceous earth. Evolutionists tell us that each inch layer represents at least 1000 years of accumulation.

    Which brings up a question, did this whale carcass get buried by sediment rapidly as creationist claim, or over hundreds of thousands of years? Is it believable that a whale carcass could stay in place for thousands of years without rotten and breaking up? That seems completely illogical. But similar to Andrew MacRae’s article you stated, Darby South declared:
    These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented.
    In other words, yes, he believes that a whale could sit in one place in the ocean without drifting away, being eaten, rotting or breaking apart while thousands of years of sediment formed around it. An atheist or evolutionist prefers to believe the impossible rather than acknowledge God.
    Creation is a worldview based on faith confirmed by evidence. Evolution is a worldview based on blind faith in spite of the evidence. To read about the religion of evolution, go to
    http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm


    Originally posted by The Barbarian: Not far from where I live are the notorious "Paluxy Man Tracks", supposedly made by humans contemporary with dinosaurs. Problem is, some of them have chisel marks, and others don't look anything like human footprints. In fact, it was creationists from Loma Linda U. who officially debunked that nonsense.
    Let's get started on it. Put one forward with a checkable source, and we'll see what comes up.


    Perhaps you should quote a 'checkable source' in your claims. These tracks are extremely controversal, but that is not the same as being 'officially debunked'. I could find no Loma Linda University article citing your claims.
    However I did find many other articles on various sites. Most of the evolutionary sources do not dispute the tracks as authentic. They try to explain them away as not being human. Some claim that the tracks themselves are dinosaur tracks, while others claim erosion that looks like tracks. One did accuse it as being a carving, but that is far from 'officially debunked'. The origin of the tracks are speculative on both sides. Whether they are human or not will probably never be agreed upon. However, the evolution argument (as always), pretends to stand on solid ground when it is speculation and not fact.


    Originally posted by The Barbarian: Best evidence for evolution?
    Hard to say, but directly observed macroevolutionary events would have to be at the top. There's quite a number of speciations in that category now. Of course, we could point to the fossil record, which clearly shows evolutionary progressions, and to modern genetics and biochemical data like that for cytochrome c which independently verify the phylogenies obtained by anatomical and fossil data.


    It is funny how evolution 'repeaters' believe that there is evidence when evolution researchers do not. For example, you claim that the fossil record supports evolution. Most believers in evolution think this as well. This is probably because people do not verify information, they just have faith in talkorgins.org to do the thinking for them. However, evolution researchers themselves deny exactly what evolution propagators claim. Look at your own icons of evolution and what they say about the fossil record:

    Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987). p. 229
    “ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”

    Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Interpretation of Diagrams: Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?” Natural History, vol. 85 (August/September 1976), pp. 18-28. p. 18
    “ the Precambrian fossil record is little more than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae. Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.”

    Gould, Stephen Jay, “A Short Way to Big Ends,”
    “Where, then, are all the Precambrian ancestors—or, if they didn’t exist in recognizable form, how did modern complexity get off to such a fast start?”

    Smith, Peter J., “Evolution’s Most Worrisome Questions,” review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge (Fact on File, 1987, 246 pp.), New Scientist (November 19, 1987), p. 59.
    “Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species.”

    George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,”
    “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”

    These are not creationists, but the most die hard evolutionist in modern 'science'. You have gotta love George Neville's logic. He states that creation is not an option. Since it isn't an option, the fossil record in inexplicable. Of course it is. If you box yourself in and refuse to follow the facts away from your pre-determined conclusion, that leaves you with nothing but facts that can't be explained because they don't fit evolution.


    THE BARBARIAN
    The natural world is quite capable of producing all we see. The magic came in the creation of a universe in which such things can happen. In C.S. Lewis' (an evolutionist, BTW) words, the "deep magic just before the beginning".

    Dawkins follows his mention of a seemingly sudden appearance of phyla to show how evolutionary theory accounts for it. Now, I'm not accusing you of editing out that part of his statement. My guess is you got that from somewhere else, and don't even know what he said after that.


    “ the Precambrian fossil record is little more than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae. Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.”

    Indeed, he said that. But here, he is asserting that evolution did procede rapidly during the early Cambrian,and the fossil record documents it. He's saying just the opposite of what you say he is.
    However, it is important to note that Gould also points out that there are well-characterized episodes of gradual evolution, well preserved in the fossil record. He mentions horses, forams, and ammonites, among others.


    George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,”: “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”

    He's just wrong about that. But since we don't know how old this one is, it could be merely out of date. We see, in preCambrian rocks, numerous phyla.


    ED
    Originally posted by The Barbarian: You've been misled. Edited quotes are almost always evidence of dishonesty.

    No we cannot agree on your assumptions. You do not post entire articles to substantiate your claims. In fact, other than your reference to the polystrate trees, you haven't substantiated anything. Even the polystrate trees admits to the fact that evolution can't account for them while claiming to have proven something.
    My quotes are valid because they prove what I have been saying all along. Evolution uses smoke and mirrors to hide their lack of substance. Dawkins and Gould admit that the record points supports what creation has always claimed, and then dance around the facts with weak explanations. Gould goes so far as to claim punctuated equilibrium is science.

    What evolution does to avoid inexplicable facts is push it outside of science so that it cannot be tested. If you can't prove or disprove it, it can't be refuted. Name one observance in science where punctuated equilibrium has any merit whatsoever.
    You establish yourself as an authority which impresses people who don't recognize what you are doing. Then you belittle others by calling them unlearned or dishonest and you present unsubstantiated claims. You said that the fossil record was irrefutable evidence for evolution. I called the bluff by quoting your own heroes.

    It is odd that you call me dishonest for quoting your leaders admission that the fossil record does not prove what you claimed it did. It is also odd that you quote other evolutionists that claim to disprove creationism while they are in fact confirming it. I in no way implied that your prophets of evolution support creation. I merely pointed out that they confirm creation facts and then weakly try to explain them away with crafty arguments.

    [ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE BARBARIAN
    In fact, other than your reference to the polystrate trees, you haven't substatiated anything.

    I would be pleased to give you further evidence for whatever you doubt. The Neville statement, for example, is contradicted by several entire assemblages of animals from Ediacaran and Vendian rocks, both Precambrian.


    Even the polystrate trees admits to the fact that evolution can't account for them while claiming to have proven something.

    As noted in the link, there's no mystery to how the trees were buried. It still happens today on occasion.


    Gould goes so far as to claim punctuated equilibrium is science.

    Of course it is. It is a valid theory that explains a number of phenomena.


    Name one observance in science where punctuated equilibrium has any merit whatsoever.

    Sure. The first observation was that of Ernst Mayr, who noted that aberrant populations were usually in geographically isolated places. Eldrige and Gould applied the prediction of Darwinism that a well-adapted organism would change little to show that stasis should be more common than evolutionary change. They then explained Mayr's observations by showing evidence from introduction of species to new habitats (like Hawaii and other oceanic islands) to show that rapid adaptive radiation and speciation occurs in small populations in such situations. A mass of evidence impossible to dismiss. For that reason, punctuated equillibrium has won a following among scientists. Keep in mind, it's not the only mode of evolution; we see that gradual evolution occurs too, albeit not as often.
    You've been misled.


    ED
    I have read from the articles I quote from. You claim I am dishonest in doing so but you provide no substance to your claim. That is how evolution debates work. You never address the opposition, but paint yourself as being intellectual while carefully avoiding the real issues. You did not address anything I presented against your blanket claims. Yet you pretend to have special knowledge about science. In reality, most evolutionists do exactly as you do. They say things like, 'polystrate trees happen today' but you offer no explanation to observable science that proclaims the opposite of what you have been misled to believe by your leaders.

    No sources are provided, only bold assertions. Christians need to recognize that evolution has no foundation or argument. They completely depend on the ignorance of others.

    As of yet, you have stated nothing while claiming everything. I have called your bluff and several of your bold assertions, but you have not answered any of them.
    Evolution and atheism are religions of pride. Here is a quote for you to deny. In his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated:
    "Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?"

    Read Cosmos and then deny this quote. Your religion is founded upon paganism.

    It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride – or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They feel like they have no self-worth unless they can identify themselves as ‘intellectual’. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence.

    Even in this forum we have seen this. I have asked Barbarian for sources but non have been provided. When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; they avoid answering hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are avoiding; establish themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is, if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, they can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.
    We have seen this repeatedly with Barbarian. With comments stating that evidence has been ‘officially debunked’ and macroevolution events are observed and dna proves evolution, we see the claims of evidence without having to provide evidence. He demands ‘checkable’ resources, but when asked for verifiable resources he bombards with accusations and chases rabbit trails. I have called his bluffs without any response other than saying I have misquoted evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining why his own religious leaders testify against his claims, he just accuses others of dishonesty and ignorance.

    If you put people on the defensive, they won’t think critically and the evolutionist can avoid critical analysis of his or her argument. [He] claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today. Indeed we do, but they debunk evolution. Mount Saint Helens created a lake full of sediment which created many poloystrate trees. Evolutionists don’t point to this observance but creationists do


    THE BARBARIAN
    Of course you have read from them. But have you read them fully? Do you, for example, know what Dawkins wrote immediately after that snippet you were given?

    I've repeatedly stated that I don't think you are dishonest. I think you trusted the wrong people.

    I directly addressed your points. I pointed out, for example, that the quote about there being no phyla in Precambrian times was wrong. I mentioned two entire fauna that clearly refute that assertion.


    In reality, most evolutionists do exactly as you do. They say things like, 'polystrate trees happen today' but you offer no explanation to observable science that proclaims the opposite of what you have been misled to believe by your leaders.

    The fact remains that we do see that happen. Anyone can construe any motives they like in others, but motives count less than facts.
    Would you like some links? Let's start with that one about no Precambrian phyla.
    http://www.geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html


    ED
    Your link may indeed contradict the quotes of evolutionists that I presented, but that doesn't disprove my point - rather it confirms it.

    This is typical evolutionary dodging. I present an argument and you evade it and try to discredit my research.

    Apparently, barbarian doesn’t think that we read the links he presents as ‘proof’. I originally asked for a link to his ‘proof’ that the human fossils with the dinosaur had been officially debunked. Instead of answering, he created dozens of rabbit trails that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Since he never answered after several requests, I will assume that he fabricated this evidence to support his claims.

    He did say that the quotes are dishonest and incorrect. Obviously these men do not support creation because they are very anti-creation and anti-Christian. However, those quotes do reveal that the evidence is not in the fossil record as barbarian claims. He stated that the fossil record was one of the irrefutable proofs. He then presented a link as proof that Dawkins, Gould and Neville was wrong. Notice that in the above quote, Gould says that the pre-Cambrian record is mostly algae and bacteria.

    Barbarian offered this site as proof, http://www.geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html .
    The site barbarian referenced as debunking this states:
    “Our microscopic analyses have extended the range of reef-building calcimicrobes, formerly known only from the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, back nearly 250 million years into the Proterozoic. These features imply that the origins of Phanerozoic reef ecosystem were in the Precambrian. A Ph.D. thesis on an 850 million year old reef complex in the western N.W.T. was recently completed and one on a 1200 million year old barrier reef on the north coast of Baffin Island is currently underway.”

    Even if there are larger fossils before the Precambrian layer, it does not change the facts. As Richard Dawkins stated, “we find them[fossils] in an advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear”. How does this fossil record prove evolution? Even if the Precambrian record was filled with invertebrates and contradicted these men, how would that prove evolution?

    The issue is that every fossil is complete and unchanged. There are zero transitional forms. To save Barbarian the trouble of mentioning the Archaeopteryx, I will mention it also. Many evolutionists claim this is a transitional form. However, birds are found lower in the strata than this fossil. If modern birds were found in strata dated before, how could this be a transitional form? It can’t. It is merely an extinct species. Reptiles fossils are dated earlier than this bird and bird fossils are dated earlier than this bird.


    THE BARBARIAN
    Apparently, barbarian doesn’t think that we read the links he presents as ‘proof’. I originally asked for a link to his ‘proof’ that the human fossils with the dinosaur had been officially debunked.

    Nope. Science doesn't have an "official" debunking. Someone tosses out an theory, and if it works, we use it, and if it doesn't, then it dies. So far, all the "human/dino" stuff has been faked or errors. But if you can produce a checkable source, I'd be glad to run down one of them for you, or even a number of them.

    [The Dawkins’ quote] is a fraud. He follows this by explaining how this is consistant with evolutionary theory. Go read the book; you'll see.


    Obviously these men do not support creation because they are very anti-creation and anti-Christian.

    Gould is a professed agnostic, but he has, in his assertion of "nonoverlapping magistra", pointed out that religion is a good and respectable thing for humans. You've been lied to about that, also.


    However, these quotes do reveal that the evidence is not in the fossil record as barbarian claims.

    Wrong again. Gould says so, and Dawkins says so, and even many creationists say so.


    He stated that the fossil record was one of the irrefutable proofs. He then presented a link as proofithat Dawkins, Gould and Neville was wrong.

    Neville, of course, was wrong, if he was quoted accurately. Both Gould and Dawkins had their words snipped to make it appear that they believe what they do not. Gould also notes the existance of Precambrian multicellular animals.


    Barbarian offered this site as proof, http://www.geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html .
    Microscopic analyses? Hmmm. That doesn’t sound like debunking to me.


    Here's some of the top of the opening page in that link:
    In 1946, our view of ancient life was changed dramatically when the first convincing fossils of Precambrian animals were found in the Ediacara Hills of Australia. The unusual fossils, originally interpreted as jellyfish, strange worms, and frond-like corals, gave scientists their first look at the animals that populated the Precambrian seas.
    The blue areas on the map show rocks of Ediacaran age, and the red dot shows the original discovery site in the Ediacara Hills.
    Before this discovery, it was believed either that animals had not evolved during the Precambrian, or that they could not be fossilized since they did not have hard skeletons or shells. We now know that animals did evolve more than 545 million years ago, and that even though they were soft-bodied their body shapes were preserved during rapid burial by sand.


    I'm mystified as to how you could have missed it. It's the first article on the site, right at the top. Notice that it demonstrates that your source was wrong.
    The facts are, there were multicellular animals before the Cambrian. We can, for example trace the ammonites through millions of years of evolution, gradual change.


    The issue is that every fossil is complete and unchanged. There are zero transitional forms.

    No, that's wrong, too. We have for example, numerous therapsid fossils, each gradually becoming more and more mammal-like until they are mammals.


    To save Barbarian the trouble of mentioning the Archaeopteryx, I will mention it also. Many evolutionists claim this is a transitional form. However, birds are found lower in the strata than this fossil. If modern birds were found in strata dated before, how could this be a transitional form? It can’t.

    That's like saying if you are alive, how could your grandfather still be alive. Archaeopteryx is transitional because it has both dinosaur and bird characteristics.


    ED
    You still evade my questions. You first said that the footprint fossil was officially debunked and now you say you didn't say it. You said, ""Paluxy Man Tracks" ...In fact, it was creationists from Loma Linda U. who officially debunked that nonsense."
    Which position are you sticking to? Officially debunked or no such thing as officially debunked?

    More important though is your rabbit trails. You have yet to answer my questions. You made a lot of reference-less claims, and implied that I don't read what I quote. Didn't I say you would do that? When you can't answer the questions you try to discredit the questioner.

    How is your 'proof' against polystrate trees proof. You are desparately avoiding the question that began this debate. You cited an article and I pointed out the error. Explain the error without creating a diversion.

    Which is true -
    -- Polystrate trees were covered quickly - which refutes the millions of years evolution identifies in the layers
    Or
    Polystrate trees were covered gradually and miraculously stood for millions of years while catastrophic events deposited the layers around them?

    The article you cited implies both. However, both cannot be true.
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: The following was in another thread but belongs here.]


    THE BARBARIAN
    I hope no one here actually thinks that evolution is merely "random change".
    If so, we'd never have made it here. Without natural selection, there'd be no directed evolution.
    God does almost everything in this world by natural means. But that doesn't mean He's not in control.


    WILL
    A question for you though, since you adhere to evolution, what is the mechanism for information increase in DNA? I realize we have seen examples of information decrease within species but what about increase?
    If you believe as most neo-Darwinians do, that it is mutations combined with natural selection, how do you account for the development of complex systems (i.e. the eye), in such an undirected system? Also doesn't the finding of master control genes, such as Eyeless, cause you to question mutations developing such systems? Talk Origins presents the classic evolutionary tree, however doesn't it really look more like a confused bush with the findings of the master control genes? After all these genes were shared prior to eyes being developed.

    Isn't the only evidence for evolution homology? Can't that be interpreted 2 different ways?


    JOHN WELLS
    The truth is, evolution and creation both require faith because they cannot be proven. We can argue about the credibility of the studies and findings of creationists and evolutionists until we're blue in the face. If you take out the sensational journalism that fuels and carries these debates along, the bottom line is that staunch evolutionists admit their frustration (refer to my previous referenced post with quotes from them) in their quest for answers.
    If you would research and study the history of philosophy and ideas that "birthed" the idea of evolution (pre-Darwin), every single contributor to naturalistic origins stated that their theories and beliefs were driven by their desire to disprove God. Some even outright stated they did not want to submit to or be morally responsible to a god. At your request I would be happy to produce quote after quote, but am not at my source for that at the moment.

    It all comes back to faith. Do you have enough faith to believe the Bible, or must you supplement your faith in God's revealed Word with faith in scientific studies of evidence ("walking by sight") in the realm of quasi-science. You have pretty much admitted that you do not believe ALL of the Bible because it disagrees with what most of the scientists THINK evidence is telling them. In a recent survey, 45% of scientists in fields related to origins of life pursuits claim to be creationists. Yes, that's a minority, but then heaven is reserved for a significant minority!
     

Share This Page

Loading...