Gluadys: "Yes they are. Both [grasshoppers and trilobytes] are in the arthropod lineage."
Both are classified as arthropod because of shared physical characteristics. This does
not imply common ancestry and if you use cladistics as evidence for universal common ancestry, that's illogical to the extreme. (A and B look similar, so lets lump them together. Look, they are lumped together, that means they are relatives!) Can you give me a list of actual ancestors (read: fossils) that go from trilobytes to grasshoppers, showing in-between transitionals? I'll give you a warning: The Cambrian Explosion (some evolutionary scientists say this happened in 10 million years) resulted in the instant appearance of trilobytes (with incredibly-complex eyes), and once trilobytes appeared, they pretty much stayed the same until their extinction. This is strong evidence for creation and against evolution.
And again, look at grasshoppers. The oldest fossils of grasshoppers (from at least 150 million years ago according to geologists) are little changed from the kind living today. Why such conservation of morphology in these two specimins? Perhaps because the kind of evolution evolutionists think happens -- doesn't.
Gluadys: "Specific examples of such doors being shut [in genetics]?" Are you reading what I'm writing or just responding to what I write? I
gave you an example in my next sentence.
Gluadys: "This level of science is over my head. And, I suspect, over yours as well. But in any case, I am more inclined to accept the conclusions of those who do the actual research to the arguments from incredulity offered by AiG." Is this bias? I read secular evolutionists' papers. Do you accuse Christian creationist scientists of being deceitful? Here's an excerpt of one such paper I'm currently reading:
Jin Xiong and Carl E. Bauer said:
Complex Evolution of Photosynthesis (2002)
Subsection: Evolution of Oxygenic Photosynthesis
The development of oxygenic photosynthesiswas one of the most important events in Earth’s history as it fundamentally changed the redox balance on Earth and permitted development of aerobic metabolism and more-advanced life forms. As discussed above, oxygenic photosynthesis is likely a late event during evolution that was preceded by anoxygenic photosynthesis.... [A brief but complex chemical theory proposed by Blankenship & Hartman follows.] Although this theory is interesting, it lacks geochemical support showing that there was indeed a significant amount of H202 on Earth. There is also no phylogenetic or structural evidence for relatedness between catalase and the water oxidation complex.
The section on evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis ends there. In summary, this very lengthy and complex research paper
doesn't even begin to attempt to answer the question of how photosynthesis could have evolved. I may be wrong, as I haven't read the whole paper yet, but geez, oxygenic photosynthesis is crucial to understand since the vast majority of photosynthetic organisms today are of this kind.
In another secular research paper on the evolution of photosynthesis, the authors write "The principles of biological evolution of photosynthesis are established, but the ways of chemical evolution are unclear yet." Again, they are learning that it is one thing to say "it happened," but quite another to say "this is
how it happened" while supporting their claims with science.
In the AiG article, the author illuminates one possible reason why: "If chlorophyll evolved before the antenna proteins that bind it, it would in all likelihood destroy the cell, so the proteins had to evolve first. But natural selection could not favour a ‘newly evolved’ protein which could bind chlorophyll and other pigment molecules before those crucial pigments had themselves come into existence!" These are
real problems for evolutionists, and, based on their writings, I think they know it.
That is what I mean when I say new discoveries in genetics is not leaving the question of evolution open but is actually
closing doors firmly. Yes, more doors still remain open, but if this trend continues, there soon won't be many doors open for evolutionists.
Gluadys: "[On complexification.] Check out "hox genes"."
You call replacing an antennae with a leg is complexification? And how is this extra leg beneficial to the fly? Changing things in HOX will not result in, say, a mammal eye. No, in fact, a change in the genes for flies that cause extra (compound) eyes to form, the same change in mice causes extra (mouse) eyes to form, not compound eyes. This is that information, whatever information is. HOX genes is a poor example of complexification in action.
Gluadys: "[Polar bear and grizzly bear mating.] Show me. What line of logical deduction indicates species fluidity as a result of creation."
God created the bear kind. Geographic separation and genetic variation create different varieties of bears (polar and grizzly). There could have existed a third population which remained isolated but still genetically robust (like the original bear kind). This third group would have characteristics of both polar bears and grizzlies. For a better example, look at the difficulty in identifying breeds of non-purebred dogs.
Gluadys: "In this context "downward" is an undefined and meaningless term." It's meaningless because you choose it to be, despite obvious evidence that supports this adjetive. Creationists can define downward as loss of features over time, inbreeding, genetic copy mistakes, and disease. Sometimes downward constitutes an increase in fitness within a particular environment.
Gluadys: "Why would we expect them to? Why expect humans to be able to outdo millions of years of natural selection in a few decades?" Because we are
creative and can do things better and faster than
randomness. Because we can
unnaturally accelerate conditions favorable to evolution as we think we know it. Because we can
shrink the geographic requirements of a test subject and perform multiple tests
simultaneously.
As I already pointed out, 50 years of evolution research on E.Coli has produced nothing substantially new. Given E.Coli's generation-time, that's a human equivilant of tens of millions of years of evolution for humans or apes. Surely,
something would have been seen as an upward change by now. Yet none has. This is strong evidence against universal common ancestry. This evidence is everywhere!
Gluadys: "[On homology.]" Can you explain how the eye independently evolved over 40 times? It's my understanding that it should be a miracle that the eye developed once by random mutation. Also note that the trilobyte has very fine-tuned compound eyes, as mentioned above. How did it develop these magnificant eyes in the span of a few million years? Can you point me to scientists who have identified the probable chemical progression to develop such eyes?
Gluadys: "What sort of evidence do you think makes the development of more complex features impossible?" See above. In many places.
Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Fitness is one thing. Decreased number of features is another. Blind fish in caves "evolved" the lack of eyes because, supposedly, eye infections decrease fitness. This decrease in features is observed often. Adaption for increased fitness is observed often. Adaption for increased features is never observed (baring an exception or two). The mountain I mentioned is a mountain of features, not fitness.
Fitness and survival are what evolution is about. A species does not adapt for increased features. It acquires new features as a consequence of adapting for fitness.
Pardon my bluntness, but do you have a short-term memory? You are correct, but the topic of this subpoint is that
features increased in history according to those who subscribe to universal common ancestry. Therefore, you must show that this is possible. I have shown (with extras to spare) that it is virtually impossible for this to happen (theoretically possible, but statistically improbable and empirically unobserved).
Gluadys: "So what empirical science is saying no?" You're not reading my responses, are you?
Gluadys: "[Horse evolution.]" I encourage you to look for the supporting fossils for your pretty pictures. I think you'll find the lack of complete skeletons and transitionals rather disapointing.
Gluadys: "I have yet to see an evidential point that argues against common ancestry." You really
are ignoring what I'm writing, aren't you?
Gluadys: "Second, as we examine the extinct species which are ancestral to modern groups, they become more and more similar to each other." You say this, but can you point to these ubiquitous transitional ancestors you speak of? From what I understand, the species at each join in the phylogenic tree do not exist save in a few spots (such as archy, which is really just an extinct bird). Can you link me to the alleged horse-rhino? That's news to me.
Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Those two terms are dependent upon your presuppositions. Calling it "residence time" does not change the fact that four times as much salt is entering the ocean than leaving.
As I noted elsewhere, this figure is disputed. Most scientists hold that salt in the ocean is in equilibrium. This is the point at which I grant I don't know enough to argue whose data is correct. Since you also disclaim expertise, we can sit this one out until the matter is decided.
I did some more looking into this. I think when you say "many scientists", the reality is there are a dozen scientists at most who are knowledgable on this subject, some of which are Creationists.
Original 1990 Creationist paper by Austin and Humphreys of ICR.
Old-Earth Rebuttal from 1997, including an updated 2006 rebuttal to the AiG article below.
2006 AiG update and rebuttal to the 1997 rebuttal.
Key points (paraphrased):
Humphreys: "We did a thorough survey of inputs and outputs and found the inputs are 4 times the outputs, and extrapolating backwards, gives the ocean a maximum age of 60 million years."
Morton: "Humphreys did a good job but neglected the albite sink which, using my data, calculations, and the experiments I cite, accounts for the missing 75% output. Thus, inputs equal outputs and it is impossible to use sodium as a measurement of the ocean's age.
Humphreys: "Morton is correct in that albite takes out sodium, but when albite cools, it decomposes into chlorite and releases the sodium back into the water. This is why albite is only found at mid-ocean ridges. The net effect of albite and sodium in the ocean is zero.
Morton: "Humphreys is correct, but Humphreys did not mention that decomposition of one meter of albite takes 13 million years."
Humphreys: "If Morton is on to something, he would have published his findings in a peer-reviewed paper. His findings would be celebrated by old-earthers everywhere."
Morton: "If Humphreys is on to something, he would have done likewise."
Humphreys: "I have. In the
Creation Ex Nihilo technical journal. The journal
Nature has shown prejudice to Creationists in the past and will not publish our findings. But
Creation Ex Nihilo is peer-reviewed by other PH.D-holding scientists and peers in the applicable scientific fields."
Gluadys said:
Gluadys: "Actually [George Washington] is both [a figure in history and legend]."
You seem to be attempting to blur the line between history and legend. Do you have a motive behind this? The dictionary says "legend" is "a romanticized or popularized myth of modern times." I.e., the current details are fictional, although it may or may not have been grounded in historical fact. Here's a statement rich with specific details: "George Washington was the first president of the United States of America." Historical fact, legend, or both? This statement as a whole is either true or false. If both, it would violate the law of contradiction, so that eliminates one choice. Is the statement true in the sense that "we are all leaders of some kind"? That blather I rebuke.
Gluadys said:
Buho said:
I'd keep fishing. The words of God you offer don't support your notions of a fabricated history of the world and early figures and events in Genesis 1-11.
I would appreciate it if you do not put words into my mouth. I have not spoken of fabricated history. I would not characerize the early chapters of Genesis in this manner. I think they are mostly ahistorical, not history fabricated or otherwise.
I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your own will suffice:
Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Can you show me where in the Bible "a good bit of legendary material" is present?
It's a shorter list to say where it is not. I would say the closest we get to straightforward history in the OT are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Most everything else has at least as much legend as history.
I would say legend is rarer in the NT, but not altogether absent.
This is what I object to, and this is where you failed to support with scripture or anything else other than your own personal feelings, which I might add, are corrupted by the false teachings of atheistic science determined to exclude God and undermine the scriptural authority of the Bible. Need I remind you that nothing in scripture has been contradicted by archaeology? Matthew 14:31: "You of little faith, why do you doubt?"