Rabbits in the Precambrian

[Wedjat]

University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution

The conventional understanding perhaps. All this does is say that natural selection is not the only driving force behind evolution. Still additive. Also, neutral and non-functional mutations would obviously not be affected by natural selection, that is common sense.

Fossil Find Challenges Evolutionary Theory

This is not challenging evolutionary theory, it is challenging some of the assumptions about the common ancestors between apes and humans.

University of Leicester - Fossil Fish Challenge Gene Theory

The people who wrote this article demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding about how genetic evolution works.

Fossil finds change theory of evolution - Telegraph

Article actually has nothing to do with evolution. Title doesn't even make sense.

Fossils Challenge Theory of Rapid Animal Evolution in Cambrian

Again, only challenges the assumption that there was a phase of rapid evolution in the Cambrian, not the actual theory of evolution.

Fossil discovery challenges NZ evolution theory. 16/12/2006. ABC News Online

Actually just talking about geology, nothing challenging the theory of evolution.

Fossil in China Challenges `Out of Africa' Theory of Evolution - Bloomberg.com

It is already known that there was a migration of human like species before there was a migration of humans. The article also goes back on what it said in the title. Regardless of anything this article is about migration patterns, not the theory of evolution.

News - Science: Ape fossil 'challenges evolutionary theory'

Same as "Fossil Find Challenges Evolutionary Theory"

Fossil Find Shakes Up Evolution Timeline - Science & Health News Summaries | Newser

Again, doesn't challenge the theory of evolution at all, just how some people thought the evolutionary tree would play out

Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds' Evolution - The New York Times

Changes how we think birds evolved, yet again, does not in any way actually challenge the theory of evolution.

Honestly, did you actually read these articles or just their sensationalist titles?

But, honest question, would scientists actually let someone with creationist views, or at least skeptical-about-evolution views, say anything in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? Or even just intelligent design views?

Yes, so long as they backed their points up with actual evidence.
There are creationists chemists who do peer reviewed work in the field of chemistry. An old science teacher of mine was one of them. Pretty smart man, brilliant in his field, thought the earth was made less than 10,000 years ago by God, didn't affect his work.

 

[USincognito]

Then again, ToE is constantly undergoing revision with every new discovery on the fossil record. Yet this is not counted as falsifying the theory, but improving it.

I posted a list of potential falsifications for evolutionary theory in this thread earlier this year. The difference between new data being incorporated into a gestalt theory and new data falsifying it is, axiomatically, that the new data cannot be incorporated into the theory.

One falsification would be a true chimera with complete swapped modules. One listed in my thread would be a crow with both arms and wings. There's no way evolutionary theory can explain that as all terrestrial vertebrates are tetrapods. If we find, however, similarities or even the same genes or chromosomes of very distantly related beings (say gibbons and crows) that isn't problematic. Finding genes or chromosomes that shouldn't be there (say genes to make chlorophyl in a fish or a mouse), without a mechanism for horizontal transfer would be just as devesating as swapped modules.

Therefore, surely interpretation of the biblical creation is allowed to be improved?
I suppose if you could take one of the more I suppose large and physically testable theories of creationism, such as where are the "springs of the great deep"? (Genesis 7:11) and prove they were never there or something, maybe then that would cast doubt on the accuracy of such statements in the bible.
This is more just a guess though, I'm not actually that familiar with creationism science.

Unfortunately much of "Creation Science" consists of crackpot theories like Walt Brown's Hydroplate, post-modernism (you interpret the data differently*) and little more than attacks on evoution, most of which are mistaken, misguided or outright fraudulent. And many of their claims have been falsified like "habitablity zones" and "hydrological sorting" to explain "post-Flood" fossil deposition.

*Basically they're saying "you interpret those mountains to be 50 million years old and we interpret them to be 4,000 years". That is as post-modernistic as you can get.

 

[Cabal]

I personally am of the opinion that AV is really just trolling. He's just a sock account made by another user in order to mock hardcore right wing fundamentalism and highlight just how stupid a lot of what Creationists and extreme conservatives say is.

Now now, AV's not a troll.

I know this because I don't think it can highlighted any further how daft creationism and extreme conservativism are.

 

[Wedjat]

Sneaky you. Actually I veer between most of those views. I would've not put anything, but once you click the dot doesn't disappear.
A cell would have to pop up by random observed chance out of all it's component atoms.
Or perhaps this gap would have to be (unspuriously) filled:

I figured as much. You tend to stand on the line about a lot of things like this and I was actually surprised to see flat out YEC on your page, although they don't really give you an in-between theistic evolution and YEC do they?
At the very least I appreciate your honesty, it's a lot more than can be said for Dad and AV. You are at least willing to say the words "I don't know", it's something everyone should get more into the habit of doing.
As for your graph, I doubt that will ever be filled. Things are fossilized at much too slow a rate, and although many gaps will be filled, many more will remain empty. (also remember that once you find one fossil, it only makes two gaps on either end)
Observable natural abiogenesis is likely never going to happen. The building blocks needed for creating life are devoured up by existing life. It can only really ever happen once. There have been great advances in finding out how abiogenesis likely occurred, and after doing my senior research paper on the subject, I find it's actually a lot more probable than you would think.
I would recommend exploring origins for starters. If you're interested I could send you some other papers on the subject. Gerals F. Joyce and Tracey A. Lincoln of Scripps research institute in California have actually created self replicating and evolving RNA molecules (not cells, but chemicals) in 2008. Understand that once you have chemical competition, life is not far behind. It's a fascinating subject that I definately reccommend you look into.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[catzrfluffy]

But if someone did manage to create a cell from scratch, as in from all it's component atoms and molecules, and not just using (part of) an already existing cell. Wouldn't that just suggest that the cell had to be created by an intelligence, and that it would be unlikely for it to happen by chance? Because the scientist themselves would be that intelligence. Could they make it come alive?
If not, doesn't that beg certain questions?

 

[USincognito]

Sneaky you. Actually I veer between most of those views. I would've not put anything, but once you click the dot doesn't disappear.

You can edit it if you go to your profile and click on the "about me" tab. There should be an option where you can enter your own custom description. I didn't like the "atheistic evolution" choice so I wrote in "naturalistic evolution" instead.

 

[Wedjat]

But if someone did manage to create a cell from scratch, as in from all it's component atoms and molecules, and not just using (part of) an already existing cell. Wouldn't that just suggest that the cell had to be created by an intelligence, and that it would be unlikely for it to happen by chance? Because the scientist themselves would be that intelligence. Could they make it come alive?
If not, doesn't that beg certain questions?

No actually.

The purpose of creating them in the lab is finding out how they could have come about in nature. The point of making self replicating RNA was to physically see how chemical competition could lead to evolution in non-life.
There are separate theories (more like hypothesis supported by some evidence, not quite in the realm of scientific theory yet, although some aspects of the whole are a lot farther along than others, thus theory of abiogenesis. Some bits of it are still in speculation, but for the most part we know how it could have happened,) as to how these first self-replicating bits could have started out.
Again, check out exploring origins, they do a good job of explaining it for beginners.

 

[Psudopod]

But if someone did manage to create a cell from scratch, as in from all it's component atoms and molecules, and not just using (part of) an already existing cell. Wouldn't that just suggest that the cell had to be created by an intelligence, and that it would be unlikely for it to happen by chance? Because the scientist themselves would be that intelligence. Could they make it come alive?
If not, doesn't that beg certain questions?

The thing is, the modern cell is about 3 billion years old. Percurser cells would have been a bit different. The question is, can you get self replicating chemical structures in conditions that were likely to exist on earth in the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, actually I would like a creationist to answer this one, is there anything, anything at all that you could think of happening, that would make you abandon your beliefs about God creating the universe exactly as it say's in Genesis.

A prodigal heart.

 

[Alunyel]

(but for the most part we know how it could have happened,)

If we know how it could have happened naturally, then that's all we need to say it's drastically more likely, and significantly more probable than any supernatural means of how it could've happened.

We witness natural occurrences constantly, but the supernatural is somewhat lacking in the evidence department.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

If AV's a troll, he's the most dedicated one there is, personally I've just come to the conclusion that he's just an incredibly amusing diversion.

Presuming he's a troll, its probably amusing for him too, which would explain the dedication.

 

[Wedjat]

A prodigal heart.

A wasteful extravagant heart? Like literally a blood pumping organ or more metaphorical.
Please don't just respond in one or two words and expect me to know what you're talking about, elaborate.

 

[AV1611VET]

A wasteful extravagant heart? Like literally a blood pumping organ or more metaphorical.
Please don't just respond in one or two words and expect me to know what you're talking about, elaborate.

A prodigal is a person who gets saved, then, sometime in his life, turns his back on God for some reason and 'sows his wild oats.'

It comes from the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.

 

[The Lady Kate]

A prodigal is a person who gets saved, then, sometime in his life, turns his back on God for some reason and 'sows his wild oats.'

It comes from the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.

Actually, no, AV1611VET, it means wasteful and recklessly spendthrift.

prodigal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

[Wedjat]

A prodigal is a person who gets saved, then, sometime in his life, turns his back on God for some reason and 'sows his wild oats.'

It comes from the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.

Actually quite a few instances of that, but I'm fairly sure you'd claim they were never "saved" or never really had Christ in their hearts to begin with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually quite a few instances of that, but I'm fairly sure you'd claim they were never "saved" or never really had Christ in their hearts to begin with.

The question I'm answering though is, 'What would make me abandon my beliefs about God and a literal Genesis 1?'

Answer: me going prodigal for awhile.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, no, AV1611VET, it means wasteful and recklessly spendthrift.

prodigal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I know --- and 'rapture' means 'ecstatic', doesn't it?

 

[Wedjat]

I see...
Somehow that is simultaneously the funniest and saddest thing I've heard all week.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I know --- and 'rapture' means 'ecstatic', doesn't it?

Among other things...

 

[USincognito]

Can we please ignore his antics and get back on topic?