Why Evolution is True (2)

[createdtoworship]

And your statement again only shows that you have no idea how evolution works.

again your statement only shows you have no idea what I have said repeatedly in this thread already. Namely "This is a gross overstatement" and secondly, that it doesn't matter how many transitions it takes, or how many years to accomplish: Macro evolution between genra is unobserved and therefore unscientific. Now if you can show 1 or 1000 transitions between ape like and human like creatures go for it. The only problem with using 1000 transitions is that it becomes increasing more difficult to prove common ancestry of BOTH genra. One is usually easy, but not two. So be my guess. But what will happen most likely is that this post will fall on deaf ears, only to be lost in cyberspace. No evidence given.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think it is a good general rule. I could see how some exceptions could possibly happen if evolving was fast in the past...etc.

punctuated equilibrium perhaps. But again no case can be made for it, using empiricle science. It is unobserved that one genus can evolve into another genus. The sexual barrier (I believe at the genus level) is God's way of saying, "stay within your kind."

I believe the Biblical "kind" to also be Genus.

here the inventor of modern taxonomy (I believe he was religious, but not possitive) believed:

genus level (macro evolution= higher than species levels) was a barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

again your statement only shows you have no idea what I have said repeatedly in this thread already. Namely that it doesn't matter how many transitions it takes, or how many years to accomplish. Macro evolution between genra is unobserved and therefore unscientific. Now if you can show 1 or 1000 transitions between ape like and human like creatures go for it. The only problem with using 1000 transitions is that it becomes increasing more difficult to prove common ancestry of BOTH genra. One is usually easy, but not two. So be my guess. But what will happen most likely is that this post will fall on deaf ears, only to be lost in cyberspace. No evidence given.

Of course it has been observed. You just use a very limited definition of observation. There are more ways than one to observe an event.

You don't get to decide what is and what is not observation.

And there is no need for us to show every step of evolution. That is a ridiculous standard. Can you prove you were a baby? Do you have at least one picture for every day of your life so that we can be sure that a picture of you as a baby is you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And for gradyll an example of evolution that has been observed on the genus level:

Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea

 

[dad]

punctuated equilibrium perhaps. But again no case can be made for it, using empiricle science. It is unobserved that one genus can evolve into another genus. The sexual barrier (I believe at the genus level) is God's way of saying, "stay within your kind."

Does science agree with that?

I believe the Biblical "kind" to also be Genus.

here the inventor of modern taxonomy (I believe he was religious, but not possitive) believed:

genus level (macro evolution= higher than species levels) was a barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

The problem with all that sort of thing, like punctuated equilibrium, is that it assumes uniformity. As if a punctuation mark must be within our rules. What about if evolving and adapting was fast long ago? How would they know where to stick the punctuation?

What if there was evolving according to the different past before the flood, and many creatures that would have evolved so differently, that they might now assume that they were different creatures? If we, for example, stick a pre flood crocodile alongside a post flood croc, how would they know what was what?


"
Sarcosuchus

110,000,000 bc
Middle Cretaceous period. 40ft long and 10-15 tons. Ate dinosaurs and fish. Lived in the rivers of Africa. Had an odd protrusion on it’s snout. Looked and behaved like it’s modern decedents, but it was twice as long and about 10 times as heavy. Bulla on it’s snout."

Evolution Of Crocodiles Timeline | Preceden


"
Champsosaurus

70,000,000 bc - 50,000,000 bc
It is five feet long, 25-50 pounds, ate fish, and lived in the rivers of North America and western Europe. It had a long narrow profile and a tooth studded snout. It survived the K/T extinction"

Quinkana

23,000,000 bc - 40,000 bc
This animal was nine feet long and 500 pounds, and they consume red meat who they hunted in the woodlands. These crocodiles have long curved teeth and long legs, that are unlike the modern croc’s short legs. andThe crocodiles continuously get smaller because of environment changes.


Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni

4,200,000 bc
This is a very close relative of the modern day crocodile, it had a large scull and small raised rim in front of the eyes. It likely prayed on early humans. It lived in the Turkana basin in Kenya, and it could be the largest known true crocodile" same link



Rather than looking at these like different creatures, perhaps the original croc kind was simply bigger and different. The rapid evolving may have allowed speciation, even little ones like the champsosaurus. Once the state changed, the chapsosaurus could not survive. etc etc

 

[dad]

And for gradyll an example of evolution that has been observed on the genus level:

Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea

Funny, I see your link says this

"In contrast, strong discrepancies exist among the substitution rates observed in P. furiosus relative to the two other species, which is in disagreement with the molecular clock hypothesis."


The molecular clock is an attempt to put a time to when something diverged.



" to calibrate the molecular clock, one must know the absolute age of some evolutionary divergence event, such as the split between mammals and birds. An estimate of the timing of this event can be gained by examining the fossil record, or by correlating this particular instance of evolutionary divergence with some geological event of known antiquity (such as the formation of a mountain range that split the geographic range of a species in two, thus initiating a process of speciation). Once the evolutionary rate is calculated using a calibration, this calibration can then be applied to other organisms to estimate the timing of evolutionary events."


The Molecular Clock and Estimating Species Divergence | Learn Science at Scitable


So you seem to be once again resting on your same state religious foundation.


.

 

[createdtoworship]

Does science agree with that?




The problem with all that sort of thing, like punctuated equilibrium, is that it assumes uniformity. As if a punctuation mark must be within our rules. What about if evolving and adapting was fast long ago? How would they know where to stick the punctuation?

What if there was evolving according to the different past before the flood, and many creatures that would have evolved so differently, that they might now assume that they were different creatures? If we, for example, stick a pre flood crocodile alongside a post flood croc, how would they know what was what?


"
Sarcosuchus

110,000,000 bc
Middle Cretaceous period. 40ft long and 10-15 tons. Ate dinosaurs and fish. Lived in the rivers of Africa. Had an odd protrusion on it’s snout. Looked and behaved like it’s modern decedents, but it was twice as long and about 10 times as heavy. Bulla on it’s snout."

Evolution Of Crocodiles Timeline | Preceden


"
Champsosaurus

70,000,000 bc - 50,000,000 bc
It is five feet long, 25-50 pounds, ate fish, and lived in the rivers of North America and western Europe. It had a long narrow profile and a tooth studded snout. It survived the K/T extinction"

Quinkana

23,000,000 bc - 40,000 bc
This animal was nine feet long and 500 pounds, and they consume red meat who they hunted in the woodlands. These crocodiles have long curved teeth and long legs, that are unlike the modern croc’s short legs. andThe crocodiles continuously get smaller because of environment changes.


Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni

4,200,000 bc
This is a very close relative of the modern day crocodile, it had a large scull and small raised rim in front of the eyes. It likely prayed on early humans. It lived in the Turkana basin in Kenya, and it could be the largest known true crocodile" same link



Rather than looking at these like different creatures, perhaps the original croc kind was simply bigger and different. The rapid evolving may have allowed speciation, even little ones like the champsosaurus. Once the state changed, the chapsosaurus could not survive. etc etc

I believe you can punctuate micro evolution, but not macro evolution. As macro evolution is un-observed.

 

[createdtoworship]

And for gradyll an example of evolution that has been observed on the genus level:

Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea

the first line states this:

"species of Archaea belonging to thePyrococcus genus: Pyrococcus abyssi, Pyrococcus horikoshii, and Pyrococcus furiosus. "

so it's sort of at the genus level, but not really because it's dealing entirely with one genus, the pyrococcus.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course it has been observed.

then prove it, if not then stop saying it's observed when it's not.

 

[dad]

I believe you can punctuate micro evolution, but not macro evolution. As macro evolution is un-observed.

Whether things got punctuated the same way in Noah's day is the bigger issue. Do you think you know?

.

 

[createdtoworship]

Whether things got punctuated the same way in Noah's day is the bigger issue. Do you think you know?

.

I think this is missing the point, you can only speed up processes that are knowable. Since macro evolution is not knowable, due to it being unobserved, it cannot therefore be sped up. Micro evolution may have been sped up in the past, but who knows. I don't claim to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the first line states this:

"species of Archaea belonging to thePyrococcus genus: Pyrococcus abyssi, Pyrococcus horikoshii, and Pyrococcus furiosus. "

so it's sort of at the genus level, but not really because it's dealing entirely with one genus, the pyrococcus.

Perhaps you should talk to a biologist before you make such statements.

For example E. coli would seem to be a species, but it is actually a much bigger group than that. There can be speciation events with E. coli, but they are still referred to as E. coli.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this is missing the point, you can only speed up processes that are knowable. Since macro evolution is not knowable, due to it being unobserved, it cannot therefore be sped up. Micro evolution may have been sped up in the past, but who knows. I don't claim to know.

Nope, we can observe genus level changes in the fossil record.

Changes in the genus level are observable and testable. Please no more foolish statements.

 

[dad]

I think this is missing the point, you can only speed up processes that are knowable. Since macro evolution is not knowable, due to it being unobserved, it cannot therefore be sped up. Micro evolution may have been sped up in the past, but who knows. I don't claim to know.

No, it is you that have missed the point. The point of the thread is that evolution is fine and dandy and is a part of the way God created life here. The whole idea is that in the former state, our laws and forces did not exist. These only came to exist after the flood. Only since then is evolution the way we know it...slow...only from reproduction..etc etc. In the far past, with a different nature, as far as we know the person or animal may have evolved in months or weeks or years! Not long ages. Also maybe not just their offspring.

It is not that OUR laws or forces in THIS state sped up or slowed down or did anything at all, because I posit that they did not exist.


Science cannot prove that a present nature/state existed in the past in any way whatsoever. All evidence has been arranged and viewed as if this state existed always.

When I say evolution is a created trait, I also mean the former state evolution, that started with creatures of Eden and man and was very fast and could not have been in this state. The animals on the ark for example. How could we get maybe 30 species of tigers and etc etc etc etc in the last 4500 years if this present state had existed all the time??


.

 

[dad]

Nope, we can observe genus level changes in the fossil record.

Name one or two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name one or two.

The evolution of man and the evolution of horses.

 

[dad]

The evolution of man and the evolution of horses.

There is no basis for the 'evolution of man' unless you mean changes in mankind after the flood.





As for horses, what we likely have is the appearance of animals after the time when they could fossilize, and post flood. Phenacodontidae were likely unrelated to horses. They were smalller animals that probably had a lesser life span, and were able to be fossilized first. Whether due to it's smaller size, and/or the possibility it was hunted more, and maybe had other environmental reasons for being on the 'first to fossilize' list.


Eohippus was also a small animal, and apparently lived in a time when browsing was the way food was easiest to get. This does not mean it was some ancestor to the horse. If it died out as the world changed post flood, that is just because it occupied that time and place and did what it needed to to then.


Orohippus came later, and apparently ate 'tougher plant material'. That could be an indication of an environment change it adapted to. Again, that does not mean it is related directly to the horse.



Next, we see another creature that follows the adaptive of a 'trend of increasingly efficient grinding teeth' or 'increasingly efficient adapting to this state'. That does not make it a horse ancestor.



Then, of course we see creatures evolving to be able to eat grass till we see this 'Mesohippus had six grinding "cheek teeth", with a single premolar in front..'

This may or may not have been related to the horse. The teeth were similar. Naturally adapting to the new world required this sort of change.

If a horse was on the ark, it could have lived centuries. Men lived more than a few centuries after the flood for awhile also. That means that if the layers that the so called horse ancestors were found in (all post flood) were rapidly formed and laid down, that the entire fossil record of horse ancestors might really represent mere centuries. Rather than the horse being a descendant of animals that died, such as I mentioned...the horse could have had a longer lifespan and simply not joined the fossil record as early as other creatures.

Science doesn't really know at all.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no basis for the 'evolution of man' unless you mean changes in mankind after the flood.

dad. even you know better than that. And you know that there was not flood either.

I ignored the rest of your nonsense since I have seen it all too often.

Why does the fact of evolution bother you so much? Is your faith that weak that it cannot deal with a simple fact of science?

 

[dad]

dad. even you know better than that. And you know that there was not flood either.

I know that we need not look at actual ancient men, say Neanderthal man as having come from monkeys. The natural and formerly rapid evolving ability God created us with accounts for all changes easily.

Once we realize that, when we see the ghoulish and godless tales of alternate creations from science, it becomes clear that they merely impose beliefs on evidences methodically, ritualistically.

Is your faith that weak that it cannot deal with a simple fact of science?

Pretending that the faith of so called science is any problem to faith in God is a waste of time here. The simple fact of God and creation and the spiritual realities man was witness to throughout all time may be ignored by the ignorant, but not bragged about here.


.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, it is you that have missed the point. The point of the thread is that evolution is fine and dandy and is a part of the way God created life here. The whole idea is that in the former state, our laws and forces did not exist. These only came to exist after the flood. Only since then is evolution the way we know it...slow...only from reproduction..etc etc. In the far past, with a different nature, as far as we know the person or animal may have evolved in months or weeks or years! Not long ages. Also maybe not just their offspring.

It is not that OUR laws or forces in THIS state sped up or slowed down or did anything at all, because I posit that they did not exist.


Science cannot prove that a present nature/state existed in the past in any way whatsoever. All evidence has been arranged and viewed as if this state existed always.

When I say evolution is a created trait, I also mean the former state evolution, that started with creatures of Eden and man and was very fast and could not have been in this state. The animals on the ark for example. How could we get maybe 30 species of tigers and etc etc etc etc in the last 4500 years if this present state had existed all the time??


.

so called former state evolution would still have some type of evidence . fossils etc. We can't have evolution from ape like creatures to human like creatures with no evidence. That is an argument from silence.

So, now all that remains opposed to the bible, is not evolution, but the depths of same state abiogenesis, where they imagine some start for the evolving other than the created kinds of Eden. Created by God, exactly as the bible says.

look up chemical evolution on google scholar and it will reveal abiogenesis to be in fact chemical evolution (evolution none the less ,just on a chemical level, rather than a biological level). We also have stellar evolution as well. So evolution encompasses much more than the biological.