• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Following your logic, if "every single eukaryote has been evolving differences from the ancestral genome for the same amount of time since then, as has every bacterium descended from that ancestor." we should see a difference in cytochrome c.
Your statement reveals that you don't understand the logic. If elephants and yeast have both been evolving for the last, say, two billion years, accumulating changes in their cytochrome c, why should one of them be more similar to bacteria than the other?
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
yes this should be the case. If evolution progressed as the theory of evolution claims we should see a difference, but we don't
As others are pointing out, this is not what ToE would expect. Hence my question which you cannot answer.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Notice your quote said nothing to refute the Denton's claim. It just dismissed it. I can say the same thing. This is not 1859 beaks changing on finches does not prove that whales evolved from mammals.

No but the link does, and SFS points out his error above.
 
Upvote 0

towerwatchman

Member
Mar 15, 2017
16
2
60
columbia sa
✟23,350.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The fact that whales are mammals "proves" they evolved from mammals.

And I've got three lines of evidence showing whales evolved from land mammals. I'll post them when I'm not on my phone.
At the most what you have is comparative anatomy drenched in speculation.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
At the most what you have is comparative anatomy drenched in speculation.

Ah yes. "Speculation" yet another of the magic words Creationist toss around as if they poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

Tell you what, take these three observations and actually address them without using magic words and we can have a serious discussion.
-----------------------
If cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
Cetacean Palaeobiology

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan

Press release here:
05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

towerwatchman

Member
Mar 15, 2017
16
2
60
columbia sa
✟23,350.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very well then: By this, I take it that these sequences fall into a nested hierarchy. Given the variability in this protein, why would that be the case if all species appeared at the same time (and are unrelated by ancestry)?

Denton argued the hierarchy as a ladder. Seems the evolutionist is not comfortable with this anymore and is now arguing evolution similar to a drop of food coloring dissolving in water. The drop of food coloring is the common ancestor and the food coloring dissolving in all directions simulates the continuing evolution away from the center. Here you have a bigger problem, for evolution is true and with every successful mutation we move away from the center, and as we move away from the center there should be less and less comparability. But we don’t see that in CC. That is huge, because CC is a common denominator among living things. CC is objective not subjective.
 
Upvote 0

towerwatchman

Member
Mar 15, 2017
16
2
60
columbia sa
✟23,350.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah yes. "Speculation" yet another of the magic words Creationist toss around as if they poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

Tell you what, take these three observations and actually address them without using magic words and we can have a serious discussion.
-----------------------
If cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
Cetacean Palaeobiology

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan

Press release here:
05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<


The ancestor of the whale thought to be Pakicetus Inachus. Based on the following.

Arrangement of cusp on molar teeth. Pre molars are simple triangular teeth composed of single cusp serrated in the front and back edges. Teeth were adapted to hunting fish.

Positioning and folding of the ear bones within the skull.

Shape of the skull is cetacean. High narrow sagittal crest, and prominent lambdoidal crest.

Characteristics of the inner ear found only in cetaceans.

Auditory bulla formed from the ectotympanic bone used for underwater hearing.

Based on fragments, it was described as having a semi aquatic life style and illustrated on the front cover of the prestigious journal ‘Science’ as an aquatic mammal absent of hind legs.

Reality.

When found in 1983 by PD Gingerich it was immediately declared to be a primitive whale based on fragments of one skull. Nothing below the skull was found at that moment to support the idea that it was a sea creature. The assumptions were based totally on skull fragments.

When additional fossils were found Pakicetus has a four footed skeletal structure similar to that of wolves or mesonychids.

The first finding was not a complete skull, but the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, isolated upper and lower cheek teeth.

The ear of Pakicetus is that of a land mammal, there is no evidence that it can hear under water, or any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

Teeth resembling those of mesonychids.

Cetaceans all exhibit large mandibular foremen, the lower jaw holds a fat pack that extends toward the ear, both associated with underwater hearing. Pakicetus has a small mandibular foramen, and lacks the fat pack.

Ear bone is not like a whale, which has a finger like projection [sigmoid process], but which is plate like, as found in land fossils.


Pakicetus Inachus is suspected to have evolved into Ambulocetus

Evolutionist support.

In 1992 Hans Thewissen and Taseer Hussain found Ambulocetus digging in the hills of Islamabad Pakistan. It was deemed that Ambulocetus was unlike modern cetaceans because it was able to walk on land, probably in way similar to modern sea lions, weighing about 650 lbs., and in the water it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans. This represents a critical intermediate between land mammals and marine cetaceans.

Had a robust radius and ulna [the two bones in the upper forearm]. They reported that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modern cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial. The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggested that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess a fluke.

Identified as a cetacean with functioning legs, and a skeleton that allowed a degree of terrestrial walking.

Skull was cetacean, long muzzle, teeth similar, reduced zygomatic arch, and tympanic bulla.

Lower jaw has a large cavity, which in modern tooth whales housing external pad of fat which channels the sound from the lower jaw to the ear.

Due to the structure of the nasal cavities, had the ability to swallow under water.

Reality

First constructed in 1992 from a few skeletal fragments which consisted of part of the skull and jaw, a number or vertebrae, some ribs, nearly complete foot and hand limb. One tail vertebrae was found 5 meters away.

In 1996 the information was changed based on what was alleged to be the remainder of the beast. Becomes questionable since when something dies its bones should be found close together. Why two different times, makes it questionable.

The snout was not preserved.

Ambulocetus has eye raised on top of head similar to alligators.


Ambulocetus is thought to have evolved into Rodhocetus.

Evolutionary support

Has four legs, a fluke and flippers. Would swim using it fluke similar to a whale. Beginning of the type of locomotion seen in modern whales.

Reality.

There is discrepancy between the reconstructive description of Rodhocetus and the fossil evidence. The reconstruction had a whale fluke but there was no fossil evidence to confirm this.

When PD Gingerich was asked about the fluke discrepancy he said, “Well we don’t have the tail for Rodhocetus so we don’t know for sure it had a ball vertebrae indicating a fluke so I speculated it had a fluke.”

Also the flippers were drawn on.

When asked about the flippers, Gingerich said, “Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands and the arms of Rodhocetus and we understand that it does not have the kind of hands that can be spread out like a whale, and if you don’t have flippers I don’t think you can have a fluke and really power swimming, I doubt that Rodhocetus had a fluke tail.”

But it is still drawn with a fluke and flippers.

Probability

If a mesonychid evolved into a whale too many extreme changes in anatomy would have to take place by chance.

Front legs of the mesonychid would have to change into pectoral fins.

The back legs of the mesonychid would have to disappear.

The nostrils of the mesonychid would have to move to the top of his head and form a blow hole.

The mesonychid would have to develop a dorsal fin by accident.

The bony tail of the mesonychid would have to change into a cartilaginous fluke.

The hair of the mesonychid would have to disappear and be replaced by blubber.

The body of the mesonychid would have to increase by 80000 lbs.

The external ears of the mesonychid would have to disappear and change for high pressure diving, all by chance.

This would require a vast amount of new genetic information. For just one protein of 100 amino acids it would require 300 new letters to the genetic code in the proper sequence.

Equivalent to blindfolded illiterate toddler typing several paragraphs of meaningful literature, without mistakes.

Anatomical similarities do not always indicate common descent. For example the mole has a bird like sternum and wrist bones, but it would be absurd to conclude that birds evolved from moles. Common sense states that no fossil can be considered evidence for evolution. When a bone is found in the dirt, one thing is known for sure, it died. Everything else is speculation written into the interpretation of the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

towerwatchman

Member
Mar 15, 2017
16
2
60
columbia sa
✟23,350.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On CARM, TWM has taken to copy-pasting a chunk of an essay by Meyer on the chances a new gene arising all at once via pure chance in response to my asking him to support his claim.

Pathetic.

What I find pathetic is lack of understanding on the subject at hand. Yes I pasted material from Myers. So what? It was cited and credit was given to him. I find he explains the material very good. Don't fix it if it is not broken. Anyhow how does that equate to the material being wrong. Notice you did not address my answer to the whale question you have been waiting years for the answer. Why? Could it be that the best you can do is your typical MO. Attach character but getting into an intelligent discussion as many have done on Carm and here, seems to be beyond your intellectual reach.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
What I find pathetic is lack of understanding on the subject at hand. Yes I pasted material from Myers. So what? It was cited and credit was given to him. I find he explains the material very good. Don't fix it if it is not broken. Anyhow how does that equate to the material being wrong. Notice you did not address my answer to the whale question you have been waiting years for the answer. Why? Could it be that the best you can do is your typical MO. Attach character but getting into an intelligent discussion as many have done on Carm and here, seems to be beyond your intellectual reach.
It's the use of terms like "by accident" and "by chance" which make people wary.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What I find pathetic is lack of understanding on the subject at hand. Yes I pasted material from Myers. So what? It was cited and credit was given to him. I find he explains the material very good. Don't fix it if it is not broken. Anyhow how does that equate to the material being wrong. Notice you did not address my answer to the whale question you have been waiting years for the answer. Why? Could it be that the best you can do is your typical MO. Attach character but getting into an intelligent discussion as many have done on Carm and here, seems to be beyond your intellectual reach.

Major league, big time; LOL
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
{snip non sequitur}

None of what you copy and pasted, addresses any of the three evidences I presented. Can you actually address them or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
None of what you copy and pasted, addresses any of the three evidences I presented. Can you actually address them or not?

That probably depends on if the answer can be found within a Google search or not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That probably depends on if the answer can be found within a Google search or not.

I've noticed that pattern with Creationists.
You post something specific.
They do a Google search on the general topic and post whatever they find as if it actually addresses the specific points you made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I've noticed that pattern with Creationists.
You post something specific.
They do a Google search on the general topic and post whatever they find as if it actually addresses the specific points you made.
There is a philosophical bias as well. Theology is largely based on inductive logic; impeach it at any point and the whole structure falls to the ground. Science, on the other hand, is inductive. Minor discrepancies, gaps and uncertainties do it no particular harm. Creationists don't really get this, which is why they are always looking for "gotchas" and don't understand why we brush them off.,
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,818
44,927
Los Angeles Area
✟1,000,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Denton argued the hierarchy as a ladder. Seems the evolutionist is not comfortable with this anymore

Evolutionists have not been 'comfortable with' a ladder since Darwin. That is, this was never part of evolution.

598px-Darwins_first_tree.jpg


Here you have a bigger problem, for evolution is true and with every successful mutation we move away from the center, and as we move away from the center there should be less and less comparability. But we don’t see that in CC.

We see a nested hierarchy, just as we should.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evolutionists have not been 'comfortable with' a ladder since Darwin. That is, this was never part of evolution.

598px-Darwins_first_tree.jpg




We see a nested hierarchy, just as we should.
I finally, after all these years, learned what your Mr. Gruff avatar symbolized.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
Houston, we have a problem.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This means that one day with the LORD, from the perspective of cosmic evolution, is 13,700,000 years.

BUT, as we all know, God created the universe in six days.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This means that cosmic evolution came to a halt in 82,200,000 or 13,617,800,000 BC!

So even by theistic standards, God would have had to have taken 1000 days ... not 6 like He said ... to come to our current cosmic configuration.

And that's just one problem, Houston: there's another.

According to theistic evolution, the universe is still being created.

Yet God made it plain He ceased creating in 13,617,800,000 BC.

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

This is confirmed in the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice we're talking Genesis 2 and the Ten Commandments?

Do those sound familiar?

Now we can plainly see why scientists want the Ten Commandments taken away from public view, and why scientists claim Genesis 2 is a contradictory account of Genesis 1, can't we?

They show evolution fails mathematically.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This means that one day with the LORD, from the perspective of cosmic evolution, is 13,700,000 years.

I thought it was Peter making excuses for the delay in the second coming? I suppose if you take small quotes out of context you can twist them to mean anything though.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I thought it was Peter making excuses for the delay in the second coming?
Is that what they teach nowadays?
Jimmy D said:
I suppose if you take small quotes out of context you can twist them to mean anything though.
As you just demonstrated.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is that what they teach nowadays?As you just demonstrated.

Yes. Maybe in ignoring the fact that your interpretations could be faulty has led to you being 'puffed up' with pride - thinking your opinion is superior to anyone elses.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years - This 2 Peter 3:8-9 is the second consideration by which the apostle meets the objection of scoffers against the doctrine of the second coming of the Saviour. The objection was, that much time, and perhaps the time which had been supposed to be set for his coming, had passed away, and still all things remained as they were. The reply of the apostle is, that no argument could be drawn from this, for that which may seem to be a long time to us is a brief period with God. In the infinity of his own duration there is abundant time to accomplish his designs, and it can make no difference with him whether they are accomplished in one day or extended to one thousand years. Man has but a short time to live, and if he does not accomplish his purposes in a very brief period, he never will. But it is not so with God. He always lives; and we cannot therefore infer, because the execution of His purposes seems to be delayed, that they are abandoned.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
As a thousand years; by a synecdoche, a thousand years is put for any, even the longest revolution of time; and the sense is, that though there be great difference of time, long and short, with us, who are subject to time, and are measured by it; yet with Him who is eternal, without succession, to whom nothing is past, nothing future, but all things present, there is no difference of time, none long, none short, but a thousand years, nay, all the time that hath run out since the creation of the world, is but as a day; and we are not to judge of the Lord’s delay in coming by our own sense, but by God’s eternity.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,.... Here the apostle addresses the saints he writes unto, and for whom he had a tender affection and regard, and for whose welfare he was concerned, lest they should be stumbled at the length of time since the promise of the coming of Christ was given, and which these scoffers object; and therefore he would have them know, observe, and consider this one thing, which might be of great use to them to make their minds easy, and keep up their faith and expectation of the coming of Christ:
that one day is, with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; referring either to Psalm 90:4; or to a common saying among the Jews, founded on the same passage, , "the day of the holy blessed God is a thousand years" (z); suggesting, that though between thirty and forty years had elapsed since the promise was given out that Christ would come again, and should even a thousand, or two thousand years more, run off, before the coming of Christ, yet this should be no objection to the accomplishment of the promise;

Benson Commentary
The apostle’s meaning is in substance, that in one day, yea, in one moment, he could do the work of a thousand years; therefore he is not slow, he is always equally able, equally ready to fulfil his promise; and a thousand years, yea, the longest time, is no more delay to the eternal God than one day is to us: therefore he is longsuffering; he gives us space for repentance without any inconvenience to himself. In a word, with God time passes neither slower nor swifter than is suitable to him and his economy. Nor can there be any reason why it should be necessary for him either to delay or hasten the end of all things.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0