Macroevolution:

[Subduction Zone]

There are many different breeds but they are still horses.

"Dawn horse (genus Hyracotherium), extinct group of horses that flourished in North America and Europe during the early part of the Eocene Epoch (55.8–33.9 million years ago). Even though these animals are more commonly known as Eohippus, a name given by the American paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh, they are properly placed in the genus Hyracotherium, the name given earlier by British paleontologist Richard Owen."

So what did the Hyracotherium "evolve" from, what evidence that can be verified?

You are moving the goal post. By your standards you just admitted that humans are apes.

 

[tevans9129]

[As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 20 years ago (and he has not revised his opinion since):

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted . . . . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.

Reference
Yockey, Hubert P., “A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory” (Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 [1977]: 377–398), 379, 396.]

Anyone care to bet that it will be claimed that he is not a "real scientist"?

 

[tevans9129]

There are different views from people who have attended the same educational institutions and have the same big letters behind their name and, access to the same data. So why are they wrong and can you provide verifiable evidence proving your answer?

[Evolutionists have long taught and believed that promiscuity increases genetic and rapid diversity, thereby helping the evolution of new species along. But this “conventional wisdom” has now been overturned by a new study on shorebird populations, led by the University of Bath’s Milner Centre for Evolution.

Polygamy vs. Monogamy
This new study suggests that promiscuity does the opposite of what has long been believed. Instead of speeding up supposed evolutionary processes, it slows down the formation of new species. Polygamous bird species (species that breed with more than one partner during the season) have less genetic diversity compared to monogamous bird species populations (species that breed with just one partner per season).

Here’s why:

· Polygamous species have to travel farther to find their mates, so they spread their genes over a wide geographical area. This mixes up and dilutes the gene pool over a larger area so that populations are “less likely to diversify into new species over time.”

· Monogamous species generally come back to the same breeding sites, which allows them to gradually adapt to that specific environment. This increases the chance they will split off and form new species.]

New Study Overturns the “Conventional Wisdom” of Evolution

 

[HitchSlap]

Anyone care to bet that it will be claimed that he is not a "real scientist"?

Well, to be fair, [Yockey] believed that "the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem," doesn't sound all that scientific.

Also, why would you choose as an authority, someone who didn't actually work in the field of abiogenesis? Seems a bit duplicitous.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are different views from people who have attended the same educational institutions and have the same big letters behind their name and, access to the same data. So why are they wrong and can you provide verifiable evidence proving your answer?

[Evolutionists have long taught and believed that promiscuity increases genetic and rapid diversity, thereby helping the evolution of new species along. But this “conventional wisdom” has now been overturned by a new study on shorebird populations, led by the University of Bath’s Milner Centre for Evolution.

Polygamy vs. Monogamy
This new study suggests that promiscuity does the opposite of what has long been believed. Instead of speeding up supposed evolutionary processes, it slows down the formation of new species. Polygamous bird species (species that breed with more than one partner during the season) have less genetic diversity compared to monogamous bird species populations (species that breed with just one partner per season).

Here’s why:

· Polygamous species have to travel farther to find their mates, so they spread their genes over a wide geographical area. This mixes up and dilutes the gene pool over a larger area so that populations are “less likely to diversify into new species over time.”

· Monogamous species generally come back to the same breeding sites, which allows them to gradually adapt to that specific environment. This increases the chance they will split off and form new species.]

New Study Overturns the “Conventional Wisdom” of Evolution

Yes, it seems that both monogamy and polygamy both have costs and benefits and seems to be species dependent. Not sure why you're so excited about this? We've known this for decades.

 

[tevans9129]

I wonder why the evolutionists want to argue about meanings of “evolution, transitional, speciation, adaptation, etc. and the changing of one breed of horse into another breed of horse but never want to start “in the beginning”.

Life from Nonlife
“Life comes from life” is a fundamental law of biology, and yet formation of the first living thing must violate this law. How this could happen still stumps scientists.

by Kevin Anderson


Information of Life
Life consists of more than all the physical parts working in unison—it requires the information to run the parts. Scientists still don’t understand where this information could have come from.

by Brian A. Catalucci


Irreducible Complexity
Darwinian evolution requires that every complex component of life arose step-by-step. The discoveries of genetics and cell biology have highlighted this impossibility, which scientists still can't explain.

by Nathaniel Jeanson

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are moving the goal post. By your standards you just admitted that humans are apes.

I take it back. By trying to move the goalposts past Hyracotherium tevans has not only effectively admitted that humans are apes, he has admitted that humans are primates.

Hyracotherium is not a "horse". It is basal to horses, rhinos, and hippopotamuseseseses (oops, sort olf like spelling banananana. One does not know when to stop).


Hyracotherium - Wikipedia

" H. leporinum, was reclassified as a palaeothere, a perissodactyl family basal to both horses and brontotheres.[3] The remaining species are now thought to belong to different genera, such as Eohippus, which had previously been synonymised with Hyracotherium."

And now we also have an example of evolution beyond the genus level that creationists will accept.

By the way, the reason that most museum exhibits are "wrong" is because they are far too simple. They will usually only show four or five ancestral species to horses when over 50 ancestral and branching species have been found.

 

[HitchSlap]

I wonder why the evolutionists want to argue about meanings of “evolution, transitional, speciation, adaptation, etc. and the changing of one breed of horse into another breed of horse but never want to start “in the beginning”.

Life from Nonlife
“Life comes from life” is a fundamental law of biology, and yet formation of the first living thing must violate this law. How this could happen still stumps scientists.

by Kevin Anderson


Information of Life
Life consists of more than all the physical parts working in unison—it requires the information to run the parts. Scientists still don’t understand where this information could have come from.

by Brian A. Catalucci


Irreducible Complexity
Darwinian evolution requires that every complex component of life arose step-by-step. The discoveries of genetics and cell biology have highlighted this impossibility, which scientists still can't explain.

by Nathaniel Jeanson

I wonder why cdesign proponentsists insist on muddying the waters with "information" nonsense. Lol

You're being bamboozled.

 

[tevans9129]

I try to stay away from Christian sites when in discussions with non-Christians but since I am inundated with information from sources that I do not agree with, at least not all of it, I see no reason why I should not present some information from sources that I do agree with...mostly.

[Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

SIMPLE, CONSERVATIVE ARITHMETIC REVEALS CLEAR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC FOR A YOUNG AGE OF THE EARTH.

One Plus One Equals Billions
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.]

 

[tevans9129]

Is this wrong and if it is, can you explain why and can you provide evidence proving that is wrong?

[The difference between life and matter is information
The information is located in the one-dimensional DNA-sequence of four letters A,T,C,G which is translated with the help of the genetic code to the one-dimensional sequence of 20 different amino acids in proteins [17]. This one-dimensional sequence of the protein determines the 3-D structure of proteins. The 3-D structure of proteins enables specific biochemical reactions to be speeded up. This sustains structures essential to life. In the end, information is the difference between life and matter, between biology and physics. Information is the ultimate explanation of life. Information is the secret of life [12]. This view of life is an oversimplification. Other scientists point out that life consists of 3 subsystems: a chemical motor, a double-layer membrane and an information storing system [13].
It is fortunate that information theory in mathematics and engineering exists. Yockey explains this theory in part I of his book and applies it in part II to problems in biology: protein complexity, the genetic code, the primeval soup theory, the origin of life, theories of aging, and molecular evolution.]


Information theory and molecular biology. (Hubert Yockey).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I try to stay away from Christian sites when in discussions with non-Christians but since I am inundated with information from sources that I do not agree with, at least not all of it, I see no reason why I should not present some information from sources that I do agree with...mostly.

[Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

SIMPLE, CONSERVATIVE ARITHMETIC REVEALS CLEAR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC FOR A YOUNG AGE OF THE EARTH.

One Plus One Equals Billions
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.]

Your "logic" sadly does not work. By those standards the entire mass of the Earth should be bacteria.

tevans, you problem is that you are not logically consistent. By your "logic" you have admitted that man shares a common ancestor with all other primates.

The sources that you use are also not science based. Real science goes through the process of peer review. In peer review other experts in the field look at your work and see if there are obvious errors in it. Then other scientists around the world check your claims themselves. When a scientist is afraid to submit his work for peer review it is a very good sign that even that scientist knows that he is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this wrong and if it is, can you explain why and can you provide evidence proving that is wrong?

[The difference between life and matter is information
The information is located in the one-dimensional DNA-sequence of four letters A,T,C,G which is translated with the help of the genetic code to the one-dimensional sequence of 20 different amino acids in proteins [17]. This one-dimensional sequence of the protein determines the 3-D structure of proteins. The 3-D structure of proteins enables specific biochemical reactions to be speeded up. This sustains structures essential to life. In the end, information is the difference between life and matter, between biology and physics. Information is the ultimate explanation of life. Information is the secret of life [12]. This view of life is an oversimplification. Other scientists point out that life consists of 3 subsystems: a chemical motor, a double-layer membrane and an information storing system [13].
It is fortunate that information theory in mathematics and engineering exists. Yockey explains this theory in part I of his book and applies it in part II to problems in biology: protein complexity, the genetic code, the primeval soup theory, the origin of life, theories of aging, and molecular evolution.]


Information theory and molecular biology. (Hubert Yockey).

Easy, he cannot properly define "information". In the sciences if one cannot define one's terms one is wrong.

Plus he makes all sorts of bogus claims. All he has is a circular argument based upon a premise that he did not bother to support. If one can't or won't support the premise of an argument the entire argument is false.

 

[tevans9129]

IF, one has a case, motherboard, memory, hard drive, power supply, video card, monitor, a CPU, a connected power source and it is all connected correctly, can any information be extracted from that system? If not, why?

What if it remained in that condition for four billion years, what, if anything, would evolve?

 

[tevans9129]

Seems to me to be a valid question.

[Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

The Credential Attack
You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

1. There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.

2. What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.]

That is irrefutable, how many times does one see an attack on the source but never an effort to challenge the content? One needs to look no further than this thread to see it in black and white.

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

 

[tevans9129]

I can agree with that.

[Evolution theory questioned

Skull of human ancestors suggests early man was single species

Georgian scientists on Friday presented a 1.8 million-year-old skull discovered in the Caucasus nation that researchers say could force a re-evaluation of current theories of human evolution...
The scientists behind the discovery claim the different lineages some experts have described in Africa -- such as Homo habilis and Homo Rudolf Ensis -- were all just ancient people of the species Homo erectus who looked different from each other.

They also suggest that early members of the modern man's genus Homo, first found in Africa, soon expanded into Asia despite their small brain size.]

Evolution theory questioned

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder why cdesign proponentsists insist on muddying the waters with "information" nonsense. Lol

You're being being bamboozled.

Some folks, need and desire to be bamboozled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems to me to be a valid question.

[Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

The Credential Attack
You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

1. There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.

That is so massively wrong that only your complete ignorance of science keeps it from being a lie.

2. What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

That is also massively wrong. What makes you think that the evidence is questionable? But then you do not even know what evidence is. And like all creationists here you run away from the offer to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.]

Oh my!! There is only scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. Your side has not been able to find any scientific evidence against the theory.

You are shooting yourself in the foot.

That is irrefutable, how many times does one see an attack on the source but never an effort to challenge the content? One needs to look no further than this thread to see it in black and white.

What is irrefutable? Yes, your side relies on idiots, liars, and loons. You have scientists that make arguments far outside of their area of expertise making their claims totally devoid of any authority.

You really should try to learn just the basics of science. It won't hurt.

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

Once again a list of scientists, most of which were long before the theory of evolution. Did you not notice that your list of eminent scientists is almost empty after the theory was developed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can agree with that.

[Evolution theory questioned

Skull of human ancestors suggests early man was single species

Georgian scientists on Friday presented a 1.8 million-year-old skull discovered in the Caucasus nation that researchers say could force a re-evaluation of current theories of human evolution...
The scientists behind the discovery claim the different lineages some experts have described in Africa -- such as Homo habilis and Homo Rudolf Ensis -- were all just ancient people of the species Homo erectus who looked different from each other.

They also suggest that early members of the modern man's genus Homo, first found in Africa, soon expanded into Asia despite their small brain size.]

Evolution theory questioned

Nope, bad title. The theory of evolution is not being questioned there. What is being discussed is how life evolved, now whether it evolved or not. Evolution is a given in that article.

Scientists will always be discussing the details of evolution. That does not mean that evolution itself is questioned.

 

[Non sequitur]

IF, one has a case, motherboard, memory, hard drive, power supply, video card, monitor, a CPU, a connected power source and it is all connected correctly, can any information be extracted from that system? If not, why?

What if it remained in that condition for four billion years, what, if anything, would evolve?

Onboard sound.

Ugh.

 

[tevans9129]

I don't know what came before Eohippus.

OK, does anyone know, do you have any verifiable evidence or did Eohippus just magically appear and then "evolution" took over from there?

Has there been any different species coming from the Equus caballus and if so what evidence?