proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

It is evidence that supports the theory. Had there been no evidence of this fusion event, the theory would have great difficulty in explaining why two closely related species would have a different chromosome count. Because of this evidence, the theory remains intact.

as i said above: the creation model predict it too, since we already know that chimp and human are about 98% similar, the only possibility for missing chromosomes is a fusion event.

 

[Jimmy D]

as i said above: the creation model predict it too, since we already know that chimp and human are about 98% similar, the only possibility for a missing chromosomes is a fusion event.

It seems all these "predictions" come after the fact, maybe "post-dictions" would be more accurate?

 

[xianghua]

It seems all these "predictions" come after the fact, maybe "post-dictions" would be more accurate?

the same as evolution "predict".

 

[pitabread]

the creation model predict it too

Again, there is no defined 'creation model' and consequently no predictions. You're just making this up.

 

[Larniavc]

How do we know that if evolution is true we would find certain things.

If it is logically predicted and then the evidence turns out to be what was predicted what do you think?

 

[Jimmy D]

The clue is in the prefix - "pre"....

a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “before” (preclude; prevent); applied freely as a prefix, with the meanings “prior to,” “in advance of,” “early,” “beforehand,” “before,” “in front of,” and with other figurative meanings (preschool; prewar; prepay; preoral; prefrontal).



noun: prediction; plural noun: predictions

1. a thing predicted; a forecast.
   "a prediction that economic growth would resume"
   synonyms: forecast, prophecy, divination, prognosis, prognostication, augury; More
   bet, projection, conjecture, guess;
   rarevaticination, prognostic, auspication
   "seven months later, his prediction came true"
   • the action of predicting something.
     "the prediction of future behaviour"

 

[rjs330]

Granted, it is still a bird, but we've only been observing it for a few decades! You appear to be incredulous that such changes could accumulate over millenia to produce a different beast altogether. That's where we have to turn to other disciplines like paleontology and gentetics where such changes can be traced over much longer timescales. I can't say that the incredulity of a layman is particularly convincing in the face of all the empirical evidence uncovered during the last hundred years or so of scientific endeavour.

Thanks for acknowledging my point. It might be interesting to think that the bird would change into some other beast, but you would have to come up with a reason for it to do so, particularly in the light of how and why it's changed to this point. There is no reason or point to the bird being anything else but a bird. It may adapt but there really is no evidence that it should turn into a cat or whatever.

 

[tas8831]

and still humans. so this fusion isn't evidence for a common descent after all, as i said.

You keep repeating something that has been explained to you as not being accurate.

Third time (just from me) - The fusion that produced chromosome 2 in humans is not evidence FOR common descent, it is an explanation as to why humans and chimps, while having descended from a common ancestor, have differing karyotypes.

Clear now?

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for acknowledging my point. It might be interesting to think that the bird would change into some other beast, but you would have to come up with a reason for it to do so, particularly in the light of how and why it's changed to this point. There is no reason or point to the bird being anything else but a bird. It may adapt but there really is no evidence that it should turn into a cat or whatever.

What's the difference between adaptation and evolution?

 

[tas8831]

It seems all these "predictions" come after the fact, maybe "post-dictions" would be more accurate?

Precisely - and this is even done by the 'professionals.'

The 'fine researchers' of the Intelligent design movement, for example,"predicted" that there would be function in some 'junk DNA' because Design. The earliest such prediction was made in 1993.

But function had not only been proposed for some 'junk DNA', but had also been discovered (by evolution-accepting researchers) as early as 1975.

Of course, creationists/ID advocates will not have known about this, so the claims of 'predicting' function in junk DNA by creationists is considered great science.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, it seems like you accept the findings referenced in the text but disagree that it's evidence for evolution?

Just to repeat the point of the article....

The theory of evolution predicts that the Australian marsupials must be descended from the older ones found in the Americas. The theory of continental drift says that between 30 and 40 million years ago South America and Australia were still part of the Southern hemisphere super continent of Gondwana and that they were connected by land that is now part of Antarctica. Therefore combining the two theories scientists predicted that marsupials migrated from what is now South America across what is now Antarctica to what is now Australia between 40 and 30 million years ago. This hypothesis led paleontologists to Antarctica to look for marsupial fossils of the appropriate age. After years of searching they found, starting in 1982, fossils on Seymour Island off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula of more than a dozen marsupial species that lived 35–40 million years ago.

I wonder what the Creation "model" has to say about the appearance of Marsupials in Australia, is there any evidence that might support this "model"?

We know for a fact that the fossil record is not complete. In fact there is much evidence of things "suddenly appearing". Why does this happen? Because our look into the past is very limited. What they found is what existed. All they really discovered is that marsupials were there. The mystery may have been solved by finding the migration point. All that really tells us is that the earth most likely looked a lot different then that it does now. Again MUCH speculation is going on. Perhaps God just populated the whole earth with creatures and not just one area. That is just as likely as evolution saying anything about this.

 

[Jimmy D]

We know for a fact that the fossil record is not complete. In fact there is much evidence of things "suddenly appearing". Why does this happen? Because our look into the past is very limited. What they found is what existed. All they really discovered is that marsupials were there. The mystery may have been solved by finding the migration point. All that really tells us is that the earth most likely looked a lot different then that it does now. Again MUCH speculation is going on. Perhaps God just populated the whole earth with creatures and not just one area. That is just as likely as evolution saying anything about this.

Coincidence then? Luck? Can we say the same for all the evidence from Biogeography?

 

[pitabread]

we will see about that.

See about what? You either have a demonstrable 'creation model' or do you don't. And the fact that no creationist seems to be able to demonstrate such a model, suggests that it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[TBDude65]

We know for a fact that the fossil record is not complete. In fact there is much evidence of things "suddenly appearing". Why does this happen? Because our look into the past is very limited. What they found is what existed. All they really discovered is that marsupials were there. The mystery may have been solved by finding the migration point. All that really tells us is that the earth most likely looked a lot different then that it does now. Again MUCH speculation is going on. Perhaps God just populated the whole earth with creatures and not just one area. That is just as likely as evolution saying anything about this.

Fossils "suddenly" appear because of numerous reasons:
- some environments have little to no deposition associated with them, making it nearly impossible for any individuals to become buried and preserved. So when we do find them in these environments (such as forest ecosystems), the appearance is "sudden" because the opportunity for fossilization is not constant
- the probability of fossilization is therefore dependent on the preservation potential of the environment and the sediments that record it, but the probability of preservation is also highly dependent upon the organism. Some organisms that are entirely (or almost entirely) soft-bodied, have very low preservation potential. This is why the fossil record of jellyfish is so dismal (and they are far from the only group that we have little or no fossil record for). Our best fossil records are, by a wide margin, concentrated on macroinvertebrates, primarily the brachiopods, clams, gastropods, ammonoids, nautiloids, crinoids, sea urchins, corals, and some arthropods like trilobites (not so much for crustaceans as only the claws are reinforced with calcite whereas the whole carapace is reinforced with calcite for trilobites)
- sometimes the "sudden" appearance has more to do with when and how we sample a locality than anything else. Some units might be relatively recently (geologic units) discovered, or only recently did it become feasible to launch a collecting expedition to search through the strata (such as for Tiktaalik when Neil Shubin and his colleagues traveled to northern Canada, above the Arctic Circle)
- an additional reason for "sudden" appearances are the the taxa are rare. Meaning that when we sample them in the fossil record, we only ever find a limited number of them
- and the last significant issue we encounter (that comes to my mind) is that sedimentary systems are constantly experiencing erosion and remobilization of sediments. So even if something is preserved in the rock record, it might be subsequently removed via erosion and/or diagenesis


What you are referring to is what we call the Completeness of the Fossil Record, and it has been an important field of study in paleontology for decades now. In addition to this, the subject is also closely related to the study of Taphonomy (which is the study of how and why organisms become preserved as fossils).

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

His opinion does not line up with the teaching of his book.

I'll have nothing to do with the claims of all of you make - you all claim you're right and everyone else is wrong - heck, even among Christians you can't agree... not impressing me in the least.

not realy. actually even the creation model predict this, since we already know that chimp and human are about 98% similar, the only possibility is a fusion event.

no. basically all the genes are still there. we aren't talking about missing chromosomes.

But again, in a creation model you wouldn't expect to find a fused chromosome as if it had been identical to the other great apes beforehand. Why would an intelligent designer go to all the trouble to do 24 pairs in humans when he knows we'll end up with 23 and some telomere debris in the middle of a fused chromosome? Surely he could've just gone straight to 23 without the garbage in the middle? And surely this would contribute to the technologically savvy sapient that we are indeed separately created? After all, when us humans finally become smart enough to examine this genomic data, that genetic scar would just give non-believers evidence to think Evolution is correct, right?

So with this in hand, perhaps I might have a falsifiable test for creation/evolution of sorts, but I'm sure you won't like it - I don't know what timeframe you think we've had between your supposition of creation and now, but I imagine your creation model would predict (since the start of creation) that our collective genomes would continue to mutate differently in a divergent pattern from there? After all, this is something we observe all the time in the diverse forms of life we see today. So, here are three possibilities I can think of without trying too hard:

1. If you're a young earth creationist (I'm not sure you are) then the fusing of chromosome 2 in humans hasn't had enough time to occur and fixate in our genome, so that would be a problem.
   
2. If you're an old earth creationist who believes we were all created separately at the beginning of time, then the human genome carries far too few mutations that would have to have occurred between us and Chimpanzees since the dawn of time.
   
3. Lastly, if you believe there's some sort of middleground where all life was created hundreds of millions of years ago or later and humans have only been here a few thousand to a few hundred thousand years, then the only way we'd have such a similar genome to Chimpanzees is if a supposed divine creator copied over their genome wholesale to create us, and progressed from there.

The first two options don't correlate with the observed data, the last option looks exactly like evolution with the caveat that an intelligent designer did the speciation event manually, and not nature by natural causes.

Of course, the data already looks exactly like evolution which as I noted earlier, an omnipotent being would actually have to try hard to make look exactly as if we evolved from a common ancestor with the other great apes... so in your opinion, which of the above scenarios do you think has played out - or do you have another undeclared version of events I haven't included?

EDIT: Ooh, I forgot to add - Convergent Evolution is a thing, so the fact that we are so similar to Chimpanzees is in no way a reason our genomes should be so similar - look at Hedgehogs, Echidnas and Porcupines - three of the most different kinds of genomes you could imagine, yet functionally identical in their respective environments. Same with the Thylacine and Wolves, and so on for a thousand other convergent organisms... there is no reason we should have such an identical genome to the Chimpanzee if we were separately created.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just because you believe it, doesn’t mean it’s true.

The question is: what works and what does not work. The Bible talks about how a wise man builds his house on a rock. Then when the storms come a wise man does not suffer loss. My brother lives in Flordia where they just had 100 mph winds. His home was built to handle 120 mph winds so he survived the storm just fine.

Everyone's work will be tested. Those who build with wood, hay or stubble will suffer loss.

For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones,wood, hay, or straw, 13 his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work.…1cor3:11

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'll have nothing to do with the claims of all of you make - you all claim you're right and everyone else is wrong - heck, even among Christians you can't agree... not impressing me in the least.

Everyone gets to build their home and when the storms come their work will be tested. If your home ends up in ruin then you have to start all over again.

 

[Jimmy D]

The question is: what works and what does not work. The Bible talks about how a wise man builds his house on a rock. Then when the storms come a wise man does not suffer loss. My brother lives in Flordia where they just had 100 mph winds. His home was built to handle 120 mph winds so he survived the storm just fine.

Everyone's work will be tested. Those who build with wood, hay or stubble will suffer loss.

For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones,wood, hay, or straw, 13 his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work.…1cor3:11

The bible got something right!

Does this spell the end for atheistic engineering practices?

 

[bhsmte]

Everyone gets to build their home and when the storms come their work will be tested. If your home ends up in ruin then you have to start all over again.

No kidding.

 

[TBDude65]

The question is: what works and what does not work. The Bible talks about how a wise man builds his house on a rock. Then when the storms come a wise man does not suffer loss. My brother lives in Flordia where they just had 100 mph winds. His home was built to handle 120 mph winds so he survived the storm just fine.

Everyone's work will be tested. Those who build with wood, hay or stubble will suffer loss.

For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones,wood, hay, or straw, 13 his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work.…1cor3:11

I have no idea what theological tangent you're on, but it is neither relevant or interesting.