proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Not necessarily, unless we assume that the common ancestor of whales and dolphins also lacked the ability to smell. But we have no reason to assume that.

ok. so your point about the dolphin olfactory can be explain by a genetic loss rather then evolution.

 

[pitabread]

ok. so your point about the dolphin olfactory can be explain by a genetic loss rather then evolution.

Again, we've had this discussion before. Evolution deals with changes and diversity in biological forms. Whether an organisms "gains" or "loses" something is irrelevant. It's still an example of biological evolution.

If you're just going to continue to repeat the same nonsense from prior discussions, then just go back and re-read the rebuttals to those discussions. There is no point in wasting time covering the same ground again.

 

[xianghua]

Whether an organisms "gains" or "loses" something is irrelevant. It's still an example of biological evolution.

if so even if all creatures were designed by god and just lost some of their traits its still evidence for evolution? in other words: according to this criteria even if common descent is false evolution is still true.

 

[pitabread]

if so even if all creatures were designed by god and just lost some of their traits its still evidence for evolution? in other words: according to this criteria even if common descent is false evolution is still true.

Evolution is a continual process we observe in nature whereby populations of organisms change over time.

Common ancestry of life on Earth is a by-product of that process.

 

[Aman777]

Yet the Father works to this day, just not creative works. John 5:17

Amen. You have just proven Scripturally that God has NOT yet rested from ALL of His works like He will do at the end of the present 6th Day/Age according to Gen 2:2-3 The reason is simple: It takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to "create" a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 God will not rest/cease creating New Creatures in Christ until Heaven is filled and then Jesus will return.

The rest on the seventh day was from works of creation, not cessation of divine works.

Not so, since God rests from ALL of His works of creating at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Also, the 7th Day has NO evening and NO morning, no end and no beginning. There is but ONE Day which fits that description and that is ETERNITY. Amen?

 

[rjs330]

Not necessarily, unless we assume that the common ancestor of whales and dolphins also lacked the ability to smell. But we have no reason to assume that.

Why not? Evolutionists assume a lot. Apparently they don't when it doesn't fit.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Is it, are you sure? Last I checked half my chromosomes came from my father and half from my mother.

Ahh I see, only single celled organisms which contain all chromosomes together can split to make half the chromosomes in one and half in the other. Hmmm, that story sounds vaguely familiar.

So you agree then that your father had one, and only one full set of chromosomes, right? Same with your mother? You then get half of each parent's genome? If as you say, Adam had two sets of genomes before God took half to create Eve (and that such a genome wouldn't have been an instant death sentence for the organism that had it), then is it that Adam was both male and female until this point? He/she had both sex organs, etc. until God cleaved that 'rib' to make Eve? Does this mean God was creating hermaphrodites before they occurred naturally?

Such is the price we pay for free will.

Cool, so we acknowledge then that omniscience plays no part? After all, to plan for us to fail and go through this 'fallen' world when an omnipotent being could easily have created a universe where that wasn't the case, would be a little sadistic, right? Or is it that the creator of this universe isn't omnipotent after all?

And I notice you had to start with two to get it fixed into the entire population. I’m not objecting to that at all. But even generation 34 with all its accumulated mutations is still the same species as generation 1. Granted, we may not look the same as we once did (think poodle versus wolf).

Your problem is that once you reach say 50,000, and one aquires a random mutation, how do the descendants of the other 49,998 people acquire that mutation if it is fixed in the population. Do all the others die out in your scenario? You want to start with 8 billion magically acquiring the same random mutation then go down to one. Sorry, for a mutation from one to fix in the population it goes the other way. At least in real genetics and real life where descendants inherit family traits it does.

Okay, so it's pretty clear just in what you've said here that you don't know enough about how genetics work, let alone all the other conversations we (and everyone else here) have had with you.

When I counted out the generations and the required ancestors to get to you, this is an approximation of the number of generations for any mutation to reach fixation in a population. From wherever a mutation occurs is where that count starts. The count I listed was the example of how long it might require. For example, there's a couple of recent actual mutations in the human genome that are very interesting to follow and will not reach fixation in the human population for many centuries, that's the mutation leading to cholesterol immunity found in a small italian village (a mutation in the Apolipoprotein AI producing gene, the mutation thus called Apolipoprotein AI-Milano) and another mutation (in this case, a mutation in the bone density regulation gene called LRP5) that led to the resilient bone density in a family in germany.

So just out of curiosity how does a random mutation appearing in generation 24, fix itself in the entire population afterwards? We kill off all the rest and start over from two? But then what about generation 6 and 12 and 28? From two all over again each time?

Or is this the point where magic is inserted and the entire population just aquires this same random mutation?

No magic required, just an understanding of science and math. The generational count toward fixation starts from when the mutation occurs. Look at my pretty ascii art to help you understand, this is a relatively simplistic rendition of a staticly sized population (you know, not growing, and not shrinking at each generation...

There you go, the ABCs of genetic mutation reaching fixation in a population. I have no doubt you will still have 'problems' with your understanding of it, but this is for the lurkers, not you.

I know, you can not see the events in front of your eyes and not know it. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Huskies remain Huskies, they don’t evolve into Chinooks, nor do Mastiffs.

And hence every fossil type found remains exactly the same from the oldest to the youngest fossil found, and those new variations appear suddenly.

No, I don’t need to see fossil A mate with fossil B to create fossil C, it’s how it happens today.

This is part of evolutionary mechanisms we already understand, but it's far from the only (or even a major) mechanism. The Husky and Mastiff are themselves genetic drifts from the original wolf lineage, along with every other dog breed imaginable. Your genetic combination brought about by crossbreeding nonsense is completely unfounded. No two wolves gave birth to a chihuahua, likewise, no two wolves gave birth to a great dane. All dog breeds have come about due to selective breeding of traits across generations and is still maintained in strict breeding programmes in place today.

Perhaps you could shed light on the cetacean lineage? What was the Indohyus crossbred with to get the Ambulocetus, then perhaps you could point to what the Ambulocetus was crossbred with to get the Pakicetus, then what was it crossbred with to get the Rodhocetus, then what was it crossbred with to get the Artiocetus? Then what was it crossbred with to get the Dorudon, then what was it crossbred with to get the Basilosaurus, then what did it breed with to get the modern whales and dolphins? I've missed quite a few in between species, but you get the point - I'll be interested to hear your view of course.

 

[Jimmy D]

I've missed quite a few in between species, but you get the point - I'll be interested to hear your view of course.

I should imagine it will involve A) Mistaken classification of species B)Huskies and C) African and Asians.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually, there have been some examples of species interbreeding, although it is very rare. An example of such is the discovery of a small population of sharks that bred from both black tip sharks and Australian black tip sharks. The resulting sharks, and they are still being studied, although I haven't found any recent literature, have the best of both species and are superbly adapted to changes in the Pacific ecosystem. Another example is found in poison dart frogs in which some species have been found to have the attributes and genetics of two other species.

It is generally accepted that species rarely interbreed, but, on occasion, can do so. Several decades ago it was accepted that species could no interbreed, and that was part of the definition of the term. Now we know that they can, but again, it is very rare in nature without human intervention.

I guess that now is the time to repeat the fact that there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that denies the existence of G-d.

Oh, I entirely agree.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why not? Evolutionists assume a lot. Apparently they don't when it doesn't fit.

In general those assertions that creationists choose to call assumptions fall into two categories:

• Inferences, based upon validated observations
  
• Hypotheses that are then subjected to testing

What do you think is the largest assumption made by evolutionists? If it is interesting enough, I'll start a new thread to demonstrate to you why it is not an assumption.

 

[Jimmy D]

You mean like Asian remaining Asian, African remaining African, and when they mate a new variety suddenly enters the record.

We agree, that we couldn’t observe fossil A mate with Fossil B to create fossil C is no reason to ignore how we observe variation to enter the picture, then not apply it to the past.

But that’s why every single fossil found of any creature remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest fossil found, with new variations appearing suddenly.

Because we don’t have to see those fossils mate, because it happens that way now, we just need draw the proper conclusions.

Because neither the Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Fossils mating?!?! LOL

That aside, we can observe speciation happening in nature and the lab, via other modes than hybridization, and as you say, apply it to the past.

Your assertion that "every single fossil found of any creature remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest fossil found, with new variations appearing suddenly" is either due to extreme ignorance of the fossil record or a lie, I don't doubt it's the latter.

 

[Ophiolite]

ok. so your point about the dolphin olfactory can be explain by a genetic loss rather then evolution.

Some years ago, during an industry downturn that had led to a payfreeze, I became tired of employees demanding an increment in their salaries. So:
"You want an increment, do you? What sort of percentage were your thinking of?"
"Well, it should be at least 15%."
"!5%, we can manage that. No problem. Now before I put the paperwork through, you do realise increments can be positive and they can be negative. Do you still wish to go ahead."

Equipped with an understanding of the meaning of the word increment the pointless demands surrounding it stopped. Now that you have been acquainted with the definition of evolution (that includes the loss of information as well as its gain, or simply its change) can we expect to see a cessation of pointless objection of this sort?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution is a continual process we observe in nature whereby populations of organisms change over time.

Common ancestry of life on Earth is a by-product of that process.

if its only a by-product then evolution is true even if common ancestry is wrong. so by this criteria even if creationism is true evolution is true.

 

[BradB]

You mean these?

People post them here all the time.

Here are some interesting facts about human fossils. Did you know that the hominid fossils are so guarded that they are virtually beyond all access by the very scientists who study human evolution and bring us most of the literature about it? There is some notion out there that these fossils are all just readily available and thoroughly studied by scientists but it’s not true. Did you know that Paleoanthropology is a science that is quite literally always one step removed from the evidence it is supposed to be based on? Oh sure they have “casts” of the bones with which to study, but did you know that the notion that these “casts” are a true representation of the original fossils is also false? A fact that was proven in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NY decided to have an exhibit of the original fossils. Display cases where made to fit the “true fossils” using casts of the original fossils so that when the originals were brought in they would have special cases to go in. The funny thing was that when the originals where finally brought out for display, none of them fit in their cases. Not a single one. My point here of course is to ask the question, “How can we know what to believe about human evolution when the scientists studying it don’t even have access to the actual evidence?”

Here is another interesting fact. Did you know that almost 4,000 hominid fossils had been discovered by 1976 but yet only 40 were put on display at the exhibit mentioned above in 1984? But oddly the organizer of the event, Ian Tattersalt, was quoted as saying that they had more than half of the entire human fossil record under one roof. That was clearly untrue. A good portion of the very important fossils were never even brought out to be put on display. Why? Today there are over 6,000 hominid fossils, and yet we hear from paleoanthropologists all the time that “there are sparse few.” It seems to me that what they more likely mean is there are sparse few that fit within their evolutionary view.”

Many operate under the misguided notion that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us about human evolution. But how quickly they forget things like all the doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 to 1953, on the famous Eoanthropus fossil (aka Piltdown man) before as you know it turned out to be a hoax which went undiscovered for more than 45 years. Or about Pithecanthropus, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 who claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link." But it was discovered that he had kept a big secret for 30 years. In that same dig, in the same area and level he had also found two very fully human skulls which obviously could not have descended from a specimen that existed at the same time. Or about Sinanthropus, who was also claimed to be a missing link by the scientific community, but also kept secret that it better fit within the range of being fully human than a missing link. However they finally released this information after ten other fully human remains were found at the same site. Or what about Homo Habilis announced in 1964 (and widely published in National Geographic) to be the oldest link in human evolution. But actually was assembled from disassociated bone fragments. And then there’s the famous Australopithecus aka “Lucy” found in 1974, and publicized to be the oldest missing human link. However many mainstream scientists today are confident that Lucy is no more than an extinct type of ape. And what about Ramapithecu, also promoted as an ancestor to humans but later found to be only an extinct type of orangutan.

Are we getting the picture yet? My intent here is not to slander mainstream science, but rather to demonstrate that my extreme skepticism of paleoanthropology is very much warranted. I know what you are going to reply to all of this, so allow me to beat you to the punch-line. Your about to say that that is the beauty of science is its ability to correct itself…right? So here’s my question to that common response, “Exactly how many uncorrected errors exist in science today?” The answer of course would be that we haven’t a clue. I mean if we knew something was an error then we would correct it and it would no longer be an uncorrected error…right? So here’s my point. If we have no way to know how many uncorrected errors exist then logically we can’t know if science’s “self-correcting” system is really all that efficient.

Perhaps you are pretty confident when you look at the parade of skulls presented by the scientific community as evidence for human evolution. But I am sorry I have no confidence in them at all. There are three main problems that I can point out, with the fossils and have already demonstrated these problems above. The first is that fossils are often selectively excluded if they do not fit the evolutionary scheme. The second is that some fossils are downgraded and made to appear less human than they actually are. And the third is that some fossils are upgraded to appear more human like. One final thought here on the self-corrective nature of science.

In 1911 the world was presented with Neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthal) as another species of sub-humans. It was published as a brutish beast and became the classic icon for the notion of the cave-man concept that indwells much of the thinking of society today. It was later discovered that these people were every bit as human as you and I are. They were just a little more sturdily built and also several suffered from a disfiguring disease caused by diet. But the thing here is, that the “correction” of this error did not come until 1957, some 44 years after the damage had been done. And people had become so accustom to thinking of them as merely “cave-men” that that view has persistently stuck. The brutish display of the Neanderthals wasn’t even removed from the human evolution display in the Field Museums of Natural History in Chicago until the mid-70’s, almost 20 years after it was known to be wrong. And even then they didn’t totally remove it. They merely moved it to the 2nd floor, along side a huge Brontosaurus, and relabeled it, “An alternate view of Neanderthal.” (So much for self-correction).

copied from notes taken from a book entitled Bones of Contention.

 

[BradB]

Observation in science does not necessarily mean observing the specific phenomenon under investigation, any more than 'reproduction' in science means re-creating the specific event in question.

One can observe the effects of a phenomenon and draw conclusions without having to see the actual phenomenon itself.

And that's my point. What "effects" are being observed to claim the universe could have come about this way?

 

[BradB]

God created man from the dirt of the earth,

interesting what is dirt made from and its properties?

Funny you should ask...
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, mankind began to develop chemical techniques sufficiently accurate for analysis of protoplasm and mineral residues. After analysis of the mineral residue in the human body, we learned that our bodies are made up of 43.5% calcium, 4.3% chlorine, 4.3% sodium, 10.2% potassium, 7.1% sulfur, 1.4% magnesium, 29.1% phosphorus, and .1% iron. What does all this mean? This is all the exact same minerals found in plain ordinary earth (dust). Genesis 3:19 says, "For dust thou art, and dust shalt thou become." The Bible said all along that man was made from the dust of the earth.

 

[BradB]

Not in Hebrew since the term finished means brought to perfection. It's the only way a work of the perfect God can and does end.

Gen. 2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were FINISHED. And on the seventh day God ENDED His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day FROM all His work which He had done.

The best sense is the obvious sense, any other sense is nonsense.

 

[BradB]

I've been saying the exact same thing. Evolution is the ONLY real option if God is removed. The piles of "evidence" really are nothing more than man trying to figure out how all that is came to be without God. And this whole nonsense is the ONLY explanation and teaching they offer in schools, on educational programs, in scientific articles, and any time the discussion of life comes up. No wonder everyone including ignorant Christians fall for it.

Yes, I can't say that too loudly because I once was one of those "ignorant" Christians. The thing that woke me up to reality was the day I discovered there was not a single example of a finely graduated chain between any two major forms. Not one. All supposed chains presented in the text books have enormous leaps of faith from one form to the next. Before that I just took it for granite that evolution was true because that's what everyone else seems to believe and I assumed it was based on all the "chains" of evidence in the fossils. I almost fell out of my chair when I learned there were none.

 

[BradB]

What I just posted to rjs applies to you as well. My point is, that I think that you, as "Bible-believing" Christians have a responsibility to help the rest of us deal with some of your coreligionsists--the Judge Roy Moores, the Gary Norths, the Pat Roberstsons. etc. who actually mean us ill, and would do it, too, if you sit by and do nothing.

Agreed. I come to the defense of evolutionists when I see them being misquoted or set in an unfair light. Examples would be when I hear fellow creationists claim that Evolution theory leads to things like Columbine massacres etc.

 

[Edison Trent]

Funny you should ask...
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, mankind began to develop chemical techniques sufficiently accurate for analysis of protoplasm and mineral residues. After analysis of the mineral residue in the human body, we learned that our bodies are made up of 43.5% calcium, 4.3% chlorine, 4.3% sodium, 10.2% potassium, 7.1% sulfur, 1.4% magnesium, 29.1% phosphorus, and .1% iron. What does all this mean? This is all the exact same minerals found in plain ordinary earth (dust). Genesis 3:19 says, "For dust thou art, and dust shalt thou become." The Bible said all along that man was made from the dust of the earth.

And how does dirt, dust form? dust can be a host of things, inside your house it mostly human skin. As well dirt can from a host of things like, rocks, trees, plants, animals, along with alittle water at times.

There are things that have bones, with bone properties mostly of calcium carbonate. do you know what these three things are, hint all three have skin in some shape or form