proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Job 33:6]

So you are telling me that that isn't how the science books normally present the fossil record to us?
View attachment 214308

The ordovician nautiloids are not more advanced than any sea squid of today. The mississippian brachiopods are just clams, no more "advanced" than clams today.

@omega2xx

Look at this guys posts with the cowboy hat. He too, seems to believe that...perhaps mammals outran reptiles during the flood, thus forming the succession during some sort of chaotic and wild event. Yet, anyone could simply ask, what about the fossil succession as it pertains to eggs and nests built by animals? did animal nests and eggs also outrun the flood based on what embryos were warm blooded or cold blooded?

Young earthers had different view points, different opinions or ideas, making it difficult to discuss the topic because none agree with one another.

 

[Jimmy D]

I suppose I assumed so since he has been allowing websites like Answers in Genesis and other Intelligent Design sites cite his name and work as publications in support of ID for several years now.

Come on Brad.

Show me one of his publications or quotes where he even mentions ID.

Actually, dont bother, it will be a waste of your time. The paper you mentioned in your original post investigates a very specific evolutionary mechanism and comes to the conclusion that our understanding is unresolved.

It in no way mentions or supports ID - but of course the idiots over at AIG (or wherever) like to jump on any unresolved issue in biology and claim it strengthens their "case".

Every google search about Lambert's creationist leanings repeats the same paragraph...

Let's look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t ‘explicitly’ wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as ‘an unresolved problem in theoretical biology’ (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

I notice that you managed to change one or two words, but this is typical of creationist thinking (or lack of). I don't know who originally wrote "Creationist biochemist Grant Lambert" but once they did it gets copied, pasted, copied, pasted until it becomes "accepted" as true.


I haven't got any great interest in debating this, I only mention it as a warning to you not to fall for everything these dishonest Creationists tell you.

Edit: If forgot that I was going to say that it is possible that he is an actual creationist, in which case I apologise, however, all his published papers deal with 'mainstream' science, not "intelligent" design or creationism.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't have to "refute" the ToE. As I have stated over and over. It has plenty of evidence to support it. Warehouses after warehouses full of the stuff. Museums all across the world have evidence stacked from floor to ceiling that supports it. And all one has to do to make all of that evidence completely valid is turn a blind eye to the notion of creation then all that is left is evolution. Just wave away even the possibility of a creator and...ta da... your ToE is basically a proven fact. To rationalize waving away creation they argue that no Creator can be seen or examined anywhere. Well there you have it then... we can't see Him thus He doesn't exist...right? The problem is that all of that "evidence" for evolution is based on similarity arguments which fit well within the theory of creation. If you are like me and not willing to just wave away the possibility of creation simply because we can't see the Creator (we can see His work) then you have to see evidence that does not fit within the creation paradigm. The only two things in such a case that would accomplish this would be 1. a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another or 2. an example of an observed random mutation that added beneficial (genetic increasing type) information to the genome of a multi celled organism under a controlled environment in which it was known to not have existed in the population prior. These are the only two evidences that would support the ToE over Creation, and they do not exist anywhere my friend. Nowhere!

You still seem to be laboring under the delusion that the theory of evolution rules out divine creation. All it does is rule out "biblical" divine creation, which has been a dead issue anyway for two hundred years.

 

[BradB]

The ordovician nautiloids are not more advanced than any sea squid of today. The mississippian brachiopods are just clams, no more "advanced" than clams today.

@omega2xx

Look at this guys posts with the cowboy hat. He too, seems to believe that...perhaps mammals outran reptiles during the flood, thus forming the succession during some sort of chaotic and wild event. Yet, anyone could simply ask, what about the fossil succession as it pertains to eggs and nests built by animals? did animal nests and eggs also outrun the flood based on what embryos were warm blooded or cold blooded?

Young earthers had different view points, different opinions or ideas, making it difficult to discuss the topic because none agree with one another.

That guy in the cowboy hat...lol... doesn't believe that one "squid" of the past is more advanced than the others of today. But he does believe that due to location and mobility the horse made it to higher ground than the squid. And probably could run faster and climb higher than the Titanosaurus. The point is that the arrangement and sorting of the fossils in the fossil record can be explained just as easily within a single global catastrophic event as they can within a 600 to 700 million year set of strata.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That guy in the cowboy hat...lol... doesn't believe that one "squid" of the past is more advanced than the others of today. But he does believe that due to location and mobility the horse made it to higher ground than the squid. And probably could run faster and climb higher than the Titanosaurus. The point is that the arrangement and sorting of the fossils in the fossil record can be explained just as easily within a single global catastrophic event as they can within a 600 to 700 million year set of strata.

uh, huh, and flowering plants ran faster than reptiles? Why are no flowering plants and pollen at the bottom?

And how can the flood explain buried sand dunes in the mix?

And how can the flood explain volcanic rock flows in the mix?

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Evolution has always been evidence based.
Observation led to the evidence and evidence to the eventual theory.
Creation was never more than a starting point. What we see to day is the result of a very long chain of evolution, including ourselves.

 

[Jimmy D]

Evolution has always been evidence based.
Observation led to the evidence and evidence to the eventual theory.
Creation was never more than a starting point. What we see to day is the result of a very long chain of evolution, including ourselves.

Hi Terry.

Interesting profile picture you've got there! Welcome to the forum.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Just a rather prickly member of my family.

 

[Job 33:6]

That guy in the cowboy hat...lol... doesn't believe that one "squid" of the past is more advanced than the others of today. But he does believe that due to location and mobility the horse made it to higher ground than the squid. And probably could run faster and climb higher than the Titanosaurus. The point is that the arrangement and sorting of the fossils in the fossil record can be explained just as easily within a single global catastrophic event as they can within a 600 to 700 million year set of strata.

Would you mind explaining how the megafauna giant sloth of the late cenozoic also outran the high speed theropods of the mesozoic?

@omega2xx See^ im not making this stuff up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But there is no biblical evidence that "kinds" were meant to describe a divine immutable taxonomy.

And it hasn’t. We got over 100 breeds of dogs from the wolf. We got red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer, but they are all the same Kind, regardless that there is a variance capable within the genome.

No one is claiming Kind must always look the same. But if I classified Kind, like evolutionists do species, one could arbitrarily say anything. Mating and producing fertile offspring, no, ecological niche, no, common similarities, no, geographical location.

But the Husky nor the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. Their mating produces variation within the Kind, but we all recognize they are all the same species. Husky remains Husky, Mastiff remains Mastiff, just as wolf remained wolf. So too the fossil record, where every single type of creature remains the same for every fossil found of that creature. One simply is unable to observe what mated with what to produce what variation from a pile of bones. As per actual observation, not a single fossil evolved into something it was not.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Would you mind explaining how the megafauna giant sloth of the late cenozoic also outran the high speed theropods of the mesozoic?

@omega2xx See^ im not making this stuff up.

that conjures up a marvellous image......
Why should Giant sloths want to outrun anything. they do not even try that today. Their tactic is disguise, stillness, and keeping out of reach.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to "refute" the ToE. As I have stated over and over. It has plenty of evidence to support it. Warehouses after warehouses full of the stuff. Museums all across the world have evidence stacked from floor to ceiling that supports it. And all one has to do to make all of that evidence completely valid is turn a blind eye to the notion of creation then all that is left is evolution. Just wave away even the possibility of a creator and...ta da... your ToE is basically a proven fact. To rationalize waving away creation they argue that no Creator can be seen or examined anywhere. Well there you have it then... we can't see Him thus He doesn't exist...right? The problem is that all of that "evidence" for evolution is based on similarity arguments which fit well within the theory of creation. If you are like me and not willing to just wave away the possibility of creation simply because we can't see the Creator (we can see His work) then you have to see evidence that does not fit within the creation paradigm. The only two things in such a case that would accomplish this would be 1. a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another or 2. an example of an observed random mutation that added beneficial (genetic increasing type) information to the genome of a multi celled organism under a controlled environment in which it was known to not have existed in the population prior. These are the only two evidences that would support the ToE over Creation, and they do not exist anywhere my friend. Nowhere!

There is not a single solitary fossil in any museum that supports evolution. Every single fossil for any type remains the same for every fossil found of that type.

Don’t misconstrue the evidence as if it supports evolution at all. Just as Huskie remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Only when those two mate does variation enter, suddenly and fully formed.

So too the fossil record. Fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced Fossil C. There was no evolution involved. They are simply incapable of observing what mated with what and produced what from a pile of bones. But observational fact shows us just how variation occurs, and neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. This can be applied to any animal in existence. Whether they be grizzly bears mating with polar bears, red tailed deer mating with mule deer, or lions mating with tigers.

Don’t even pretend the fossil record supports evolution in even the smallest detail. Instead it supports the exact opposite. That all types of creatures remained the same for every one found, and new variation appeared suddenly, fully formed, just like the Chinook.....

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

There is not a single solitary fossil in any museum that supports evolution. Every single fossil for any type remains the same for every fossil found of that type.

Don’t misconstrue the evidence as if it supports evolution at all. Just as Huskie remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Only when those two mate does variation enter, suddenly and fully formed.

So too the fossil record. Fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced Fossil C. There was no evolution involved. They are simply incapable of observing what mated with what and produced what from a pile of bones. But observational fact shows us just how variation occurs, and neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. This can be applied to any animal in existence. Whether they be grizzly bears mating with polar bears, red tailed deer mating with mule deer, or lions mating with tigers.

Don’t even pretend the fossil record supports evolution in even the smallest detail. Instead it supports the exact opposite. That all types of creatures remained the same for every one found, and new variation appeared suddenly, fully formed, just like the Chinook.....

A very fanciful understanding of what evolution is about...
I would love to see fossils mating... it must be a very slow process.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, I thought you'd already acknowledged more information can come about in a genome, haven't you? In any case, a mutation can add info, delete info, change info, it can arrange info in a different way, etc. There are so many ways that a genome can change which we have literally seen happen both in the lab and in nature, that it's pointless making such a fatuous statement with the expectation you'd be taken seriously. Do you even know how Downs syndrome is caused??

Nope, you're mistaken yet again.

Do you understand the difference between 'Cells' and 'DNA'?

I know exactly how it is caused. Do you? Can we say what already existed was copied incorrectly? Nothing new was created, only what ALREADY EXISTED was copied into a different format. A format that was already possible within the genome, or else copying it could not make it......

Never once has a mutation created new information. It took information that already existed in the genome and changed its order. A change not possible had that information not already been available to be copied.....

I am fully aware what copy means, perhaps you should look it up sometime.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A very fanciful understanding of what evolution is about...
I would love to see fossils mating... it must be a very slow process.

A denial that all mated while alive. But smart Alec remarks are about par for evolutionary supporters when they have no answer to the claims. They somehow thinks such foolishness makes the claims go away. And perhaps they do in their own minds. But observational fact remains....

Not fanciful, factual.

 

[rjs330]

Answering these questions (some which are a bit nonsensical) would involve actually learning more about science, biology and in particular evolutionary theory. For example, I tried to get into how hypotheses in science are tested and thus answering your continued refrain about evolution not being testable. But you appear to have completely ignored it and thus continue to repeat the same mantra over and over.

You appear to have little to no desire to actually learning anything here and just continue to repeat your denialism over and over.

So you don't have any evidence of a common ancestor. I didn't think so.

Your hypothesis idea is just not really testable. The hypothesis is always based upon a false premise and subject to false interpretation. It's all over the place in evolutionary theory.

Show me one test please, just one that shows a group can evolve into a separate group.

You completely ignore that there is nothing. There are no fossils that show a group evolving into another group. You ignore that you have no evidence of a group evolving into another group. You always start with a false hypothesis without evidence that your hypothesis is actually true to begin with. Because you have no evidence of any if it actually occurring. And you can't make it occur or observe it occurring.

 

[Speedwell]

So you don't have any evidence of a common ancestor. I didn't think so.

Your hypothesis idea is just not really testable. The hypothesis is always based upon a false premise and subject to false interpretation. It's all over the place in evolutionary theory.

Show me one test please, just one that shows a group can evolve into a separate group.

You completely ignore that there is nothing. There are no fossils that show a group evolving into another group. You ignore that you have no evidence of a group evolving into another group. You always start with a false hypothesis without evidence that your hypothesis is actually true to begin with. Because you have no evidence of any if it actually occurring. And you can't make it occur or observe it occurring.

That might be an interesting challenge if you could frame it intelligibly. What do you mean by "group?" The same thing as you meant by "order" when you were using it incoprrectly? Or "completely different?" Or are you just being intentionally vague as a rhetorical device?

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

A denial that all mated while alive. But smart Alec remarks are about par for evolutionary supporters when they have no answer to the claims. They somehow thinks such foolishness makes the claims go away. And perhaps they do in their own minds. But observational fact remains....

Not fanciful, factual.

Creationist Ideas are so fanciful and so forcibly disprove by science. That these things are no longer subject to argument.
All that remains to us is humour. tinged with sadness.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The ordovician nautiloids are not more advanced than any sea squid of today. The mississippian brachiopods are just clams, no more "advanced" than clams today.

@omega2xx

Look at this guys posts with the cowboy hat. He too, seems to believe that...perhaps mammals outran reptiles during the flood, thus forming the succession during some sort of chaotic and wild event. Yet, anyone could simply ask, what about the fossil succession as it pertains to eggs and nests built by animals? did animal nests and eggs also outrun the flood based on what embryos were warm blooded or cold blooded?

Young earthers had different view points, different opinions or ideas, making it difficult to discuss the topic because none agree with one another.

Could we agree that in a cataclysmic event, those on lower ground would receive the largest and fiercest inflow of water, rock and sediment? Dislodging nest, destroying contents... the simple fact is the lower one goes, the less remains can be found of delicate life, eggs the most delicate and fragile. But, once the initial surge was over, along with the upheavals from the fountains of the deep erupting, mountains crashing down and valleys rising, those higher would simply slowly be submerged... and this more likely to survive intact, Yes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Creationist Ideas are so fanciful and so forcibly disprove by science. That these things are no longer subject to argument.
All that remains to us is humour. tinged with sadness.

So in other words you have no evidence. I understand...