5 Questions for Creationists

lasthero · Nov 18, 2013

EternalDragon said:
And faith.

No, evidence.

Oafman · Nov 18, 2013

juvenissun said:
Can they bridge the gap between monkey and human? Or is the gap becoming more and more clear? .

What is this 'gap' between monkeys and humans?

lasthero · Nov 18, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Not unless we have to dig up fossils and generate assumptions about similarities to build a house or an airplane.

It's not just similarities. Closing your eyes to the evidence does not make it go away, I'm afraid.

Oncedeceived · Nov 18, 2013

Naraoia said:
It's not necessarily slow. Blind, to my knowledge, yes.

I was not the one that said slow and blind the original thread starter did. However, ToE did predict that evolution must be a slow and gradual process. The prediction was falsified by the Cambrian Explosion.

Wait a sec, I think we need to agree on what we mean by "evolution" here. On the one hand, evolution is simply descent with modification. You've got heritable variation, and that variation changes from generation to generation due to random sampling effects and selection. So far, so good.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory includes the idea of common descent. This is not a necessity for the basic process of evolution to work - it's part of the evolutionary explanation for biodiversity. So we have to distinguish the two concepts.

Yes I do understand the concepts of evolution.

It's also important to note that evolutionary theory as originally formulated did not postulate universal common descent. I don't think that, at the time, there was enough evidence to do so. No comparative genetics, very little knowledge of biochemistry, no Precambrian fossil record, what have you. Likewise, if life has more than one ultimate ancestor, that does nothing to rule out the processes of evolution or the idea of common descent - it's simply irrelevant to the former (many if not most of which have been directly observed) and it merely restricts the latter.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. The Precambrian fossil record is controversial and it definitely didn't show a clear progression to the Cambrian fossils.

With that in mind, I'd like to know which predictions you think were proven false.

I'd also like to know which predictions these are. Mind you, I want predictions that can be distinguished from evolutionary ones. I.e. don't come with things like the common design common designer argument - common ancestry also predicts commonalities of design.

Why do you want something that distinguishes it from evolutionary ones? ToE is a man made construct created to explain what is found in the past. Evidence is evidence and the evidence is not a property of ToE.

As a person interested in the fossil record, I was very curious about this...

So. First, though probably least important: Retallack represents a fringe opinion. Very few palaeontologists argue that fossil-bearing Ediacaran deposits are terrestrial. The general consensus is that they are mostly marine; some of them represent shallow seafloors covered by microbial mats, some of them were buried by volcanic ash, while some of the later ones (in the Nama Group in particular) contain microbial reefs.

That is true, it is controversial. However, the hypothesis is substantiated with evidence that bears merit. This is something that needs to be examined further.

Second, lichens aren't necessarily "plant life". The photosynthetic part of the symbiosis is often not a plant but a cyanobacterium (and then, single-celled algae are only plants in the broaders sense). To top that, Genesis doesn't simply mention "plant life". I don't know about the original Hebrew, but English translations specifically list things like grass and fruit-bearing trees. Angiosperms do not appear in the fossil record until the Mesozoic.

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.
The findings, detailed in the Sept. 26 issue of the journal Nature,have implications for extraterrestrial life as well, hinting that oxygen-generating life could arise very early in a planet's history and potentially suggesting even more worlds could be inhabited around the universe than previously thought, the study's authors said.
It was once widely assumed that oxygen levels remained low in the atmosphere for about the first 2 billion years of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history. Scientists thought the first time oxygen suffused the atmosphere for any major length of time was about 2.3 billion years ago in what is called the Great Oxidation Event. This jump in oxygen levels was almost certainly due to cyanobacteria microbes that, like plants, photosynthesize and exhale oxygen.

http://www.livescience.com/39938-earth-had-oxygen-earlier.html

Third, the Ediacaran period is not "the earliest earth" by any stretch. Ediacaran fossils start around 580 million years ago, in the latest Precambrian. They were preceded by four billion years of earth history, the majority of which didn't leave us any fossils more complex than bacteria. The earliest multicellular algae are things like Bangiomorpha, from under 1.5 billion years ago. And again, these were red algae living in water and not grass and fruit-bearing trees on dry land. AFAIK, the earliest evidence of land plants is some Ordovician spores that certainly didn't belong to fruit-bearing trees.

See above.

It's pretty simple. If you (not you specifically) insist that evolution only happens within a kind, I think you ought to know where kinds end. After all, presumably you have some sort of evidence for your claim, and that evidence should be the observation that evolution doesn't proceed beyond a certain level of divergence.

The Bible is not a science book. It should agree with evidence we see in the natural world but to put a value on kind is not something that is possible. We can put our take on it.

Theoretically, a kind always means the same thing. It's the unit of God's creation and the limit of evolution.

I don't think that we can determine what limits there are. If we use it as the three domains of life it can encompass the entire spectrum of life. Which is not going against scripture either.

Species doesn't always mean the same thing, and we don't believe there is some sort of discrete unchangeable entity behind the definitions. It makes a lot of sense to talk about biological species when you're discussing how populations of sexually reproducing organisms diverge from each other. It makes very little sense to apply the same concept to asexuals and/or promiscuous gene swappers.

It does, however, there is some lack of clarity to the concept.

(FWIW, I'm quite happy to be explicit about which species definition I mean. Usually, it'll be the biological species, because that's the context where speciation is most often discussed by evolutionary biologists. Often, species definitions are actually irrelevant. When discussing how humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it doesn't really matter whether we interpret "humans" as a biological species or a morphospecies or an ecological species or a genotypic cluster; it's the traits, their genetic basis and the evolutionary forces acting on them that matter. Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure that we could find examples of new species observed to form under most currently used species definitions.)

That is fine for you.

juvenissun · Nov 18, 2013

Oafman said:
What is this 'gap' between monkeys and humans?

Depends on what are you looking at.

A simpler example: DNA differences.
A harder example: civilization.

Oafman · Nov 18, 2013

juvenissun said:
Depends on what are you looking at.

A simpler example: DNA differences.
A harder example: civilization.

OK so monkeys and humans are different.

Now, who exactly is trying to 'bridge the gap'?

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2013

Oafman said:
OK so monkeys and humans are different.

Now, who exactly is trying to 'bridge the gap'?

My Daisy Chain Challenge

Oafman · Nov 18, 2013

AV1611VET said:
My Daisy Chain Challenge

Get a geology hammer and get out there!

Aman777 · Nov 18, 2013

AV1611VET said:
My Daisy Chain Challenge

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

Dear AV, Of course not since it is impossible to prove a Lie. However, it's really easy to account for Adam's descendants. Since Adam was the FIRST Human, you MUST inherit his human intelligence or you are NOT a human. This is WHY prehistoric man was NOT human.

ONLY Humans post. :amen:

?

In Love,
Aman

SkyWriting · Nov 18, 2013

juvenissun said:
Similar studies have happened now. People study DNA to explore the origin of human being. What do they know now? Can they bridge the gap between monkey and human? Or is the gap becoming more and more clear?

If they can not be successful in using the most recent samples, I do not hold much hope when people are going toward any fossil record.

The gap is becoming less clear. There is extensive cross-transference of DNA between species. Mainstream science finds this among scores of species. Evolutionary biologists, the bottom of the barrel in hard science, considers this proof of common origin. Mainstream science is unsure of the processes involved that allowed for the lateral exchanges.

Future Feeder » Blog Archive » Microbial Evolutionary Net

lasthero · Nov 18, 2013

There is extensive cross-transference of DNA between species.

'Cross-transference'...what is that? Do you mean 'gene transfer'?

Mainstream science finds this among scores of species.

Such as?

Evolutionary biologists, the bottom of the barrel in hard science,

Oh, really? When was that decided?

Naraoia · Nov 18, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
I was not the one that said slow and blind the original thread starter did. However, ToE did predict that evolution must be a slow and gradual process. The prediction was falsified by the Cambrian Explosion.

Heh, the Cambrian explosion is probably not the best falsification of pure gradualism - while we have evidence indicating it was fast compared to "regular" evolution, there's precious little evidence that it involved anything other than gradual changes. I don't think we have a good enough Cambrian fossil record to track individual changes during the origin of major groups. (Clarification: I understand "gradual" as the other end of the scale from "hopeful monsters", i.e. referring to the magnitude of individual changes.)

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Just making sure you're under no misconceptions about what evolution "predicts"

The Precambrian fossil record is controversial and it definitely didn't show a clear progression to the Cambrian fossils.

Indeed. As the lichen controversy shows, Precambrian fossils are very hard to interpret even at the level of kingdoms, never mind finding specific links to the various creatures of the Cambrian*. In that, Darwin's hopes were certainly not borne out.

Once you go back as far as the Precambrian, where we think all the lines of descent of animals converge, it also becomes difficult to know what you expect to find. Living animals have an awful lot in common in genetic terms, but their bodies are so diverse that it's very hard to infer what the common ancestors of disparate groups like mammals and jellyfish looked like. As some very smart people once said, developmental genetics only tells us what might have been possible. That adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the interpretation of Precambrian fossils macro and micro.

*Kimberella aside. I love that beastie, being one of the few Ediacarans that comes with strong evidence of movement and feeding activity.

Why do you want something that distinguishes it from evolutionary ones? ToE is a man made construct created to explain what is found in the past. Evidence is evidence and the evidence is not a property of ToE.

I want something distinct from evolutionary predictions because making different predictions is the only way you can tell explanations apart. And, given that the evolutionary view doesn't assume a meddling extra entity (supernatural to boot!), Occam's Razor is on its side if the evidence is equally consistent with both accounts.

Give you an example. Say I have a runny nose and a sore throat. The accepted explanation, of course, is an infection, probably by a rhinovirus. But the evidence is equally consistent with another theory. One could hypothesise that cold viruses are actually the parasitic young of cold demons. Mature cold demons must lay their eggs in the warm incubator of people's noses, and that these eggs then multiply there, spawning more demon eggs that can eventually grow into new cold demons. Colds can spread either by a demon directly infecting you, or by you spreading your freshly spawned demon eggs to a new victim.

Why would I choose the demon hypothesis when the conventional explanation makes the exact same predictions without positing some mysterious entity in addition to known phenomena?

That is true, it is controversial. However, the hypothesis is substantiated with evidence that bears merit. This is something that needs to be examined further.

Of course. Although Retallack has been pushing it for a long time, and so far as I can tell, he's not made much impact. Either he's a brave maverick way ahead of his time, or he's simply passionately wrong.

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.[...] This jump in oxygen levels was almost certainly due to cyanobacteria microbes that, like plants, photosynthesize and exhale oxygen.
[/COLOR]

Cyanobacteria are not grass and fruit-bearing trees, even if they are "plants" by a folk botanical definition of the word. The Bible mentions very specific kinds of plants, which do not appear until the Mesozoic era.

The Bible is not a science book.

We're not the ones treating it as one.

It should agree with evidence we see in the natural world but to put a value on kind is not something that is possible.

In that case, the claim that evolution only proceeds within kinds is meaningless.

I don't think that we can determine what limits there are. If we use it as the three domains of life it can encompass the entire spectrum of life. Which is not going against scripture either.

And I'm totally fine with that.

It does, however, [suggest?] there is some lack of clarity to the concept.

Unfortunately, biology doesn't like being put in boxes. A palette of definitions is the best we can do when simple boxes don't fit. As long as scientists who work in relevant fields know which species concept they're talking about, it's probably fine. ^_^

Naraoia · Nov 18, 2013

SkyWriting said:
Evolutionary biologists, the bottom of the barrel in hard science...

Sorry, mate, you don't get to determine what the bottom of the barrel is.

Mainstream science is unsure of the processes involved that allowed for the lateral exchanges.

Are they, now?

Oncedeceived · Nov 18, 2013

Naraoia said:
Heh, the Cambrian explosion is probably not the best falsification of pure gradualism - while we have evidence indicating it was fast compared to "regular" evolution, there's precious little evidence that it involved anything other than gradual changes. I don't think we have a good enough Cambrian fossil record to track individual changes during the origin of major groups. (Clarification: I understand "gradual" as the other end of the scale from "hopeful monsters", i.e. referring to the magnitude of individual changes.)

Considering that the Cambrian explosion was not what the Theory predicted by Darwin and that Punctuated Equilibrium was developed to explain it, points to it being a pretty good example of falsification of pure gradualism.

Just making sure you're under no misconceptions about what evolution "predicts"

ok

Indeed. As the lichen controversy shows, Precambrian fossils are very hard to interpret even at the level of kingdoms, never mind finding specific links to the various creatures of the Cambrian*. In that, Darwin's hopes were certainly not borne out.

Once you go back as far as the Precambrian, where we think all the lines of descent of animals converge, it also becomes difficult to know what you expect to find. Living animals have an awful lot in common in genetic terms, but their bodies are so diverse that it's very hard to infer what the common ancestors of disparate groups like mammals and jellyfish looked like. As some very smart people once said, developmental genetics only tells us what might have been possible. That adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the interpretation of Precambrian fossils macro and micro.

I think that is true for most fossils.

*Kimberella aside. I love that beastie, being one of the few Ediacarans that comes with strong evidence of movement and feeding activity.

I don't propose and I don't think it was proposed that only land dwellers were present.

I want something distinct from evolutionary predictions because making different predictions is the only way you can tell explanations apart. And, given that the evolutionary view doesn't assume a meddling extra entity (supernatural to boot!), Occam's Razor is on its side if the evidence is equally consistent with both accounts.

The problem that I feel you are not grasping is that evolution is not an alternate explanation. It is not evolution vs. creation opposing one another. Evolutionary evidence is explained by ToE but it is not a property of it. Occam's Razor for example is in itself something that is explained better by design than naturalism. Naturalism does not explain logic, Design or Creation does and has more explanatory power than naturalism. So Occam's Razor is evidence of design/creation.

Give you an example. Say I have a runny nose and a sore throat. The accepted explanation, of course, is an infection, probably by a rhinovirus. But the evidence is equally consistent with another theory. One could hypothesise that cold viruses are actually the parasitic young of cold demons. Mature cold demons must lay their eggs in the warm incubator of people's noses, and that these eggs then multiply there, spawning more demon eggs that can eventually grow into new cold demons. Colds can spread either by a demon directly infecting you, or by you spreading your freshly spawned demon eggs to a new victim.

Considering that my whole house is suffering from this right now...demon virus is more accurate.

Regardless, you make a simple example that is unrealistic to counter creation which illustrates your opinion of creation being in the same category, but that is opinion and nothing more.

Why would I choose the demon hypothesis when the conventional explanation makes the exact same predictions without positing some mysterious entity in addition to known phenomena?

Reasonable people with the aid of today technology would not consider it even being Creationists. Like I said above, it is a simplistic explanation that bears no resemblance to the actual comparison.

Of course. Although Retallack has been pushing it for a long time, and so far as I can tell, he's not made much impact. Either he's a brave maverick way ahead of his time, or he's simply passionately wrong.

He could be wrong but other evidence supports his theory. Oxygen was present far far longer than anyone thought (like 700 million years earlier than thought) and that supports Retallack's theory.

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.

Earth Had Oxygen Much Earlier Than Thought : Discovery News

Cyanobacteria are not grass and fruit-bearing trees, even if they are "plants" by a folk botanical definition of the word. The Bible mentions very specific kinds of plants, which do not appear until the Mesozoic era.

The Bible says: 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

After its kind is very important here and something that most haven't even thought about. Something came before the kind spoken of in this passage.

We're not the ones treating it as one.

Yes, but it still should be consistent with what we find in nature. That is why it can be used to predict what will be observed in nature.

In that case, the claim that evolution only proceeds within kinds is meaningless.

Why?

And I'm totally fine with that.

Ok.

Unfortunately, biology doesn't like being put in boxes. A palette of definitions is the best we can do when simple boxes don't fit. As long as scientists who work in relevant fields know which species concept they're talking about, it's probably fine.

God doesn't like boxes either.

Thus, kinds.

Eight Foot Manchild · Nov 18, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Not unless we have to dig up fossils and generate assumptions about similarities to build a house or an airplane.

I dare you to substantiate your assertion that scientists 'generate assumptions' in the ToE.

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2013

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I dare you to substantiate your assertion that scientists 'generate assumptions' in the ToE.

Assumption: deep time

Assumption: live arose from non-living matter

EternalDragon · Nov 18, 2013

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I dare you to substantiate your assertion that scientists 'generate assumptions' in the ToE.

Can we observe, test and repeat evolution? If not it didn't happen. It's an assumption.

bhsmte · Nov 18, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Can we observe, test and repeat evolution? If not it didn't happen. It's an assumption.

When do you pick up your Nobel prize for showing that evolution did not happen, in your own mind?

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2013

bhsmte said:
When do you pick up your Nobel prize for showing that evolution did not happen, in your own mind?

Who got the Nobel prize for saying it did happen?

bhsmte · Nov 18, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Who got the Nobel prize for saying it did happen?

Nobel Prize for Chemistry « Why Evolution Is True

5 Questions for Creationists

Newbie

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Newbie

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Christian

The Librarian

Newbie

Apprentice Biologist

Apprentice Biologist

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Counselor

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Similar threads