Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm a Christian and a creationist/intelligent design...God made EVERYTHING
I'm a Christian and accept evolution and expect a naturalistic abiogenesis will be demonstrated eventually...God made everything.I'm a Christian and a creationist/intelligent design...God made EVERYTHING
No the dates are just wrong
But you said my chart of the horse series was just horse pictures. Does that mean you think they all evolved from a common horse source? It is obvious to me, from their sequence in the fossil record, and by the advancement of features involved here, that these are all indeed a series of ancestors of the modern horse. Many creationists agree. Do you agree? We probably will never know, because you will not tell us.No idea, I would have to know more about the fossils.
Uh, no not just pictures of fossil horses. Here is a description of what we have found -- Horse Evolution . We have not only drawings, but probably thousands of fossils.My honest opinion, some interesting artwork, that's about it because that's all you got.
Nope, there was also A. afrarensis, A. anamensis, and A. ramidus before Lucy on the Hominid chart. And before the starting point on that chart, there are other representatives of ancestors of humans.A. garhi measures 450cc, the same size as other australopithecines is supposedly the only one in the chart proceeding Homo habilis (handy man), probably because he was discovered by a Leaky and allegedly used tools.
Yep. There were plenty of dead ends. Evolution branches out in many different directions. Some win, some lose. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.Australopithecus (A.) africanus A. robustus A. boisei (Paranthropus boisei) A aethiopicus Kenyanthropus platyops 450cc h rudolflensis 500cc +?, are all, ‘southern apes’, that are not in our lineage. Notice the dead ends in the chart.
KNM ER-1470 was representative of a transitional fossil. Skull KNM-ER 1470I've addressed a number of these repeatedly and if we ever get to Homo habilis I can dump a truck.
Uh, the fossils were not just given that date, we have accurate measurements that show us the date. But even if you don't accept modern dating methods, what about the clear record of the sequential layers in the rocks that correlate worldwide? Creationist like Sedgwick knew that in the 19th century. Can you acknowledge what scientists have known since the 19th century using basic observation of the rocks?Creation week happened about 6000 years ago and we didn't 'find them', hundreds of millions of years ago the fossil bed was given that date.
That's odd, because we find signs of life down to about 4 billion years ago.The surrounding fossil bed my well be that old but life itself didn't start until about 6000 years ago.
Some creationists think God created progressively over millions of years. Some creationists think God created the first life and evolved things after that. Even young earth creationists come in many varieties and vigorously contest what other creationists say. So unless you decide to be more specific, there is no way we can know what you believe.You do know I'm a Creationist right?
But you are the one that seems to be claiming that multiple cats species descended from one cat pair from the ark. So do you think it was possibly one cat pair was the ancestors of all 42 species of cat, including lions, leopards, and house cats? We will never know, because you will evade the question forever, yes?Unfortunately Noah didn't keep that information for us, nor did Moses. There were at least two the cat's ancestors on board.
Some creationists accept radiometric dating.Still a Creationist here, in case you didn't know we consider radiometric dating to be highly dubious at best.
Heard that dozens of times. Things like isochrons actually tell us what the original composition was and that the rock being tested was not contaminated. See Radiometric Dating .
I cannot help it if you will not look. Here for instance is an exhaustive listing of transitional fossils. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQAll I'm seeing is a few pictures and some dubious dating techniques.
Same thing.I don't ignore them, I dismiss them.
Here are more primary source articles on transitionals then you need -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2CI like the Berkley site, I've enjoyed looking around there for years. That's just a few paragraphs I find largely unconvincing. I prefer primary source material.
Tell you what, buddy, you take up your argument of semantics with Webster. I have no need for a prolonged discussion on the possible meanings of the word "evolution".I see you cut and pasted the Merriam-Webster definition, it starts with a literal definition of the meaning of the word:
But you said my chart of the horse series was just horse pictures. Does that mean you think they all evolved from a common horse source? It is obvious to me, from their sequence in the fossil record, and by the advancement of features involved here, that these are all indeed a series of ancestors of the modern horse. Many creationists agree. Do you agree? We probably will never know, because you will not tell us.
There are two issues for me here and these elaborate genealogical trees hardly address the core issue, let alone the particulars. My primary issues are the timeline and the level of taxonomic category beyond which there is no molecular basis.Uh, no not just pictures of fossil horses. Here is a description of what we have found -- Horse Evolution . We have not only drawings, but probably thousands of fossils.
Nope, there was also A. afrarensis, A. anamensis, and A. ramidus before Lucy on the Hominid chart. And before the starting point on that chart, there are other representatives of ancestors of humans.
KNM ER-1470 was representative of a transitional fossil. Skull KNM-ER 1470
Uh, the fossils were not just given that date, we have accurate measurements that show us the date. But even if you don't accept modern dating methods, what about the clear record of the sequential layers in the rocks that correlate worldwide? Creationist like Sedgwick knew that in the 19th century. Can you acknowledge what scientists have known since the 19th century using basic observation of the rocks?
Is it too much to ask you to agree with what could be seen by simple observation in the 19th century, and was later confirmed many times over by science?
That's odd, because we find signs of life down to about 4 billion years ago.
Some creationists think God created progressively over millions of years. Some creationists think God created the first life and evolved things after that. Even young earth creationists come in many varieties and vigorously contest what other creationists say. So unless you decide to be more specific, there is no way we can know what you believe.
But you are the one that seems to be claiming that multiple cats species descended from one cat pair from the ark. So do you think it was possibly one cat pair was the ancestors of all 42 species of cat, including lions, leopards, and house cats? We will never know, because you will evade the question forever, yes?
Some creationists accept radiometric dating.
Heard that dozens of times. Things like isochrons actually tell us what the original composition was and that the rock being tested was not contaminated. See Radiometric Dating .
I cannot help it if you will not look. Here for instance is an exhaustive listing of transitional fossils. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
And here are more pictures of actual transtional fossils than you will ever need to see -- transitional fossils - Bing images .
I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.Tell you what, buddy, you take up your argument of semantics with Webster. I have no need for a prolonged discussion on the possible meanings of the word "evolution".
I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.
This is never all that cut and dried:
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, Wikipedia)This isn't an isolated incident, case in point, the Dmanisi fossils:
actually there is a big mess with the primates phylogeny. from morphological prespective there are some contradictions. for instance:So much I could respond to here if I had the time, but in this post I will limit myself to this topic since you seem to be hot on it. You keep mentioning the huge change in brain size of hominid fossils after Lucy. How can we explain the large increase in brains with Homo habilis? Simple, Homo habilis needed to be smart to survive. OK, but didn't every animal need to be smart? Well, yes, but brains are expensive. They require enormous amounts of energy, and they are limited by the size of the head that can fit through the birth canal. So for most animals, they live with the size of the head they have, and that is that. But for Homo it was different. Their ancestors had been standing upright for years, and that freed their hands up to use tools. One needs to be smart to use tools in novel ways. And they had begun to lose their hair, allowing them to participate in prolonged hunting excursions without being exhausted in the hot African sun like other animals. With enough persistence, they could eventually chase down weak animals that were exhausted in the hot sun. But most importantly, they were developing complex societies that required communication. All this required brains. Homo needed big brains so they could truly understand each other. So there was strong evolutionary pressure to expand the brain.
Ah, but there was that barrier to the head size that could come out of the birth canal. Just like computers were long limited by the infamous DOS 64K memory limit, Homo had the birth canal limit to brain size. At first hominids adapted by giving up much of the sense of smell, and having the brain concentrate on cognitive tasks instead. Neat trick, but it can only do so much. But Homo Habilis developed something new. The head and the brain of the infants began to expand after birth. This had its drawbacks. While the brain is developing, human babies are nearly helpless. It takes them a year to stand upright, and many years to be self sufficient. Other animal babies can stand within minutes of birth, and are soon ready to fend for themselves. But for Homo Habilis, the need for a larger brain was so strong, that it was worth going through a sustained period of helplessness as a child if they would end up smarter.
You mention a number of genes that had to develop over a half million years for this increase in brain size. OK, not a big problem, mutations can certainly produce 60 significant changes in a half a million years. And where there is strong pressure for a particular feature, those mutations that have that feature will stay in the gene pool. So for habilis, having had an enormous need for larger brains, those genes were selected for. It is not unusual for a particular body part to double in size in a half million years if there is strong evolutionary pressure.
This change was not overnight. Someone posted a chart earlier that showed the increase in brain size with time. But just like Moore's law took over when we exceeded the DOS 64K limit, nature took over when we began to exceed the limit imposed by the birth canal.
Back to transitionals. There is a broad range of transitional fossils leading up to humans. The brain size in adults get significantly bigger as one advances through the fossil record. See Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .
here is what you have said:That's not what I said. I'm saying you're comparing apples and grapefruits.
Take some time and think about it.
It is nuclear physicists who determine what nuclear decay rates are and have been. Geologists just use radiometric dating as a tool.Unlike Genetics or Paleontology the Geologist isn't really giving us anything tangible. They observe decay rates over weeks, months or maybe years and projecting that over thousands if not millions of years. When it comes to many things with TOE I reserve the right to remain unconvinced, with radiometric dating I am consumed with incredulity.
And it's a big yawn for that one. Universal common ancestry is an interesting conclusion from what we know about evolution. Sometimes it is considered as part of the definition of evolution and mentioned specifically, sometimes not. So what? It's not important to anybody but you.I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.
So much I could respond to here if I had the time, but in this post I will limit myself to this topic since you seem to be hot on it. You keep mentioning the huge change in brain size of hominid fossils after Lucy. How can we explain the large increase in brains with Homo habilis? Simple, Homo habilis needed to be smart to survive. OK, but didn't every animal need to be smart? Well, yes, but brains are expensive. They require enormous amounts of energy, and they are limited by the size of the head that can fit through the birth canal. So for most animals, they live with the size of the head they have, and that is that. But for Homo it was different. Their ancestors had been standing upright for years, and that freed their hands up to use tools. One needs to be smart to use tools in novel ways. And they had begun to lose their hair, allowing them to participate in prolonged hunting excursions without being exhausted in the hot African sun like other animals. With enough persistence, they could eventually chase down weak animals that were exhausted in the hot sun. But most importantly, they were developing complex societies that required communication. All this required brains. Homo needed big brains so they could truly understand each other. So there was strong evolutionary pressure to expand the brain.
Ah, but there was that barrier to the head size that could come out of the birth canal. Just like computers were long limited by the infamous DOS 64K memory limit, Homo had the birth canal limit to brain size. At first hominids adapted by giving up much of the sense of smell, and having the brain concentrate on cognitive tasks instead. Neat trick, but it can only do so much. But Homo Habilis developed something new. The head and the brain of the infants began to expand after birth. This had its drawbacks. While the brain is developing, human babies are nearly helpless. It takes them a year to stand upright, and many years to be self sufficient. Other animal babies can stand within minutes of birth, and are soon ready to fend for themselves. But for Homo Habilis, the need for a larger brain was so strong, that it was worth going through a sustained period of helplessness as a child if they would end up smarter.
You mention a number of genes that had to develop over a half million years for this increase in brain size. OK, not a big problem, mutations can certainly produce 60 significant changes in a half a million years. And where there is strong pressure for a particular feature, those mutations that have that feature will stay in the gene pool. So for habilis, having had an enormous need for larger brains, those genes were selected for. It is not unusual for a particular body part to double in size in a half million years if there is strong evolutionary pressure.
This change was not overnight. Someone posted a chart earlier that showed the increase in brain size with time. But just like Moore's law took over when we exceeded the DOS 64K limit, nature took over when we began to exceed the limit imposed by the birth canal.
Back to transitionals. There is a broad range of transitional fossils leading up to humans. The brain size in adults get significantly bigger as one advances through the fossil record. See Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .
here is what you have said:
"Pushing out the timeline for the evolution of vertebrates by about 2% is a far cry from something like finding a human skeleton fossilized alongside a 65+ million year-old dinosaur"-
so you are claiming that we cant push back human by about 50-70 my.
For me the, 'theory of evolution', and the phenomenon of evolution is not the same thing at all. What is more it's not a take it or leave it, I have to accept that everything has a common ancestor as being the only choice. I don't have a real problem with horses having a common ancestor but there is a priority problem here. Human evolution starts with Adam and every mammal, reptile and bird has a common ancestor represented on Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago. I have never been ambiguise about this and as far as common ancestry across the level of kingdom and phylum the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is pure undiluted mythology.
There are two issues for me here and these elaborate genealogical trees hardly address the core issue, let alone the particulars. My primary issues are the timeline and the level of taxonomic category beyond which there is no molecular basis.
Not really, not when it comes to the single biggest giant leap in our lineage, the nearly three fold expansion of the hominid line from that of apes. Given the fossil record this must have happened about 2 million years ago with virtually no precursors. It's even more telling that there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the fossil record even though Lucy and the Taung Child are suitable candidates. There is also a comprehensive history of the rise of Darwinian logic from the Piltdown hoax to the development of the stone age ape man hoax.
Yep. There were plenty of dead ends. Evolution branches out in many different directions. Some win, some lose. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
This is never all that cut and dried:
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, Wikipedia)This isn't an isolated incident, case in point, the Dmanisi fossils:
The first complete skull in this treasure trove of fossils is about 200cc smaller then the celebrated earlier ones. The thing about a complete skull is you don't get to rearrange the form yielding a larger cranial capacity.
- Although the facial morphology is missing, the braincase of cranium D2280 is complete, and small in size like the rest of the Dmanisi hominins, with a endocranial capacity of 775cm3.
- Skull D2700 The cranial capacity is 600 cm3
- The edentulous skull D3444 and associated mandible D3900 has a cranial capacity of 650 cm3
- Cranium D4500 associated with the D2600 mandible represents the fifth individual (referred as Skull 5) found at Dmanisi and is the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene (1.77 million years ago). Skull 5 shows a combination of features hitherto unknown for early Homo. It has the smallest braincase of all Dmanisi individuals (546ccm) (Paleolithic Dmanisi)
The Sedgwick sidebar was actually very interesting, I really don't know what you think is being demonstrated by this though. The way fossils work is that they are mineralized by the surrounding soil, pressure etc. So the fossil bed may well have been that old but that doesn't mean what is encased there is.
Unlike Genetics or Paleontology the Geologist isn't really giving us anything tangible. They observe decay rates over weeks, months or maybe years and projecting that over thousands if not millions of years. When it comes to many things with TOE I reserve the right to remain unconvinced, with radiometric dating I am consumed with incredulity.
I disagree, you find fossils in fragmentary fashion, being dated after being mineralized by soil samples of great age to be sure. That doesn't sound like a deal breaker, it's sounds anecdotal and presuppositional to me.
Some Creationists call themselves that but have no idea what the doctrine of creation really includes. For someone to claim to be a Creationist is perfectly fine with me, until I hear what they think of the New Testament history and miracles it's little more the an empty assertion.
I'm not worried about dogs, cats or horses. I'm not bothered by the fantastic projections from observations lasting months or years projected back into an obscure primitive history.
Some accept Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, so be it.
I had the choice early on to decide between geology or the life sciences, I was sure there was no point in pursuing radiometric dating because it proved nothing one way or the other. What I decided is the genetics is the prize.
I've seen enough of Talk Origins to know they can't be trusted. If they can't be straightforward with the obvious I'm not about to trust them with the obscure.
Bing images....seriously....
I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.
Again, so what?according to berkeley site its indeed include a commondescent:
An introduction to evolution
""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
"
The point I made repeatedly is that it's not one thing but two. The change of allele frequencies in populations over time and universal common descent. The first definition is normative Mendelian genetics and the latter an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Nothing yet has contradicted that and here is yet another scientific definition saying exactly what I've been telling you all along.according to berkeley site its indeed include a commondescent:
An introduction to evolution
""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
"
Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.The point I made repeatedly is that it's not one thing but two. The change of allele frequencies in populations over time and universal common descent. The first definition is normative Mendelian genetics and the latter an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Nothing yet has contradicted that and here is yet another scientific definition saying exactly what I've been telling you all along.
It's not one thing but two things which is the beauty of an ad hominem approach to evidential apologetics. Evolution is a phenomenon, no one has a problem with. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are equivocated with adaptive evolution because any break in the chain, like human brain evolution sends the whole theory into question. Meanwhile the naturally occurring phenomenon is just as comparable with creation as Darwinism. You just have to keep showing the obvious fact that evolution isn't one thing but two.Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.
But you haven't shown that either "thing" amounts to metaphysical naturalism.It's not one thing but two things which is the beauty of an ad hominem approach to evidential apologetics. Evolution is a phenomenon, no one has a problem with. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are equivocated with adaptive evolution because any break in the chain, like human brain evolution sends the whole theory into question. Meanwhile the naturally occurring phenomenon is just as comparable with creation as Darwinism. You just have to keep showing the obvious fact that evolution isn't one thing but two.
Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.
What an odd response. You seem to be open to many possibilities on how the variety of life came to be on earth. You refuse to tell us how you think it was done. You have not offered one iota of evidence that creation was done per some method you suggest. You refuse to pick an alternative as the way you think it was done. So if you allow all those whacky ideas as possibilties, and refuse to rule out any of them, how is it that you pick the only method that has any real evidence, macro-evolution, and rule that one out?basically because we dont have a scientific evidence that evolution is true.
Uh sorry, but the theory of evolution makes no prediction of the exact date that the first vertebrate came unto land. If the tracks you linked to prove to be valid, the date is about 5% earlier than previous evidence indicates. Since we are talking about events that happened 400 million years ago, we can certainly expect that there would be unknowns. As I explained to you, either way is consistent with evolution.now you can see why evolution isnt a scientific theory. we can claim everything that will not falsified the theory. even if we will find a human fossil with a dino one its ok with evolution.
How do you know DNA cannot survive in some form after 20 million years?lets take one example: according to the scientific data DNA cant survive more then a my at max. so how you will explain that we found a suppose 20my DNA?
Then how did you know what to call it? What's more when Darwin, quoting Lamarck says all change, organic and inorganic, you don't get anymore transcedant then that.But you haven't shown that either "thing" amounts to metaphysical naturalism.
Those aren't scientific terms, evolution is and with a pretty straightforward definition. Evolution isn't one thing it's two, changing traits in populations very time and the 'naturalistic metaphysics, or actually mysticism of Darwinism.It's the classic microevolution/macroevolution divide creationists like to fling around, except just called something else in this case.
Those aren't scientific terms
, evolution is and with a pretty straightforward definition. Evolution isn't one thing it's two, changing traits in populations very time and the 'naturalistic metaphysics, or actually mysticism of Darwinism.
Last time I checked 42% of Americans believe God created man about 6000 years ago while the scientific and academic elite pontificate Darwinian naturalism.
That's from 2003 after they lied to us. Shortly after the Tonkin Bay attack, which was nothing, most people believed that fraudulent case for war. After the moon landing most people didn't believe it actually happen. The truth comes out and the power of the fraud is dispelled. For half a century the Piltdown hoax was accepted and it wasn't even a cleaver hoax. Now th3 stone age ape man myth is enjoying a lot of popularity because people believe what they want to. That could explain why fallacious logic passes for science so often.Yeah, but almost 70% of Americans apparently believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Just because a lot of people choose to believe something hardly means it's valid or even sensible.
What an odd response. You seem to be open to many possibilities on how the variety of life came to be on earth. You refuse to tell us how you think it was done. You have not offered one iota of evidence that creation was done per some method you suggest. You refuse to pick an alternative as the way you think it was done. So if you allow all those whacky ideas as possibilties, and refuse to rule out any of them, how is it that you pick the only method that has any real evidence, macro-evolution, and rule that one out?
Because yes, we do have many evidences for Macro-evolution. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .
Uh sorry, but the theory of evolution makes no prediction of the exact date that the first vertebrate came unto land. If the tracks you linked to prove to be valid, the date is about 5% earlier than previous evidence indicates. Since we are talking about events that happened 400 million years ago, we can certainly expect that there would be unknowns. As I explained to you, either way is consistent with evolution.
How do you know DNA cannot survive in some form after 20 million years?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?