Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

So why don't you like common descent?

because we dont have any *scientific* evidence for that.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So why don't you like common descent?

Doesn't mesh with Biblical creation. Who are you going to believe? Fallible men? Or the Word of GOD? Clearly, the evidence must be discounted. Evolution is a hoax perpetrated by China, or something like that.

 

[Speedwell]

because we dont have any *scientific* evidence for that.

So what? It seems a reasonable conclusion from what we do know about evolution. Speaking as a Christian I can see no serious theological objections to it. On the other hand you seem to be having difficulty coming up with evidence for any form of special creation.

So why bother? Why not just accept common descent provisionally as the rest of us do and wait and see?

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has had a small clean for some back and forth mild flaming. Also for some off topic posts (Moon landing with Russia, Etc.) Please stick to original topic and do not flame when disagreeing.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Astrophile]

"

This normally occurs with a half-life of 41.6 × 109 y,[1] but studies using fully ionised 187Re atoms have found that this can decrease to only 33 y"

Fully ionised atoms of rhenium can only occur in nature at the temperatures of millions of Kelvin found in stellar interiors, not in the minerals of the Earth's crust at T < 1000°C (1300 K). You don't appear to understand how radiometric dating of rocks works. It uses the decay of various elements (e.g. uranium, potassium, rubidium, and rhenium) after they have been incorporated in minerals that crystallised from a homogeneous fluid magma. The history of the elements before this event, for example in the interior of a star, has no effect on the radiometric dating of the rock.

The reference that you cited from Wikipedia is 'Observation of Bound-State beta- Decay of Fully Ionized 187-Re: 187-Re/187-Os Cosmochronometry' by F. Vosch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190 (1996). The abstract of the paper includes the following interesting sentences,

With the resulting logft value of 7.87±0.03 the half-life of 187 Re ions in any ionization state can be calculated. Thus one can correct the 187 Re−187 Os galactic chronometer calibration, by taking account of the β− decay enhancement in stellar interiors, which will lead to a more accurate estimate of the galactic age.

See www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvL..77.5190 and links for more details. Far from casting doubt on the validity of Re-Os dating, these measurements will make it possible to improve our understanding of the age and the history of the galaxy.

and remember that the universe indeed was in a plasma

.

When the universe was in a plasma state, during the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang, it consisted entirely of hydrogen, helium and lithium. All the heavy elements from carbon onwards were produced by stellar nuclear reactions, starting from the formation of the first stars about 500 million years after the Big Bang.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So what it boils down to is you don't know what actually happened and don't really care, as long as it wasn't common descent.

Yes, that seems to be the case. For every question I ask about the past, it seems xianghua's answer is "I don't know" and "I don't care". But somehow he knows it is not common descent. And it doesn't matter how little support there is for the alternatives being considered: flood geology, creation out of nothing, varying radioactivity rates, zebras breeding with Hyracotherium, etc. that's OK. But for the concept that actually has evidence, common descent, we get a resounding no. Sad, that.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, that seems to be the case. For every question I ask about the past, it seems xianghua's answer is "I don't know" and "I don't care". But somehow he knows it is not common descent. And it doesn't matter how little support there is for the alternatives being considered: flood geology, creation out of nothing, varying radioactivity rates, zebras breeding with Hyracotherium, etc. that's OK. But for the concept that actually has evidence, common descent, we get a resounding no. Sad, that.

And he never explains why.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evolution is a hoax perpetrated by China, or something like that.

Or maybe it was by a 400 pound man on his bed somewhere?

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok. but in this case it's not a natural evolution anymore. and i guess you believe in a natural evolution. right?

You are changing the subject. Again, this thread is not about the price of eggs in china. This thread is not about blue pennies. This thread is not about whether there is a God. It is about transitional fossils. Please let me know how many thousands of times you need me to repeat that for your benefit.

yep. i dont have a proof that the zebra just popped into existence out of nothing.

Exactly. I have asked you for your evidence over and over, and you have evaded the question. Now we know why. You have no evidence that zebras popped into existence out of nothing. They could have come by some other method.

And macro-evolution seems more likely than any other method, to me.

again; i doesnt see there any scientific evidence for a common descent.

Could that be because you are not looking?

you already said that the transitional fossils are the evidence.

I have repeatedly told you that the fossils are one of the 29 different strands of evidence described in the file I keep linking for you. When I have told you that over and over, it is dishonest to claim that I say there is only one evidence.

Just curious, does your book still tell you not to bear false witness? I remember that being in there when I read Exodus.

but we both agree that it doesnt prove a common de =scent because we can arrange also cars in such hierarchy, without any evolution.

Explained before. The order of cars from Model A to Model T to Fordor to Mustang is not an arbitrary hierarchy. Cars came out in that order because the designers learned from past experience.

Likewise, the order of fossils in the record are not arbitrary. The horse series, for instance matches a progression that is consistent with evolution. I can think of only two explanations for it, that horses evolved, or that God was like the Ford engineers, and kept rolling out new models as he learned more about horses. As the second explanation seems odd to me, I find evolution the most likely. Add in all the other evidences for macro-evolution, and the case seems solid to me.

they also bring the ervs argument. but as i said to sarah- those ervs parts are actually functional. so their positions in the genome arent the reasult of a random events. we even dont sure that those are a real viral infections. so again: no evidence for evolution here.

Sarah had done a good job explaining ERVs. Genomes show sequences that appear to be from viruses. These may affect the rates at which certain other genes are expressed, but they are largely just arbitrary filler that happens to be there. Just like my package is equally protected if I stuff the box with paper from the New York Times or the Washington Post, genes react equally with either filler being there. When we find chimpanzees and humans with the same filler stuffed in the same way, when there was no need for the filler to be that way, then it is strong indication that that filler was placed there before the two species split.

it may be indeed an old layer. but maybe another process happened( a flood?).

Ah, so a flood covered the Triassic layer in North Dakota with over a mile of fossil bearing rocks? Why do the dates of the rocks above the Triassic show younger and younger ages as you go up the column? Why do the rocks above it show the same Jurassic, Cretateous and Teritiary layers above it in the same order as the layers are found throughout the world? Why do the 7000 feet of rocks above the Triassic show footprints and animal burrows all the way up? What was walking around and crawling around in a flood that deposited 7000 feet of rock? And why is much of the rock down there volcanic, not sedimentary?

i just dont know. so my answer will be i dont know.

Except not knowing, your answer is not, "I don't know". Your answer seems to be, "I don't know, therefore I know it was not by evolution." That does not seem to follow.

i actually refer to the beginning of the universe formation. if all the matter in the universe come from a small point then all those atoms get inffected by the plasma state. its a one possibility.

Oh, good point, if all the molecules got infected then they might decay faster because they all have caught a cold.

Wait what?

Molecules are not infected by the fact that they were part of the plasma billions of years ago.

are you kidding? do you think that the scientists that published the paper arent aware of such conditions? they even mention different conditions in their paper.

​

Sure they are. That is why they do not state that they know that this is the limit for how long DNA can last. Rather they state that they believe this DNA does not survive more than 17500 years in the situations they know, and that they think they will make better progress looking at ancient proteins. They are not saying that science has proven this is the limit. They clearly state it as an opinion.

And again, the partial DNA that is being found in ancient fossils is commonly thought to be later contamination. You have not proven it really was part of the original fossil.


​

not sure:

"Kelvin estimated that the Sun is about 20 million years old"

"The physicist Hermann von Helmholtz (in 1856) and astronomer Simon Newcomb (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate"

"The last estimate Thomson gave, in 1897, was: "that it was more than 20 and less than 40 million year old, and probably much nearer 20 than 40"

so at least 3 different methods gave the same result. im sure that if you lived in those ages you agreed with their calculations.

I think you are selectively mining data. I think you will find many others thought different ages back then. Simply mining the data for correlation does not prove correlation.

This is far different from radiometric dating, where independent tests are done repeatedly on fossils of many different ages. The results repeatedly show high correlation between methods. How can you explain this correlation, across a wide range of ages of the rocks? You have no explanation, do you?

 

[xianghua]

So what?

so what? so why dont you believe in unicorn too? the answer is because we dont have any scientific evidence for a unicorn.

It seems a reasonable conclusion from what we do know about evolution. Speaking as a Christian I can see no serious theological objections to it. On the other hand you seem to be having difficulty coming up with evidence for any form of special creation.

first: evolution indeed contradict the bible. for instance: the order of the species creation is different between the bible and what evolution says. secondly: evolution is natural process and not a design one. so its seems that if you believe in evolution you dont need a designer. we also have evidence that evolution isnt true. and by the way; we do have evidence for a creation.

 

[Speedwell]

first: evolution indeed contradict the bible. for instance: the order of the species creation is different between the bible and what evolution says.

Which isn't a scientific issue, but only a problem for those who interpret Genesis literally.

secondly: evolution is natural process and not a design one. so its seems that if you believe in evolution you dont need a designer.

Right. But a creator is not ruled out. Those of us who believe in God as creator of all but not in a "designer" have no problem with this.

we also have evidence that evolution isnt true. and by the way; we do have evidence for a creation.

I doubt it.

 

[xianghua]

lets focus here. lets say for the sake of the a rgument that the earth is indeed old. the main point is not the age of the earth but what is the best model we have.

I have repeatedly told you that the fossils are one of the 29 different strands of evidence described in the file I keep linking for you. When I have told you that over and over, it is dishonest to claim that I say there is only one evidence.

i never said that you said that its the only evidence. we just discuss one of the suppose 29 evidences for a common descent. so you choose the fossils. and i already showed why any fossils series cant be evidence for evolution. as any series of vehicles cant be eviidence for a common de scent.

The order of cars from Model A to Model T to Fordor to Mustang is not an arbitrary hierarchy. Cars came out in that order because the designers learned from past experience.
Likewise, the order of fossils in the record are not arbitrary.

not true. first: we have seen that some fossils are in the wrong order too. and you still believe that they show evolution even with this wrong order. secondly: we can find a non- arbitrary hierarchy in design objects too. but its still cant be evidence for evolution. so even a non-arbitrary hierarchy isnt evidence for evolution.

or that God was like the Ford engineers, and kept rolling out new models as he learned more about horses. As the second explanation seems odd to me, I find evolution the most likely. Add in all the other evidences for macro-evolution, and the case seems solid to me.

no. the modern horse arent necessarily more advance then the old one. so its just series of similar creatures. and you also doesnt mention that they all may belong to the same family- so they are basically the same creature. so its not evolution but a variation.

Sarah had done a good job explaining ERVs. Genomes show sequences that appear to be from viruses. These may affect the rates at which certain other genes are expressed, but they are largely just arbitrary filler that happens to be there.

not at all. actually some creatures cant survive without them. so its a good evidence that ervs always was an integral part of the genome. otherwise how you can explain that the creature survived before he get the viral infection? we also know that retroviruses cant survive without the host (again: how the virus survived in the first place if it need a host?). so its another evidence that viruses created from the host parts and not the opposite.


about the layers: if when the earth was formed the upper layer was cooler then the bottom layers (again: if we assume the acceleration is true), then it may explain this evidence. in this case the upper (and suppose younger)layers just covered the bottom (suppose older) layers. just maybe.

And again, the partial DNA that is being found in ancient fossils is commonly thought to be later contamination. You have not proven it really was part of the original fossil.

no. the DNA they found is almost the same like others species of this family (as far as i aware about). so it cant be a contamination. if its was a real contamination we should predict to find a different sequence that match to other family.

​

This is far different from radiometric dating, where independent tests are done repeatedly on fossils of many different ages. The results repeatedly show high correlation between methods. How can you explain this correlation, across a wide range of ages of the rocks? You have no explanation, do you?

again: if all those stoms was effected by the plasma state, then they will be in a good correlation. we only need about several minutes of plasma temp to make a 1000 years rock to look like a bilion years old.

 

[xianghua]

I doubt it.

so you think that we have evidence for design in nature or not? and if we do have: then why should we believe in evolution too?

secondly: so how you want me to interpret Genesis if not literally?

 

[Speedwell]

so you think that we have evidence for design in nature or not? and if we do have: then why should we believe in evolution too?

I don't find evidence of design in nature; I find evidence of the action of natural forces.

secondly: so how you want me to interpret Genesis if not literally?

I don't care how you interpret Genesis. Just be aware that other Christians interpret it differently and remember to be civil about it.

 

[xianghua]

"

The history of the elements before this event, for example in the interior of a star, has no effect on the radiometric dating of the rock.

how you can be sure? if the origin of all those atoms is from the formation of the earth (with a plasma state), it may be possible.

 

[xianghua]

I don't find evidence of design in nature

so do you think that a spinning motor isnt a good evidence for design?:

 

[Speedwell]

so do you think that a spinning motor isnt a good evidence for design?:

No. Functional complexity in itself is not evidence for design.

 

[xianghua]

No. Functional complexity in itself is not evidence for design.

ok. so if a spinning motor isnt evidence for design, then also a hand watch isnt evidence for design. or anything actually.

 

[Speedwell]

ok. so if a spinning motor isnt evidence for design, then also a hand watch isnt evidence for design. or anything actually.

Really, Xianghua, we've been over this. Design is purpose, and as such is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the "spinning motor" of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but if I could determine it to be a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer. On the other hand, the watch contains many evidences of its manufacture; tool marks, processed materials, etc.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the watch because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is silly.

 

[xianghua]

Considering the "spinning motor" of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but if I could determine it to be a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer. On the other hand, the watch contains many evidences of its manufacture; tool marks, processed materials, etc.

so if you will find a self replicating watch (made from organic components)on another planet. and you will not see any designer. you will conclude design in this case?