"Assumptions" is a magic word

[Dark_Lite]

Never said that, but good job on the semi-distortion.

I must disagree:

Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.

Of course there are no scientist ANYWHERE, from ANY view point, that would EVER try PROVE their arguments. Absurd!! There is no such thing as corruption or bias in science - any science.

And corruption and bias in science gets weeded out and tossed aside like it should. And what happens? The theory of evolution still stands.

 

[philadiddle]

Your question is wrong. A meander does not "represent" anything.

If meandering made you run away from the Global Flood, ha ha ..., you are a really scared ckn.

Ah yes, now I remember, this is why I started to ignore you. You never actually explain anything you say, ever. It's all just vague talk.

Meandering rivers are formed from the faster water on the outside of a river bend eroding away the sediment and the slower water on the inner side of a bend depositing sediment, which over time makes the bend into a horseshoe shape. The river can bend back on itself and create a horseshoe lake. I've attached two pictures to this post. It would appear that for a river to make a bend like that in solid rock, it would need to happen over a long period of time. This is especially evident in the first image because of the wall of rock in the middle of it. If violent flood waters are the cause of the carving of this particular canyon, then I'd imagine they would have cut through that wall of rock instead of looping around it. It doesn't make me run away from a global flood, it acts as evidence that leads me to believe that it took millions of years. It's up to you to explain how that couldn't have happened instead of using vague inferences and assuming you are winning the conversation.

So please, I beg you to respond to me with an explanation of how these structures formed in a flood because it seems contradictory to me. Please don't just make another vague statement.

Meander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[laconicstudent]

I must disagree:





And corruption and bias in science gets weeded out and tossed aside like it should. And what happens? The theory of evolution still stands.

A common Creationist and ID lie is that evolution is exactly the same as it was in Darwin's time. Its a little annoying when people start quoting and disproving what DARWIN believed as if it was somehow applicable to the modern day situation.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah yes, now I remember, this is why I started to ignore you. You never actually explain anything you say, ever. It's all just vague talk.

Meandering rivers are formed from the faster water on the outside of a river bend eroding away the sediment and the slower water on the inner side of a bend depositing sediment, which over time makes the bend into a horseshoe shape. The river can bend back on itself and create a horseshoe lake. I've attached two pictures to this post. It would appear that for a river to make a bend like that in solid rock, it would need to happen over a long period of time. This is especially evident in the first image because of the wall of rock in the middle of it. If violent flood waters are the cause of the carving of this particular canyon, then I'd imagine they would have cut through that wall of rock instead of looping around it. It doesn't make me run away from a global flood, it acts as evidence that leads me to believe that it took millions of years. It's up to you to explain how that couldn't have happened instead of using vague inferences and assuming you are winning the conversation.

So please, I beg you to respond to me with an explanation of how these structures formed in a flood because it seems contradictory to me. Please don't just make another vague statement.

Meander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do not have go beg. Just ask, and I will respond, or even explain. If you ignore me, then why should I explain anything to you? A vague statement is only an appetizer. If you have no appetite, then there will be no serving of meat.

Meandering is a very fast process and is timed by hundreds of years.

Incised meander would take a longer time. However, even according to geological model, it would only take no more than 10 m.y. and is geology dependent (rocks, structure, tectonics etc.).

Both above don't have to directly interact with the event of Global Flood. All types of landform are just one part of the Global Flood model. There are other more critical arguments to worry about. Comparatively, landform is rather insignificant. Any argument about the Global Flood based on landform is inconclusive at the best.

 

[philadiddle]

You do not have go beg. Just ask, and I will respond, or even explain. If you ignore me, then why should I explain anything to you? A vague statement is only an appetizer. If you have no appetite, then there will be no serving of meat.

Meandering is a very fast process and is timed by hundreds of years.

Incised meander would take a longer time. However, even according to geological model, it would only take no more than 10 m.y. and is geology dependent (rocks, structure, tectonics etc.).

Both above don't have to directly interact with the event of Global Flood. All types of landform are just one part of the Global Flood model. There are other more critical arguments to worry about. Comparatively, landform is rather insignificant. Any argument about the Global Flood based on landform is inconclusive at the best.

So incised meandering, according to you, can take up to 10,000,000 years. Maybe I misunderstand your view, how does this fit with a global flood model? Are you an OEC?

 

[Assyrian]

He is but he denies it. To Juv hundreds of millions of years is 'young' because he rejects the earth being billions of years old.

 

[juvenissun]

He is but he denies it. To Juv hundreds of millions of years is 'young' because he rejects the earth being billions of years old.

Thanks for the understanding.

The main reason for my "distorted" concept on time is that we do not know the nature of time. I did not say that. Physicists said it.

So, if we do not know how long is one year, then what is the point to argue about the difference between 6000 years or 6,000,000 years? To me, this numbers are only a relative scale.

It is amazing that Psalmist could say: 1000 years on earth is 1 year in Heaven.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, let's go back to your ancestor level 3 or higher (deeper)---the common ancestor humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share. What trend do you see in the evolution of E. coli from that common ancestor?

I mentioned earlier thinking trees not trains. Perhaps another way to put it is to think diversity not complexity. Complexity is neither here nor there for evolution. What it is really about is diversity. Some groups become very diverse without becoming particularly complex. Some become complex but may not be very diverse. And some show both complexity and diversity.

The trend I can see on E. Coli is that it is stagnant. E. Coli was E. Coli 100 m.y ago and is still E. Coli today. In fact, I don't think you can prove what I said is wrong. Because we do not have E. Coli fossils.

Yes, life forms become more diverse (and more complex ?). Is this a trend or a direction? Why should evolution increase the diversity? The environment today is not more diverse than any period of time in the past.

 

[gluadys]

The trend I can see on E. Coli is that it is stagnant. E. Coli was E. Coli 100 m.y ago and is still E. Coli today. In fact, I don't think you can prove what I said is wrong. Because we do not have E. Coli fossils.

But you do not know that the ancestor of what we call E. coli today was E.coli.

Consider the recent event in which a sequence of two mutations in a culture of E.coli gave it the capacity to digest citric acid. Until then, the inability to use citric acid was a diagnostic characteristic of E. coli. So is the new strain E.coli or not?

We have many experiments recording the ongoing evolution of E. coli today. If this bacteria has been evolving like this for billions of years, why would its ancestor be E.coli any more than the ancestor of a banana was a banana or the ancestors of fruit flies were fruit flies or the ancestor of humans was human.

You have no reason to assume that it is still the same species it was 100 mya. So you have no reason to assume "stagnation".

Yes, life forms become more diverse (and more complex ?). Is this a trend or a direction? Why should evolution increase the diversity? The environment today is not more diverse than any period of time in the past.

If you understand evolution, you would understand that it necessarily produces diversity. There is no way it could not. And because of evolution, the environment IS more diverse. There is a lot more diversity in an environment that includes jungles, for example, than in a landscape without any plants at all. Remember, the environment of any species includes the other living species around it, so the more biological diversity you have, the more environmental diversity you have.

 

[sfs]

Is the annihilation or the wipe out you said the actual killing?

Killed. Dead. Torn to pieces with fingers and teeth. All ten of them, one by one.

Or were they just driven away? It is hard to imaging that chimp or any animal will "defend" their territory to the death of the last one. They are not Japanese chimps.

The imagination is not a good place to find knowledge of the natural world.

 

[sfs]

Yup, I have discovered that if you state something against a belief, people will take that very personally.

Interesting. Where did you discover that? Here in this thread, you got in trouble for saying that people did their jobs badly -- nothing to do with belief. The fact that you probably didn't know any of the people in question, hadn't read any of their work and didn't even know what issues were involved was just icing on the cake.

 

[juvenissun]

But you do not know that the ancestor of what we call E. coli today was E.coli.

Consider the recent event in which a sequence of two mutations in a culture of E.coli gave it the capacity to digest citric acid. Until then, the inability to use citric acid was a diagnostic characteristic of E. coli. So is the new strain E.coli or not?

We have many experiments recording the ongoing evolution of E. coli today. If this bacteria has been evolving like this for billions of years, why would its ancestor be E.coli any more than the ancestor of a banana was a banana or the ancestors of fruit flies were fruit flies or the ancestor of humans was human.

You have no reason to assume that it is still the same species it was 100 mya. So you have no reason to assume "stagnation".




If you understand evolution, you would understand that it necessarily produces diversity. There is no way it could not. And because of evolution, the environment IS more diverse. There is a lot more diversity in an environment that includes jungles, for example, than in a landscape without any plants at all. Remember, the environment of any species includes the other living species around it, so the more biological diversity you have, the more environmental diversity you have.

Good argument on the diversity.

Assume you were right on the increase of diversity. If so, then the current E. Coli. is more complex than ancient E. Coli. But E. Coli is a bacterium. The ancient bacterium was still a bacterium. And bacteria can only be so complicate. As a result, E. Coli did not evolve at all.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Good argument on the diversity.

Assume you were right on the increase of diversity. If so, then the current E. Coli. is more complex than ancient E. Coli. But E. Coli is a bacterium. The ancient bacterium was still a bacterium. And bacteria can only be so complicate. As a result, E. Coli did not evolve at all.

Are you suggesting that only moving from one kingdon to another constitutes evolution?

Keep moving those goalposts...

 

[gluadys]

Good argument on the diversity.

Assume you were right on the increase of diversity. If so, then the current E. Coli. is more complex than ancient E. Coli.

That doesn't follow. Evolution must produce change, but it is not necessary that it produce complexity.

But E. Coli is a bacterium. The ancient bacterium was still a bacterium. And bacteria can only be so complicate.

The point is that bacteria is not a species or even a family of species. It is a huge group with more diversity than the whole of the animal and plant kingdoms put together. So saying something is still a bacterium is very uninformative. It is even more vague than saying something is still an animal. Such a description leaves open the possibility for a lot of evolution within the boundaries of "animal" or "bacteria".

As a result, E. Coli did not evolve at all.

And that conclusion is known to be false from the evidence of real-time evolution in E. coli and other bacteria.

 

[Assyrian]

Good argument on the diversity.

Assume you were right on the increase of diversity. If so, then the current E. Coli. is more complex than ancient E. Coli. But E. Coli is a bacterium. The ancient bacterium was still a bacterium. And bacteria can only be so complicate. As a result, E. Coli did not evolve at all.

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full...b&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=90&resourcetype=HWFIG
Kind of busy for an organism that hasn't been evolving. But I suppose you could argue we are still four limbed tetrapods we haven't evolved since Tiktaalik.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you suggesting that only moving from one kingdon to another constitutes evolution?

Keep moving those goalposts...

That should be part of it.
Why not? What stopped bacteria to evolve into animal?

Shift the goalpost back to the OP (very easy), should one basic assumption of evolution be that the boundary of kingdom should not be crossed? Why should it be the assumption?

 

[juvenissun]

Phylogenetic Analysis of Salmonella, Shigella, and Escherichia coli Strains on the Basis of the gyrB Gene Sequence -- Fukushima et al. 40 (8): 2779 -- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Kind of busy for an organism that hasn't been evolving. But I suppose you could argue we are still four limbed tetrapods we haven't evolved since Tiktaalik.

In fact, this is the model of evolution I have.
E. Coli changed and changes back and forth for millions of years. They are all E. Coli(s?). They do not become more complex, and they do not evolve into anything else. That is how evolution should work. So, a fish may evolve into this fish or that fish. But a fish will not evolve into an amphibian. The story of Tiktaalik is 80% imaginary.

 

[laconicstudent]

In fact, this is the model of evolution I have.
E. Coli changed and changes back and forth for millions of years.

Yes, in response to environmental pressure, most likely.

They are all E. Coli(s?).

Yes. Your point?

They do not become more complex,

That would be a flat-out lie, or maybe you honestly haven't read any of the research.

and they do not evolve into anything else.

Are you about to quote the idiotic "Mud to humans" argument?

That is how evolution should work.

And you, of course, are entirely correct. The fact that 97% of all scientists including people who have studied this professionally their entire lives and disagree with you is irrelevant. /sarcasm

So, a fish may evolve into this fish or that fish. But a fish will not evolve into an amphibian.

Over millions and billions of years it will. We haven't been around long enough to see.

The story of Tiktaalik is 80% imaginary.

ahh.... and yet I found this....

"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan" Edward B. Daeschler, et al. Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006).

 

[Critias]

I must disagree:

I said ape-like ancestor, I did not say monkeys. This is what I was referring to as a semi-distortion:

"It's also completely wrong. Those conclusions came from the observations Darwin made. He didn't just set out saying "LOL LETS FIND A WAY TO SAY HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS!" Current evidence is "retrofitted" into the theory, but that's because the conclusions already exist from previous observations, and these new pieces of evidence help further justify that conclusion."

 

[Critias]

Interesting. Where did you discover that? Here in this thread, you got in trouble for saying that people did their jobs badly -- nothing to do with belief.

I got into trouble? Ooh noes...

The fact that you probably didn't know any of the people in question, hadn't read any of their work and didn't even know what issues were involved was just icing on the cake.

Ok...