Challenging Evolution

[gluadys]

Interesting, I bring the debate back to the original assumptions and you pull out very old posts to make claims about what I do and do not understand instead of addressing the issues at hand. Very interesting indeed!

Oh, I am still busy addressing the issues at hand. See my other posts.

But although these quotes are from old posts, you keep repeating these concepts again and again (except the first one).

So I felt it worthwhile to show why these concepts are incorrect.


Btw, I would appreciate a specific reply to this section:

Lack of evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is only a drop in the bucket. If the TOC claim of simultaneous creation of species is to be taken seriously, we also need evidence of chimp-dino co-existence, of bear-dino co-existence, of eagle-dino co-existence. Further we need evidence of whale-trilobite co-existence, of crocodile-Acanthostega co-existence, of rose-giant club moss co-existence and many many more observations of the ancient existence of modern species alongside that of now extinct species.

Now it is true that we have explored only a small fraction of the earth for fossils. But we have explored fossil sites of various ages all over the world and found thousands upon thousands of fossils. Surely it is a fair assumption that we have explored a representative sample of all potential fossils. (Just as opinion polls don't rely on calling every individual, but on a representative sample of opinion.)

And in this representative sample we have nowhere found even one instance of the sort of overall co-existence of species simultaneous creation calls for. Not one.

So either simultaneous creation did not happen, or the sample we have is not representative. But what could make each and every one of the hundreds of fossil sites explored so different from the norm that not even one of them includes the barest hint of simultaneous creation?

 

[gluadys]

I am basing this information off the root theory as put forth in the Bible. God created living creatures after their kind and that they reproduce after their kind. There are many different beliefs that can be read into this text, but the original does not go beyond to make these assumptions. Therefore, if during the so called process of evolution, we see reproductive problems and the reproduction stops, that is something that would be predicted by the original theory and has been proven by scientific observations.
If E says that man for instance, is a decendant of (whatever the correct term is) early primates, then reproductive abilities would have to have been complete and plausible all the way down the ancestrial tree. Now when we experiment with the evolution of species in the scientific arena, we inevitably see some reproductive problems occuring. Now we can explain this in several ways as we have already discussed, but that is not a prediction that the TOE would have made. The TOE would have predicted that the reproductive abilities would be in tact and strong in order for the continued evolvment of the species. Now I have been told that I am saying this because I do not understand the theory of E so maybe you can explain to me what I am missing in the theory. Before you do however, let me make it clear that unlike some E I am not claiming that this disproves any theory (including E), only that the so called overwhelming evidence leaves big holes that make it less than overwhelming proof.

OK. If I understand this correctly, you are saying that ALL "species" descended from a common ancestor must be inter-fertile.

And if there are problems with inter-fertility, that is evidence the "species" do not have a common ancestor.

Is that right!

Whooo-eee! That does explain a lot of your "unanswered questions".

And where you got the idea that this is a prediction of TOE is beyond me. TOE has never predicted this. It has predicted the very opposite.

Let's go back to the fact that the very definition of "species" is a population that is reproductively isolated from other populations. Members of one species do not normally reproduce with others, and if they do there are usually some barriers to fully successful reproduction.

Hence, when TOE says that two or more species have a common ancestor, it is saying that at one point there were no reproductive barriers (population of common ancestor), but at a later point in time reproductive barriers appeared which divided the single population into groups which are now reproductively isolated (different species).

In short, TOE says the opposite of what you are stating: that different descendants of a common ancestor will have problems interbreeding and may not be able to interbreed at all.

Got it?

 

[gluadys]

well given that the populations maintain a constant siye, inbreeding is inevitable, hence y-chromosome adam and Mt-Eve

I'm not understanding this, even as satire.

 

[god's-kid]

okay people, how you could possibly think that something as complex as the human brain could just come about by chance 6 billion times is beyond me.

 

[armed2010]

okay people, how you could possibly think that something as complex as the human brain could just come about by chance 6 billion times is beyond me.

It didnt come about by chance, it came about by mutations and natural selection over millions of years. Also, www.talkorigins.org is your friend, please read this before posting in this forum.

 

[god's-kid]

another thing, if creation is the method by which all beings came int existence then earth would have to be old right? Well if that jis the case then how come you can't find enough fossils to totally prove your theory? I mean if the earth is as old as you say it is then enough animals would have died by now for you th prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[armed2010]

another thing, if creation is the method by which all beings came int existence then earth would have to be old right? Well if that jis the case then how come you can't find enough fossils to totally prove your theory? I mean if the earth is as old as you say it is then enough animals would have died by now for you th prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

we already have enough fossils that show the evolutionary process to be true. Im not really sure where you got this argument from? Once again, www.talkorigins.org, read this before you post here again. At this point im expecting you to ask "why are there still monkeys?"

 

[god's-kid]

i'm just posting these without looking at the board so if i skip something forgive me. Anyway, when do you belive that humans came int existence?

 

[Jet Black]

I'm not understanding this, even as satire.

siye = size. the point is eventually you will end up mating with a relative, although it will most likely be a very distant one, unless of course the population is growing exponentially.

 

[armed2010]

i'm just posting these without looking at the board so if i skip something forgive me. Anyway, when do you belive that humans came int existence?

Homo-sapiens came about around 120,000 years ago.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html please read this.

 

[Jet Black]

okay people, how you could possibly think that something as complex as the human brain could just come about by chance 6 billion times is beyond me.

well genetics is hardly chance is it? it is the genetic code that codes for our brains, which is why the vast majority of the human population has one. futhermore, evolution is not chance.

 

[Arikay]

There are plenty of fossils to "prove our point" have you looked?

Fossilization is a rare event and so fossils themselves are rare as well. They also require hard work to dig them up and the earth isn't a small place. We are still finding fossils of new animals we never knew existed.

another thing, if creation is the method by which all beings came int existence then earth would have to be old right? Well if that jis the case then how come you can't find enough fossils to totally prove your theory? I mean if the earth is as old as you say it is then enough animals would have died by now for you th prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[god's-kid]

okay you're not answering at least I haven't seen it so I'll expand. if humans came into existence millions of years ago then usining todays poppulation growth rate as well as pop death rate even acouting for plagues, wars ect. the earth should have become be overpopulated many times over. Although if you say that the earth was repopulated by noah and his family around eight thousand years ago then the population should come to about todays pop.

 

[armed2010]

okay you're not answering at least I haven't seen it so I'll expand. if humans came into existence millions of years ago then usining todays poppulation growth rate as well as pop death rate even acouting for plagues, wars ect. the earth should have become be overpopulated many times over. Although if you say that the earth was repopulated by noah and his family around eight thousand years ago then the population should come to about todays pop.

Humans havnt existed for millions of years, modern humans have existed for only 120,000. How exactly do you figure that using TODAYS population growth rate, you can figure the growth rate for primitive human culture thousands of years ago?

 

[Jet Black]

okay you're not answering at least I haven't seen it so I'll expand. if humans came into existence millions of years ago then usining todays poppulation growth rate as well as pop death rate even acouting for plagues, wars ect. the earth should have become be overpopulated many times over.

false. the human population has been maintained at a pretty constant level for most of time. it has only increased alot in the past few years. If you take your idea, then at the time of Jesus, there shouldn't even have been enough people to fill rome, and several biblical battles would have consisted of several times the entire human race.

 

[Aeschylus]

Guess what! You can't use today's population rate! Infact if you use today's population rate, you can conclude thathumans only sparnag into existance less than 200 years ago!!!!!!!!

 

[god's-kid]

okay so you have won this but that's just because I'm a twelve year old kid and haven't done my howework. Although as a finnishing thought: the bible has been proven to be the absolute most accurate record of history found. If this is true then why wouldn't it be accurate on the times of abraham and noah and company?

 

[Jet Black]

okay so you have won this but that's just because I'm a twelve year old kid and haven't done my howework. Although as a finnishing thought: the bible has been proven to be the absolute most accurate record of history found. If this is true then why wouldn't it be accurate on the times of abraham and noah and company?

if rome is demonstrated to exist, does that make romeo and juliet real people? the problem is that while the Bible might accurately note several events and places and even people, in some places it just doesn't fit with the evidence. for example the evidence says that there was no global flood. the evidence says that we evolved from apes. so in those areas the bible quite frankly, is factually wrong.

 

[armed2010]

if rome is demonstrated to exist, does that make romeo and juliet real people?

I believe you mean Verona?

 

[Arikay]

This is from a response to a creationist sites evidence for creationism,

”4. Population Statistics...”
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people.”

P(n) = P(1 + r)^n

P = starting population (8 after the flood)
r = rate of growth
n = number of years since flood.

If the flood was 4500 years ago, we need a growth rate of 0.455% or 0.00455 to reach almost 6 billion people today,
So the equation would look like this, 8(1+0.00455)^4500=5,958,006,194 or 6 billion.

This produces some interesting results.
•1000 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 749 people.
•2500 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 679,180 people.
•2600 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 1,069,401 people.

Now whats so amazing about that? Well, 2500 years after the flood, is also 2000 years ago. Around the time when Jesus was said to have been born. Thats right, when jesus was born, there was an Entire world population of 679,180. A little over half a million people populated the Entire world, that includes china, The Americas, the Roman Empire, etc.
Whats so special about 2600 years after the flood, well that would be around 100 AD,

“At the zenith of the Roman empire (2nd century A.D.)... ... The population was at least 70 million and may have been in excess of 100 million. The city of Rome itself was home to more than 1 million inhabitants.”
http://www.sentex.net/~ajy/facts/romanemp.html​

So, the entire world population was apparently in Rome and nowhere else.

If any of this sounds a bit funny, that because it is. The worlds growth rate does not stay a constant number. It is thought that the large world growth rate is based on recent technological advances. In the past, many constraints such as food and disease have kept the growth rate very close to 0, if not sometimes in the negative and thus we would not have over grown the world. We are only now able to out grow the world because we can supply ourselves with lots of food, and rid ourselves of many diseases.

okay you're not answering at least I haven't seen it so I'll expand. if humans came into existence millions of years ago then usining todays poppulation growth rate as well as pop death rate even acouting for plagues, wars ect. the earth should have become be overpopulated many times over. Although if you say that the earth was repopulated by noah and his family around eight thousand years ago then the population should come to about todays pop.