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.
How pray tell, The fossils prove that "John existed" (evolution is possible) finding the lineages and connections is "proving John was in the cave" (overwhelming evidence of the TOE) apples to appleslucaspa said:What you have done is confuse two theories:
1. John the Baptist existed as a historical person -- when you said "the existance of John the Baptist in history"
2. John the Baptist was in that particular cave. This is where the article said "there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there"
Do you see the difference between the claims? The argument in the paper is about the much narrower claim of whether John the Baptist was in that particular cave, not whether he existed. Apples and oranges.
Now, if you can establish that John was in the cave, you go a long way to establishing his existence. However, if John was not in the cave, then that is all you have found.
So, failure to find a particular lineage only shows you don't have that lineage. BUT, finding a series of individual fossils (like the picture I showed you with the snails) linking two very different taxa is like finding John's name carved in the cave.
we're coolJet Black said:no no, I get a bit short tempered sometimes. I hope you can accept my apologies for any untoward comments that I might have made. sorry about that.
I have examined and addressed all that were presented and found all wanting as overwhelming evidence.DJ_Ghost said:The fossil record is not the only evidence we have. You have been pointed to 29 others by previous posts.
Ghost
I think I recently covered this, in an attempt to keep up, if I missed something, post me your comment.Jet Black said:as I said earlier, though you probably haven't had time to read that yet, this is a bit of a strawman in a way. the earliest protolife most likely formed a colony as illustrated by Fox's protocells that lucaspa has documented, and so it is not strictly true to say that there was a "first organism" nevertheless, even if there were, bacteria reproduce asexually, so there is no problem there. sexual reproduction can evolve later.
not really, I'm afraid your analyses have been rather handwavy and cursory, and you have not really explained how many things such as atavisms, ERVs ALUs and chromosomal evidence can possibly fir into TOC. to be honest we need to go into them in alot more depth than you have done so far. I'll drag out my degree level textbooks if I have torazzelflabben said:I have examined and addressed all that were presented and found all wanting as overwhelming evidence.
Now we are getting somewhere. We are both looking at the evidence and interpreting it differently. So how do we determine who is looking at it correctly and who is not? Who determines? I perpose to you, that if there are multipe ways of looking at the evidence and both sides see things differently, neither is right or wrong, but neither is there overwhelming proof for either, because it is purely a matter of perspective.gluadys said:We are looking at the differences. We are also looking at fossils which combine the characteristics of terrestrial and marine mammals---such as the four-legged Ambulocetus natans clearly capable of walking and swimming, and whose head and body are very whale-like. Given earlier fossils with somewhat whale-like characteristics of head and ear, yet with hooved feet, and later fossils which could only swim and had small non-functioning hind-limbs, the transition from a land-based mammal to a whale looks pretty reasonable.
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
your problem now is that you have almost no justification for interpreting things the way you are. what we have is a sequence of fossils that become increasingly whale like the lighter in the geological strata we get. we have clear intermediates i.e. ears that can hear partially underwater and partially on land. we have legs that become increasingly adapted to lige in water, we have a slow drifting of the nostrils up on to the top of the head towards exxactly the location where the blowhole ends up.... We do not find these fossils in the same layer, we find them in a sequence. what is your justification for all of this? [/QUOTE]razzelflabben said:Now we are getting somewhere. We are both looking at the evidence and interpreting it differently. So how do we determine who is looking at it correctly and who is not? Who determines? I perpose to you, that if there are multipe ways of looking at the evidence and both sides see things differently, neither is right or wrong, but neither is there overwhelming proof for either, because it is purely a matter of perspective.
The way I understood Merle's post was that studying the TOE and it's evidence, opened his mind to what is possible. That was the issue I addressed. His post was not addressing the issue of whether or not the fossil record was complete, but rather what happened when he asked questions.Aron-Ra said:This is actually one of my most cherished philosophies. But I phrase it differently. I say "You cannot seek the truth if you can't first admit that you don't already know it."
But you're guilty of the same thing, don't you see? You managed to discard all that he discovered literally without a thought, just like you are trying to automatically dismiss all that everyone is trying to tell you now. If you were capable of the kind of objectivity you claim to practice, then after 800 posts, you should an expert on evolution. Yet you still think hybrids are involved in that process no matter how many dozens of dozens of times qualified experts have corrected you on that error.
You cannot claim to be seeking truth because you will not admit that you don't already know it.
Huh? perspective wrong? I thought that perspective was an individual thing, that is why it is a perspective.Aron-Ra said:Had you actually attempted to answer these questions, you would know that can't be the case. But then, had you actually attempted to answer these, you would realize that your whole priori perspective on this is wrong, and not just that one assumption.
razzelflabben said:No, but it does stop the possibility for evolution of the species. A prediction made by the original TOC.
"John existed" must be based on overwhelming evidence that John existed. Not that John was possible. However, failing to find John in that particular cave says nothing about whether John existed, does it? For instance, failing to find evidence of your presence in Aberdeen SD says nothing about whether you exist, does it? Yet finding "Razzel was here" in Aberdeen SD does pretty well establish you exist.razzelflabben said:lucaspa Now, if you can establish that John was in the cave, you go a long way to establishing his existence. However, if John was not in the cave, then that is all you have found.
So, failure to find a particular lineage only shows you don't have that lineage. BUT, finding a series of individual fossils (like the picture I showed you with the snails) linking two very different taxa is like finding John's name carved in the cave.
How pray tell, The fossils prove that "John existed" (evolution is possible) finding the lineages and connections is "proving John was in the cave" (overwhelming evidence of the TOE) apples to apples
Okay, Has that DNA tested the original single cell? Has it tested all living and none living organisms since that single cell existed? How far back has it gone?lucaspa said:TOC requires that there be some gap between "kinds" doesn't it? That is, if all life is speciation from a single kind (say a single cell) then that would be evolution, wouldn't it?
Therefore, there have to be gaps in DNA among living plants and animals such that a kind is not connected via DNA to another kind. A connection means evolution.
Thanks for the school lesson, I have been out a few years, and it is always refeshing to know that the world is full of people willing to teach, (even though we can't pay teachers what thier worth, but that is another issue) Depends on the definition of common ancestor. If you mean that we developed from a single cell, no that is E. If you mean that some evolution is possible, yes, the TOC can accept this.BTW, Razzel, this is called hypothetico-deductive method and making deductions with consequences. TOC says there is no common ancestor and living organisms are not related thru historical connections. Separate creations. Right?
So you are saying we are comparing the DNA to that single cell again? When did we locate this cell? I don't recall it on the news. If the DNA is conclusive evidence of E, then how can there be differences in humans from one to the other? Wouldn't they be identical sequences, as we would see from species to species? What are we using to compare DNA, not fossils again I hope?Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. So we can compare DNA sequences from species to species and from species in plants to species in animals, etc. So many species that some of them have to come from different kinds, no matter how you define "kind".
OK, did we find independent DNA sequences unconnected to any other DNA sequences? That is what we should have found if TOC is true. If TOE is true, then the DNA sequences should be related by the historical connections of common ancestry.
"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."
There you go. TOC is falsified and TOE is 'proved'. True statements can't have false consequences. TOC has this as a false consequence. It isn't true. God's Creation tells us God didn't create by TOC. God created by evolution.{/quote] I don't get it, the TOC with allow for some evolution, is disproven by incomplete tests that prove the TOE?Some evolution is possible within the theory of C. What is not allowed is single cell creating it all and man being created sperately. Now depending on what was used to create, and how far back the creation goes, I would expect to see similar DNA sequences in living organisms. But I guess I am just too stupid to understand DNA, it is relatively new. My kids keep telling me that I should remember what it was like living with the dinosaurs. Do you want to test my DNA against that of a dino and tell me they are identical?
Good advice. I'm sure if I have taught them well, they can come up with a few more questions you haven't answered yet.The reference for all that, including the quote, is:
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.
Science is in your public library. Take the kids to the library and look it up for yourself.
I really want to see the answer to this, too. The only reason I see for the failure to understand is becauase her version of evolution allows her to deny evolution as unworkable.gluadys said:How? The horse is still reproducing, so the horse can still evolve. The donkey is still reproducing so the donkey can still evolve. So how does their inability to produce a fertile mule stop them from evolving?
All it does is show that each has changed from what their common ancestor was, and in different directions. They are too different from each other to produce a fertile line through inter-breeding.
But both can still evolve along their own independent pathway by breeding within their own species.
I am really not understanding why you do not see this.
How does this prove that the fossil record is overwhelming evidence?Jet Black said:well there are a number of principles to consider here. First and foremost is the order of deposition. the ones deposited first are found deeper down. now deeper in the fossil record we find the early cetaceans, which are basically four legged animals living by the shoreline. as we progress upwards through the strata we find that there are very similar organisms, but that they are becoming better adapted to living in water. these adaptations include repositioning of the nostrils towards where the blowhole now resides, changes in the arms and legs of the organisms to facilitate swimming, changes of the bones in the ear in order to facilitate being able to hear under water, lengthening of the spine in order to provide a tail, reduction in the hind legs as the tail takes over propulsion and so on. so when considering the fossil record, we consider both the differences and the similarities between the fossils.
I take your shells and raise you permission to clone stem cellslucaspa said:(Waiting now for Razzel to deny the evidence. Anyone want to bet against me that she won't deny it?)
because it is a whole set of different features that point towards the same thingrazzelflabben said:How does this prove that the fossil record is overwhelming evidence?
razzelflabben said:NO
Yes
But it is enough to question the validity of the TOE
especially when one considers that all living organisms can from one living organism.
This would mean that the TOE has some big problems if inbreeding results in reproductive problems. In contrast, the TOC predicts that inbreeding will cause problems. A further study of the bible shows us that this interbreeding was limited in time, not carried down for millions of years, thus, the TOC totally explains this phenomina, antistipates the problem of interbreeding and the creator addressed the issue. Thus, the TOC predicts and explains what we observe.
Okay, I'll bite, I just took the time to reread it where are the contridictions? Don't see the contridiction unless we read into the text what is not there. And BTW, it might be 144 hours or it might be longer, the bible says that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.lucaspa said:So basically, TOC is a literal reading of Genesis 1? 144 hour creation, in the order of sequence that "kinds" appeared? I don't want to misrepresent TOC, so please confirm this. BTW, you do know that the creation story in Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, right? Is Genesis 2 a separate TOC?
It would appear you are reading into the theory.But it is absolutely necessary for TOC. Because, without it, the fossil record is clear that water animals came before birds and that land mammals were around before whales. That contradicts a literal Genesis 1, thus falsifying TOC right there. Also, with a literal Genesis 1, every fossil plant and animal should appear in every layer. Remember, they were all created within a 72 hour period, therefore all the plants and animals lived at the same time. But the fossil record is clear that different plants and animals lived at different times. The Flood is needed to give the geological record. Without the Flood, TOC is shown to be false by how the fossil record is laid out, whether you think the fossil record supports evolution or not. It shows TOC to be wrong.
Remember, true statements (theories) can't have false consequences. A consequence of TOC is a very different fossil record than we find.
But a truely historical account would includehow the theory evolved to the point of what Darwin encountered.gluadys said:You know you are extremely good at seeing black for white and vice versa. You will have real problems if you try to play the piano.
That post does not explore TOE at all. It is an analysis of the changes in TOC since the mid-19th century. That is all it is and all it is intended to be.
It does explore the "original theory" of TOC as Darwin encountered it among his contemporaries. ( I know that is not the same as your "original theory", but my point was historical, not to deal with your idea in particular.)
It deals entirely with changes in TOC. The only reference to changes in TOE is a parenthetical remark.
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?