Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

Not changing the point. Bringing you back to the point.

The point raised was that no fossil of a dinosaur has been dated at less than 65 million years old. Meanwhile no fossil of a hominid has been dated at more than 8 million years old.

From this evidence we conclude not only that dinosaurs became extinct before man, but that they became extinct almost 60 million years before man existed.

What other logical conclusion can this evidence lead to?

Remember, no using faith in evidence not yet seen.
Science does not do that.
Science bases its conclusions only on evidence already observed.

A slight bit of correction, the statement was made in reference to the possibility that man buried his dead, thus, the fossil evidence could be inconsistant with the fossil record. That is why the word existed is not necessary to the point, in fact, the word existed, confuses the point that was being made and no one has yet shown me how my statement was illogical as was claimed.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

So again we mimick the TOC and call it unique to the TOE. That's reasonable I guess, but will be sure to keep the arguements about E vs. C hot and heavy which is apparently the way most of you like it.

If this is true of the TOE, then we cannot assume that one living cell organism started the whole thing, because a few million years of evolution would have produced none breeding life forms and thus, the evolutionary process would have ceased and since the claims are that it is still occuring, and that the living creatures all decended from one organism, we still have a big problem with the theory as most here are putting it forth. BTW, this is the part of the "new" theory of E that most astonishes me and my husband and how similar it is to the original TOC

If what is true of the TOE? All it takes is a single population of best-adapted primitive one-celled organisms to make common descent possible. What is this "new" theory that astonishes you and your husband?

edited to add:
I know you're fielding questions from a lot of posters. Don't feel pressured to answer me right away.

 

[lucaspa]

Razzelflabben, who was this post addressed to? You never said and, since you got into personal characteristics at the end, calling someone "arrogant", it is important.

I have said that there is not conclusive evidence, but that is about the extent of it.

What do you consider "convincing"? How about a sequence of individuals -- in the right time -- showing a succession of such individuals connecting two species and then connecting species across genera, family, order, and class? Such evidence exists. Attached is a picture of "missing links" in individuals connecting the species of snail on the right to the snail on the left. This is only a portion of the individuals that form the link (the scientists collected 2,000 samples!).

When we believe what we are taught, never questioning, we have no truth even if what we are taught is truth.

A good description of creationism.

It is in questioning, that we find answers. what does God say, ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

And that is just what happened when scientists who were Christians began questioning the TOC at the end of the 18th century. God showed them, by the evidence God left in His Creation, that God did not create by the TOC.

What it means, is that if the evidence was conclusive proof, we would not be having this discussion between two people who seek truth.

There is another meaning: the evidence is conclusive but you, for emotional reasons, can't accept evolution.

This sounds like you to me. What do you think? Is it you?
""Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.

 

[razzelflabben]

Huh? In the post that you respond to I mention that you think the evdence for the TOE is not conclusive, but I think it is. I did not say you think it disproves the TOE.

Get with the program, please.

Oh really? Please name one good scientist who thinks that more is needed to make a solid case for evoluion. Please include a reference to his published works in referreed publications.

What other explanation is there for the series of mammal-like reptiles, and the progression of the jaw and earbones with time?

Your position is clear that you think the evidence is not overwhelming.

But I am not sure that you understand that there is a difference between making your position clear, and providing evidence for it. You can state that there is "no overwhelming evidence" for evolution all you want. But what evidence do you have?

You have been given more evidence than just fossils.

Not overwhelming proof--overwhelming evidence. That is what we have.

Could you get with the program, please?

An ass has problems producing fertile offspring when it is mated a horse. But an ass has no problem breeding with another ass.

I have addressed all of these things already, get with the program.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, if I understand you correctly, that is basically the position of 19th century creationism: that every species is a separate creation.

See the "Evolution of Creationism" thread OP again.

Mainstream creationists abandoned this position because we have observed that not every species originated as a separate creation or became extinct.

We have observed that some species are derived by evolution from previously existing species.

In short, the TOC, as you have expressed it, is false. There are species we can point to for which we know by observation that they were neither separately created, nor are they extinct.

(See previous posts for examples.)

That is why mainstream creationism changed its position to one of separately created "kinds" instead of separately created species.

Huh? and again huh? We know by observation that there are species that cannot reproduce that did not or are not becoming extinct? What are they, please site that one, I have never heard such a thing or even dreamed it possible.

 

[lucaspa]

So again we mimick the TOC and call it unique to the TOE.

Walk me thru this, please. Gluadys is saying that the inability of horses and donkeys to produce fertile offspring is evidence that both horses and donkeys came from a common ancestor. Which is evolution.

Now, please go back to the lab studies that I have referred to where different populations of a single species are placed in separate environments and you get 2 new completely interfertile populations -- new species -- but they can't breed with each other -- different kinds. How is that mimicking the TOC?

If this is true of the TOE, then we cannot assume that one living cell organism started the whole thing,

We don't "assume", that. We conclude that. Very different things.

because a few million years of evolution would have produced none breeding life forms

Huh? Evolution produced horses which can breed with other horses and donkeys that can breed with other donkeys. No problem. But horses and donkeys can't interbreed because, guess what? Horses and donkeys are separate species. They are not "evolving to" mules. I think that is the fallacy. Mules are not the new species. They are a side product of the speciation of donkeys and horses from a common ancestor.

 

[gluadys]

Oh I get it, now you want me to believe that Darwin's orginal root theory answered all these questions and more. Come now, I can give you answers for all these things, but you wouldn't accept the answers because, it isn't consistant with you dealings with C or because you can't believe it happened that way, or you would ignore it as many of the things here have been ignored.

You have asked many times for people not to make assumptions about you.

I ask you for the same courtesy. Do not make assumptions about what I will and will not accept.

Show me the answers you have for all these things. If I find them acceptable, I will say so. If I do not find them acceptable, I will state clearly why I do not.

That is a promise.

This is the second time you have spoken about proposals of yours being ignored.

I have not knowingly ignored anything you have said. (I can't speak for others.)

I ask you for the second time---point me to something I have ignored, and I will respond to it.

(Failure to give a specific example of me ignoring something you have said will be taken as admission that you have accused me falsely.)

After their kind does not mean a clone, it means similar in appearance and structure.

How do you know that? Where does it say that in the "original theory"?

All it says is that creatures reproduce "after their kind". It doesn't say they are not clones. They could be clones for all we know.

(As a matter of fact, many species do reproduce by cloning themselves.)

That is a hard one. I really don't see Darwin talking about the genetic code you are putting forth as belonging to the theory of E

Darwin personally didn't. He knew nothing about genetics or the genetic code. And when genes and the mode of inheritance was first discovered, it was not immediately apparent this new knowledge would be compatible with evolution.

But it is so compatible that it is now part of TOE.

Darwin did know two things: species produce after their kind and children are not clones of their parents (Darwin was not conversant with micro-organisms which are clones of their parents.)

Note that the two things Darwin knew (even without knowing genetics) is one more thing than is presented in the TOC orginal theory, which only knows that species reproduce after their kind. Says nothing about not reproducing exact likenesses of the parent.

I can't find the thread you are refering me to so I can't read it.

Jet Black gave you the link, but just in case you can't find his post here it is again.

http://christianforums.com/t736563

I would be very interested in your comments.

Why don't we deal with the issue of overwhelming evidence for awhile? or lack thereof?

Yes, why don't we. Do you want to stick with fossil evidence? or would you like to discuss endogenous retroviral insertions? Or perhaps biogeographical evidence? or the twin-nested hierarchy? or one of the other evidences in that list of 29 you were referred to early on.

Or something else altogether?

I am happy to go with whatever you choose.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ahh the thread that never sleeps and a busy mom who needs every minute of sleep she can find. This will have to be my last post for the night. I am going to will myself to hold to that, and spend some long overdue time with my children, this thread is simply taking too much time right now.

In the case of a trial, we are looking at one individual's guilt or innocence. You cannot have a representative sample of an individual.

But you can have a representative sample of a group, and by examining the characterisitics of that representative sample, you can make valid predictions about the characteristics of the whole group.

What I am suggesting here is that the hundreds of fossil sites investigated so far are a reasonable representative sample of all fossil sites, both explored and unexplored.

What I am saying is that in order to know truth, we must look at more than just the fossil evidence. Now the only other evidence I know of that was presented was speciation which we are still discussing, which in turn makes the evidence far from overwhelming. If you would like to assert that the fossil evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the TOE I don't think I would disagree, but for the fossil evidence to be overwhelming evidence for the TOE is crazy. Overwhelming in more than one record, or observation, no matter how tried it is.

And that the fossils found so far are a reasonable representative sample of all fossils, both discovered and yet to be discovered.

Consider this. In 1830, geological exploration had barely begun. But William Smith, based on his observations in England, set out a sequence of fossils one could expect to find in each geological layer.

Today, nearly 2 centuries later, with thousands more fossils found, not only in England, but all around the world, his suggested sequence still holds true. We still find trilobites in the same strata Smith found trilobites in, and nowhere else. We still find dinosaurs in the strata Smith found dinosaurs in, and nowhere else. We still find modern birds in the strata Smith found them in, and nowhere else.

Why would that be unless Smith's little sample of English fossils was representative of all fossils found since 1830?

Why should we not consider that this pattern is very likely to continue through future exploration of the fossil record?

Why would you think that I am suggesting that we should doubt this would continue? Because I say that the evidence is inconclusive does not equal that the evidence is wishy washy, or inaccurate, or inconsistant, or any thing else you might imagine I am saying, what I said and am saying is that the fossil evidence is not overwhelming evidence for the TOE for more than one type of observation must be looked at in order to have overwhelming evidence.

BTW, I am not the one who started comparing the fossil record to the legal system so if you have problems with it, you should take it up with your fellow E.

 

[lucaspa]

We know by observation that there are species that cannot reproduce that did not or are not becoming extinct? What are they, please site that one, I have never heard such a thing or even dreamed it possible.

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

This one. A new species of salmon has evolved in the last 70 years from the existing species. Both species are doing well; neither becoming extinct. The two species do reproduce within their species but not between the species.

In this case, species A -- the original-- mates and lays eggs midstream in the creeks where breeding occurs. Species B mates and lays eggs at the edges of the stream. So individuals of both species are present in the same streams at the same time, but don't mate with individuals of the other species.

 

[Jet Black]

What I am saying is that in order to know truth, we must look at more than just the fossil evidence. Now the only other evidence I know of that was presented was speciation which we are still discussing, which in turn makes the evidence far from overwhelming. If you would like to assert that the fossil evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the TOE I don't think I would disagree, but for the fossil evidence to be overwhelming evidence for the TOE is crazy. Overwhelming in more than one record, or observation, no matter how tried it is.

Razzelflabben, thanks for reassuring me and letting me know that you were paying attention when I pointed out all those other evidences besides the fossil record, you know, the ones that I even posted in large bold italic underlined text for you. I would have included a siren flashing lights and a loudspeaker if I knew how, just to make sure that you heard them in the event of a loud lorry going by or something. It's really good to know that you aren't just ignoring all those piles of independent but corroborating evidence and don't continually pretend that the whole of evolution is based on just the fossil record and keep saying it over and over again regardless of the numbers of times that people point it out to you. I mean it only took how many attempts to tell you that evolution happens to populations for example. you know if you are going to continue this conversation you really do need to pay more attention to what people are telling you, and stop isolating and ignoring things as you find them inconvenient to your argument.

 

[gluadys]

A slight bit of correction, the statement was made in reference to the possibility that man buried his dead, thus, the fossil evidence could be inconsistant with the fossil record. That is why the word existed is not necessary to the point, in fact, the word existed, confuses the point that was being made and no one has yet shown me how my statement was illogical as was claimed.

No, you introduced burial as a red herring, a diversionary tactic.

Burial is irrelevant to the time differential.

(If it is absolutely necessary I can reference the posts so that you can see for yourself who said what when. But I do think you are capable of doing this yourself.)

The distance in time between the most recent known dinosaur fossil and the oldest known hominid fossil was the original point.

What other logical way is there to interpret that gap that to say dinosaurs became extinct some 60 million years before humans existed-----other than by a wishful reliance on evidence not yet observed?

 

[Jet Black]

not only that, but assuming geologists could not tell that a person was buried, their burial would interfere by making them look older than they really were (deeper down). this doesn't really help razzelflabben's case very much, as it doesn't account for the several tens of millions of years between humans and dinos.

 

[gluadys]

What I am saying is that in order to know truth, we must look at more than just the fossil evidence.

No problem with that. TOE is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
But we should not ignore the fossil record either.

If you would like to assert that the fossil evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the TOE I don't think I would disagree,

I do so assert. I am glad you do not disagree.

but for the fossil evidence to be overwhelming evidence for the TOE is crazy. Overwhelming in more than one record, or observation, no matter how tried it is.

No problem. All lines of evidence are overwhelmingly in favour of TOE.

Why would you think that I am suggesting that we should doubt this would continue?

Because you said earlier that you were open to the possibility of humans and dinosaurs existing simultaneously, and you have resisted the addition of the word "existed" to the observation that dinosaurs became extinct before man.

BTW, I am not the one who started comparing the fossil record to the legal system so if you have problems with it, you should take it up with your fellow E.

I have not made that comparison either, but I know you are dealing with multiple posters here, so I don't fault you for being sometimes confused as to who said what.

 

[gluadys]

So again we mimick the TOC and call it unique to the TOE.

Where does TOC predict this scenario? And where and how does it explain this scenario.

As far as I know it IS unique to TOE, and is contradictory to all I have ever heard about TOC.

If this is true of the TOE, then we cannot assume that one living cell organism started the whole thing, because a few million years of evolution would have produced none breeding life forms and thus, the evolutionary process would have ceased and since the claims are that it is still occuring, and that the living creatures all decended from one organism, we still have a big problem with the theory as most here are putting it forth. BTW, this is the part of the "new" theory of E that most astonishes me and my husband and how similar it is to the original TOC

I know this is your position, but it is a misrepresentation of TOE. Look at the scenario again:


Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

We would expect that B will not breed successfully with any of A, C or X.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with A shows that speciation has occurred and B is a new species. If it continued to breed successfully with A it would be at best a variant or sub-species of A. It would not be a new species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with C shows that although both are derived from A, they are different species. If they did interbreed successfully, B and C would be variants of the same species, not two different species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with X shows that X is a genuine new species, not simply a variant or sub-species of B.

In short, the inter-breeding problems you are pointing to are not a problem for TOE. They are expected evidence that evolution has in fact happened.

And we have seen this scenario, both in nature and in controlled experiments. That is why we can state with confidence that evolution is a fact.

First, note that we looking at four populations, not four individuals. I grant that if we had only one A, one B, one C and one X, B would be in a real pickle, because it cannot reproduce with any of the others.

But that is not the case. Each of these is a population of many organisms.

Each B has plenty of other Bs to choose mates from. And each reproducing pair of Bs will easily produce a crop of baby Bs. And when that generation matures they will produce another generation of Bs.

The same is true of A, C and X.

Breeding across species lines is not necessary to keep the reproduction line running.

There is nothing to prevent As producing more As, Bs producing more Bs, Cs producing more Cs and Xs producing more Xs.

There is also nothing to prevent part of population C separating and diverging into population Q which is no longer able to mate with population C. It will however, keep on reproducing more Qs, just at the remaining Cs will keep on reproducing more Cs.


Now as to the one living cell organism. No we cannot state that all life rose from a single living cell. But we can say that there is good evidence that all forms of life are derived from a population of single-celled organisms.

Do you want to assert that TOC claims that as part of its theory too?

 

[gluadys]

Huh? and again huh? We know by observation that there are species that cannot reproduce that did not or are not becoming extinct? What are they, please site that one, I have never heard such a thing or even dreamed it possible.

In short, the TOC, as you have expressed it, is false. There are species we can point to for which we know by observation that they were neither separately created, nor are they extinct.

Please note what I have bolded in your statement and in mine. Note that I was not the one who said the species could not reproduce. I said we know by observation that some species are not separate creations. We know by observation that they are derived from other species.

They are no longer inter-fertile with the species they are derived from. But both the original species and the new species are still very capable of reproducing within their own population group. So they are not going extinct either.

Lucaspa gave you a very appropriate example in the two recently speciated salmon species. Both the parent species and the daughter species are continuing to reproduce with no problems. They just don't do it with each other.

The Drosophila experiment I cited earlier shows the same pattern with fruit flies. So do both the other examples I included in the same post. Nothing has blocked reproduction in either the parent species or the new species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well seeing how I don't recall ever saying anything on this entire forum about missing links, it seems strange to me that I am being taken to task for saying where are the missing links?!? I have said that there is not conclusive evidence, but that is about the extent of it. I don't even use the words missing link except to quote the words from others, don't believe me, ask my family. I don't deal with missing links! Period.

The troublesome post is post #611. I had just written a lengthy post describing some missing links. You rsponded to that post, but excluded all of the references to missing links with an ellipsis. Then you asked, "Where are the missing links?" This is either a big blunder, or it is a deliberate attempt to ignore evidence. You have been told about it several times by several people, and you have not retracted. That is the problem. It is unethical to ignore somebody's evidence and then pretend he presented no evidence.

 

[USincognito]

So as not to be accused of ignoring posts, I refer you to the posts comparing the fossil record to blood splatters at the scene of a murder. Both can provide much evidence, including DNA, but niether is enough evidence by its self to convict.

Oh really? Darlie Rutiere is on death row in Texas for killing her children. She was the only person who was witness to the crime. She was convicted and sentanced to death via forensics.

Conversely, and I forget the details, but a few years back in Houston IIRC, a man who had been jailed for many years was released after his eyewitness recanted her testimony.

It's been pointed out again and again and I'm sure it will have to be pointed out many more times that we have more than just a body (fossils), we have DNA (blood), phylogenies (motive), etc. etc. if we're going to analogize evolution to forensics. If we were in a court of law, it would be a slam dunk case.

 

[mrversatile48]

Sheeesh mrversatile48, that was a joke, just like the responses he got. Lighten up a bit.

Ghost

I write most of my posts while smiling, if not laughing

As an ex-pro entertainer, I've read many celebrity biographies

Comedy is a serious business - "many a true word is spoken in jest"

More accurate to say that many a jest is jest to further a serious aim, target or goal

Most of the best comedians have a serious side: was it Jimmy "Schnozzle" Durante who used to say, "Everybody's got an agenda"?

Especially "alternative" comedians!!!

Let's hear it for "Tears Of A Clown"

But OK..

Here are da jokes, folks...

What day is Darwin Day?

April Fool!!!!!!!!!!

What is the season's greeting then?

Happy Loopy!!!!!!!!!

Can evo-loopies ever evolve into morons?

Never in a million years!!!!

hAVE YA NOTICED HOW, DESPITE ME SIGNING NEARLY ALL POSTS, EVOLOOPIES STILL TYPE DA FULL HANDLE???????

Proves da evo-loopy proverb...

Never say a word when ya can dish up da tripe by da ton!!!!

No...

Only joking..

Da usual evo-loopy-poop is more monosyllabic monotony, like...

"False...lies...straw man.."

with no evidence!!!!!!!!!

Who asked for another song?

Can't hear ya, Cincinatti!!!!!!!!!!!

R U ready to R=O=C=K?????????????

cAN'T HEAR YA, bALTIMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!

LEMME HEAR YA S*C*R*E*A*M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep smilin' out there!!!!!!!!

Ian

 

[mrversatile48]

Using Roget's Thesaurus is always a good idea for a writer seeking fresh ways to explore well-trodden paths

As on a previous post @ the nature of evolution..change..science..truth..

OH: I forgot the punchline then - was rudely interrupted by emergency evacuation

Jesus said, I am the Way , the Truth & the Life - no-one can come to the Fathewr except thru Me" - John 14:6

Acts 4:12 says, "There is no other name under Heaven, given amomg men, wheby we can/must be saved"

OK...

I hear that encore call for the medley I've sung more round the NW-UK precincts than any other

Credits to ace '70s rockers, "Sheep" & Larry Norman for the lyrics extracts...

GENERATION OF THE KING/MULTITUDES/I WISH WE'D ALL BEEN READY

Something's coming!!!!!!

Do ya know about it????????

God has told us...

Ain't no need to doubt it!!!!!!!!

"The sun shall turn to darkness

& the moon shall turn to blood

before that "great & terrible day" - (Joel 2/3)

when the Lord shall come"


He said,

"I will show you

wonders in the heavens,
signs on Earth,
blood & fire & clouds of smoke.."

"Multitudes..multitudes..
in the Valley of Decision"

For the Day of the Lord is near
in the Valley of Decision

Sun & moon will darken
& the stars will fall from the sky

For the Day of the Lord is near
in the Valley of Decision

Choose
while the Lord is near!

Aahh: ya gotta choose, choose, choose...

while the way's still clear!!!!!


More later....

 

[razzelflabben]

Before I delve into the posts since I was last here, I would like to quote something from todays newpaper. Though it is not about E or C or ID, it does reinforce my claim that fossil record is not conclusive evidence. It does so by showing in a very clear was the doubts that should exist in our scientific view if we are doing more than experienceing a belief system.

A resent archaeological find, suggesting a cave used by John the Baptist. The quote begins here.... But some scholars said Gibson's finds aren't enought to support his theory, and one colleague said that short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.

Now please explain to me how such and inscription is necessary to provide overwhelming evidence to the existance of John the Baptist in history, but a fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE? No nonesence arguements please.