Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Black Akuma]

I will have to think about the snake and do some research before i answer. I am not a biologist or a geneticist so i have to do the hard yards and try to find out myself. This is where i have to rely on the experts. But like i said i like to challenge the main view as to me it doesn't make sense quite often

Pardon me, but no you don't want to challenge your main view. If you did, you would read the paper I provided for you. Instead, what you're likely going to do is go to creationist websites who'll give you the same hackneyed, threadbare arguments they always do and tell you exactly what you want to hear.

You want your beliefs confirmed, so you look for confirmation. Only a few pages ago you were complaining about about peer reviewed journals, I provide one to support my argument, and you don't even bother to read it. I even went to the trouble of finding a free version.

But to me this doesn't necessarily prove evolution because a snake can easily be seen as coming from a lizard or reptile in many ways.

Such as?

After all its one thing to say a snake comes from a reptile

Snakes ARE reptiles.

At any rate, my main goal was to show you that evolution can and is being tested all the time, so I'm going to stick with that for the moment. Allow me to provide two more examples.

There are three existing group of amphibians - frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. We know that frogs and salamanders are the most closely related of the three. So, here's a prediction - we should, in the fossil record, find a creature that possess traits of both frogs and salamanders. If we look throughout the history of amphibians and find nothing like this, it's a problem. If we find a fossil with traits that more closely resemble a frog and a caecillian, that's a problem. Evolutionary theory requires that this transitional has the characteristics we expect it to have, and it has to be before salamanders and frogs come on to the scene.

And guess what?

A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders : Abstract : Nature

Here's a question for you - is this a frog or a salamander? If you can even come to that conclusion at all, how did you reach it?

Not enough? Okay, we'll try another. How about turtles?

Turtles are unique among reptiles - they have a shell, and no teeth. So, if turtles really did evolve from other reptiles, we should expect to see an early form of turtle with teeth, and signs of an early shell. If we find that turtles never had teeth, as far back as they go, that's a problem. Same with the shell. Evolutionary theory demands that early turtles show signs of these things developing.

And guess what we find, in the oldest fossils of turtles?

An ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China : Abstract : Nature

Prediction made, prediction fulfilled. Evolution tested.

 

[stevevw]

It seems I've stirred up a hornets nest. A lot of the posts didn't come through to my email but when i have gone back through the pages i have found plenty. So i will try and answer as best i can so forgive me if i dont get back to all of them.

It seems most of you must work in the industry or study the topic. You say that you have been debating this for a long time but i dont know this. You have to make allowances for new people who come along. It seems you are the guardians of the theory and anyone who comes along and challenges better know what they are talking about which is fair enough. I only wish i knew more so that i could debate on your level.

So in the mean time i will have to be careful not to include these creationist sites you are talking about unless they have scientific qualifications. I still maintain that some of the links are science and have had peer review links that have said similar things to what the religious sites say.

I agree that if you are not qualified you cannot be credible and some religious sites go overboard and destroy any ground that is made with legitimate questions that have come up about the theory. I think there is a lot of hype and emotion involved similar to politics so you have to be careful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems I've stirred up a hornets nest. A lot of the posts didn't come through to my email but when i have gone back through the pages i have found plenty. So i will try and answer as best i can so forgive me if i dont get back to all of them.

It seems most of you must work in the industry or study the topic. You say that you have been debating this for a long time but i dont know this. You have to make allowances for new people who come along. It seems you are the guardians of the theory and anyone who comes along and challenges better know what they are talking about which is fair enough. I only wish i knew more so that i could debate on your level.

So in the mean time i will have to be careful not to include these creationist sites you are talking about unless they have scientific qualifications. I still maintain that some of the links are science and have had peer review links that have said similar things to what the religious sites say.

I agree that if you are not qualified you cannot be credible and some religious sites go overboard and destroy any ground that is made with legitimate questions that have come up about the theory. I think there is a lot of hype and emotion involved similar to politics so you have to be careful.

It is not that we are the "guardians of the theory". We get tired of attacks on science by people trying to defend a false belief. It is an attack on the education of our children. That is an attack on our future. And what is even more upsetting is that the side that is running these attacks are supposed to be honest. They are far from that.

 

[stevevw]

I don't want a dictionary definition. I want a working definition. The definition of "species" is a bit fuzzy because evolution is a fact. Yet I can give a working definition of species and show how its "fuzzy borders" supports evolution.

Don't give me a list of animals that are of the same kind or not. For example it does not good to claim that all dogs are of a "kind". I need a way to tell whether two animals are of the same kind or not.

Be warned, when Justa tried to define kind I was able to show how his definition supported evolution.

Well i dont normally use the word "kind" as i find it hard to get specific meaning when applied to evolution. I like to use species as this separates the animals better for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well i dont normally use the word "kind" as i find it hard to get specific meaning when applied to evolution. I like to use species as this separates the animals better for me.

Fair enough. Are you familiar with the concept of "ring species"?

It is a case of evolution in action. In other words it is evolution that we can observe in the field today:


Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders

 

[stevevw]

I don't want a dictionary definition. I want a working definition. The definition of "species" is a bit fuzzy because evolution is a fact. Yet I can give a working definition of species and show how its "fuzzy borders" supports evolution.

Don't give me a list of animals that are of the same kind or not. For example it does not good to claim that all dogs are of a "kind". I need a way to tell whether two animals are of the same kind or not.

Be warned, when Justa tried to define kind I was able to show how his definition supported evolution.

Well i dont normally use the word "kind" as i find it hard to get specific meaning when applied to evolution. I like to use species as this separates the animals better for me.

 

[stevevw]

Fair enough. Are you familiar with the concept of "ring species"?

It is a case of evolution in action. In other words it is evolution that we can observe in the field today:


Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders

Ive checked it out and i reckon i have a pretty good understanding now.

This doesn't definitely prove evolution as the variation and gradual inability of the species to mate with each other is a loss of genetic ability. It is not a gain in more complexity which would be needed to create a new separate creature that would also completely change in shape. The color loss or change is information that has been changed or altered within the existing gnome. This can be accounted for within a species and just shows that genetic information can be lost or made redundant. The salamnder is still a salamander. There is no evidence for the salamander or any creature adding greater detail and complexity in physicology such as wings or in their DNA.

This seems to be a rare event anyway. If this is one of the basics of natural selection wouldn't we see it more often as it would be the premise for all creatures to have evolved.

DNA replication, for biological inheritance, is a process occurring in all living organisms to copy their DNA. This process is "replication" in that each strand of the original double-stranded DNA molecule serves as a template for the reproduction of the complementary strand. Hence, following DNA replication, two identical DNA molecules have been produced from a single double-stranded DNA molecule. Cellular proofreading and error toe-checking mechanisms ensure near perfect fidelity for DNA replication. If DNA replication gets out sync, it can prevent two species from reproducing.

In phylogenetics, matching DNA sequences is often accomplished by firstly obtaining a nucleotide or protein sequence alignment, and then taking the bases or amino acids at corresponding positions in the alignment as the characters. While A, T, C, and G represent a particular nucleotide at a position, there are also letters that represent ambiguity. Of all the molecules sampled, there is more than one kind of nucleotide at that position. Sequences achieved by this might look like AGCGGAGCTTA and GCCGTAGACGC.

Assuming AGCGGAGCTTA is a DNA code necessary for reproduction (the complete substitution model would be much longer). If environmental adaptation has impacted the species at the DNA level and the DNA sequence AGCGGAGCTTA has mutated to ATCGGAACTTA, making the Ensatina escholtzii incapable of interbreeding with its common ancestor at the other end of the ring (genetically unidentical), the mutation for all practical purposes was destructive as macroevolution never progresses beyond this point.
Basically, we are still looking for an adequate demonstration of evolution in terms of being able to produce some sort of novel complex phenotype structure with function based on changes at the cellular level (genetic or epigenetic) from simpler lifeforms. Any test would have to show that the genetic structure wasn't the result of a minor genetic mutation. There are several challenges of degree regarding complexity.
Are ring species evidence for evolution? - Topix

Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's a bird.

It's basically identical to dromaeosauridae, and is replete with the tell-tale features of dinosauria, and lacking in those features common to all aves. Except, it also has some of the features common to all aves, like feathers. So if archaeopteryx is a bird, then so is the velociraptor (source, source).

'Has feathers' is insufficient to categorise something as a bird. You do realise cladistics is a tad more advance than what they taught in kindergarten, right?

 

[KWCrazy]

So in the mean time i will have to be careful not to include these creationist sites you are talking about unless they have scientific qualifications. I still maintain that some of the links are science and have had peer review links that have said similar things to what the religious sites say.

Evolutionists toss out terms like "peer reviewed" like it's their exclusive domain, but peer reviewed to them means it was published in an evolution friendly publication. Even then there isn't much peer review. As I posted on another thread, even though most scientists subscribe to the trade journals, nobody actually spends their time reviewing what is written. They have their own work to do. So rather then being peer reviewed it's peer published; perhaps with a few comments from those who read the articles while using the restroom. Creation friendly articles are also peer published and are more likely to be peer reviewed because of the reduced number of publications on the market.

That said, Creation scientists and evolutionists have the same access to the same evidence, but come to different conclusions based on the values they believe to be constant. Science itself is the study of the physical world, so for those who believe that the physical world is all that exists their interpretation of the evidence is based on pure naturalism. Creation scientists know that God is the Creator, and their interpretation of the evidence is based on that truth. Science cannot prove or disprove God because science is limited to the physical laws of the universe. All miracles happen in defiance of those laws.

Essentially, there are no new arguments to be made about the physical evidence until more evidence is uncovered. Each side has their own interpretation, and which sources you reference depends on which world view you accept. Evolutionists are not specifically wrong about their science, they are wrong about their worldview and how they interpret the evidence. If you don't believe God created the universe, then you must believe something so complex would take a long, long time to evolve. We who understand truth know that God could make another universe that looks exactly like this one tomorrow. They will never accept our premise, we don not accept theirs. There is really no common ground other than that the evidence is there for us to interpret.

To paraphrase a quote from Subduction Zone, "We get tired of attacks on science by people trying to defend a false belief. It is an attack on the education of our children." The false belief is evolution. The attack on science comes from those who confuse the interpretations of science to be THE TRUTH and not simply the physical explanation. If God created animals with the ability to reproduce "after their kind" and not be exact reproductions of their parents, then speciation is as much a part of creation as the original creation was. The attack of the education of out children comes from telling them that their Bible is wrong, their God is a myth, and that the universe just created itself in defiance of all the laws of physics.

The internet is a wonderful resource. For nearly every lie of evolution you can find an educated, Scriptural explanation from someone. The only thing science proves conclusively is that there is no such thing as conclusive proof. In the end, you will put your faith in the creation or you will put your faith in the Creator. Consider this. If you have ever experienced or know of anyone who has ever experienced a miracle; or if you believe in them; or if you have ever felt the presence of God then you know the scientific conclusion is wrong because each of those defy science. The rules of physics cannot violate themselves. In the absence of God, those things which are impossible do not happen.

 

[mzungu]

Creation scientists know that God is the Creator, and their interpretation of the evidence is based on that truth. Science cannot prove or disprove God because science is limited to the physical laws of the universe. All miracles happen in defiance of those laws.

We have evidence and you have hearsay! We conclude based on evidence and you "just know". you have absolutely no evidence apart from your personal opinion that is based on a few paragraphs in a book written by people who thought the world was flat. Yeah right!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Even then there isn't much peer review. As I posted on another thread, even though most scientists subscribe to the trade journals, nobody actually spends their time reviewing what is written. They have their own work to do. So rather then being peer reviewed it's peer published; perhaps with a few comments from those who read the articles while using the restroom.

You know, instead of writing the above you could just say that you've never been within a country mile of the peer review process and haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. As anyone who has ever been through the process of submitting a paper would tell you. Not that you know anyone who has, obviously.

 

[stevevw]

We have evidence and you have hearsay! We conclude based on evidence and you "just know". you have absolutely no evidence apart from your personal opinion that is based on a few paragraphs in a book written by people who thought the world was flat. Yeah right!

But as the bible says that god is seen in creation. When i look at the moon and stars i see gods creation and i cannot deny this within myself. Its just the way it is for me and many others. It is a personal relationship and God will be expressed in many ways. Of course some will say its your imagination but it goes beyond this and in fact seems more realistic than anything else.

The evidence is within me and no one can take that away and its as strong as if i had physical proof. I know this can be frustrating to some especially if you are involved in science as it deals with physicality and the laws of things. It has to add up and make sense to the here and now. But we have always had an element of belief in something outside ourselves. This takes us beyond the boundaries of this world and can give us another dimension.

What KWCrazy has said in the last paragraph is true to me and i have witnessed this and it wasn't in my imagination. So i guess people will see things differently but a belief in God will never be satisfied by evidence.

 

[stevevw]

You know, instead of writing the above you could just say that you've never been within a country mile of the peer review process and haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. As anyone who has ever been through the process of submitting a paper would tell you. Not that you know anyone who has, obviously.

Well hopefully this forum is not just for qualified biologist and geneticists. If it was then it would be on a biologist forum and everyone would know those things. There will be a mixture of people and varying levels of knowledge within this forum. I am learning as i go and am not afraid to admit when i dont know something. This is how you learn and hopefully i will be able to gain greater knowledge to discuss things in more detail.

I have a good basic understanding enough to get the jist of what someone is saying in general terms and understand this myself. Unless you have studied something like genetics for some time i dont think the average person would understand and truly be able to contribute. But if it becomes exlusive to those who only know about the processes of peer review then we would have a lot less people. This is a science forum within a christian site so i would expect people with religious beliefs to come here and give their point of view. It makes it more interesting and challenges people.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

This is a science forum within a christian site so i would expect people with religious beliefs to come here and give their point of view. It makes it more interesting and challenges people.

A point of view is one thing, making false statements about a discipline you are trying to smear is quite another. KWCrazy's post falls in the latter camp.

 

[mzungu]

Well hopefully this forum is not just for qualified biologist and geneticists. If it was then it would be on a biologist forum and everyone would know those things. There will be a mixture of people and varying levels of knowledge within this forum. I am learning as i go and am not afraid to admit when i dont know something. This is how you learn and hopefully i will be able to gain greater knowledge to discuss things in more detail.

I have a good basic understanding enough to get the jist of what someone is saying in general terms and understand this myself. Unless you have studied something like genetics for some time i dont think the average person would understand and truly be able to contribute. But if it becomes exlusive to those who only know about the processes of peer review then we would have a lot less people. This is a science forum within a christian site so i would expect people with religious beliefs to come here and give their point of view. It makes it more interesting and challenges people.

I agree! We give the science side of the argument and you give the religious side. We furnish evidences for ToE and you give evidences for creationism.

I am all ears.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have evidence and you have hearsay! We conclude based on evidence and you "just know". you have absolutely no evidence apart from your personal opinion that is based on a few paragraphs in a book written by people who thought the world was flat. Yeah right!

What evidence? A theorized miraculous Big Bang event where everything in the entire universe was contained in a zero volume space? A theory proposed by a priest btw.

A theory of black holes which Einstein himself did not agree with?

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

This from a man who still accepts theories devised when we believed the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. So every theory you have was theorized when they thought this galaxy was the only thing that existed in the entire universe. Yeah right!

And it is funny that Columbus was a christian yet believed the world was round. This is why he set out to circumnavigate the globe to find another route to India. he certainly did not believe he was going to reach an edge and fall off. Ancient philosophers, the predecessors of science believed this until around the 6th century B.C. when they began to realize it was round.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few."

Scientists on the other hand were once unanimous in their belief that the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence, and this a mere 100 years ago. That theory didn't pan out so well did it. And yet you still accept as fact all the theories based upon the believed observation that this galaxy was the only one in existence. This has since been disproved in case you haven't noticed, yet the theory of the Big Bang devised during this period of belief is still claimed as evidence. Fairie Dust.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a good basic understanding enough to get the jist of what someone is saying in general terms and understand this myself. Unless you have studied something like genetics for some time i dont think the average person would understand and truly be able to contribute. But if it becomes exlusive to those who only know about the processes of peer review then we would have a lot less people. This is a science forum within a christian site so i would expect people with religious beliefs to come here and give their point of view. It makes it more interesting and challenges people.

If you don't understand the science, then how do you know that it is wrong?

 

[stevevw]

A point of view is one thing, making false statements about a discipline you are trying to smear is quite another. KWCrazy's post falls in the latter camp.

No thats you projecting onto me that i am trying to smear something. Because i ask questions and challenge things doesn't mean i am smearing it. I have seen plenty of people from the evolution side and not just on this site say all sorts of things to religious people. Rarely do i see that same kind of ridicule and name calling from Christians. We have been call everything from ignorant and liars to nut cases and loonies.

If i am debating someone i dont assume anything or categorize individuals into boxes and tar them with the same brush. You have to understand that not everyone is the same and if i happen to ask the same questions as your creationist loonies as you say doesn't mean i am one. I may have a genuine inquiry and need to have it answered. I am not in the business of purposely making false statements and i dont like someone accusing me of such.

I am learning this subject so i will make mistakes and you need to take this into consideration. KWCrazy is allowed to have his own personal beliefs and should be ridiculed because of those beliefs, nor should anyone. You just have to take it as they are an individual with their point of view and beliefs and you cant take that away from them or put them down for having it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists toss out terms like "peer reviewed" like it's their exclusive domain, but peer reviewed to them means it was published in an evolution friendly publication.

Yes, just as geology papers are published in round earth friendly journals.

There is no scientific objection to evolution, so it isn't surprising that journals never see a single creationist paper. No one is doing scientific research based on creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because i ask questions and challenge things doesn't mean i am smearing it.

When you call tens of thousands of scientists a pack of liars, and never even attempt to back your allegations, that is a smear. That is what KWCrazy does.