Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[ChristianFAQed]

I assume when you say 'they' you are referring to evolutionary biologists, in which case yes, they certainly can explain how the eye could have evolved according to the mechanisms of evolution. I'm not going to point you to a bunch of links but instead to a book titled 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. Refer yourself specifically to Chapter 4 where Dawkins walks the reader through a logical argument for the evolution of the eye (it coincidentally applies to the evolution of any given body part) by asking the reader a series of questions. It is a very good read and provides precious insights into evolution you may be missing.

I do not know the post count for this forum, otherwise I would transcribe Dawkins' writings on the topic here. Point is, the mechanisms for evolution do provide a possible explanation for the evolution of the eye, but in order to accept that you have to be susceptible and willing to believe they (evolutionary biologists) *might* be able to answer the question adequately in the first place. In other words, don't start reading Dawkins if you feel you would not benefit from hearing another's perspective.

Which I'm sure will include lots of presumptions, guesses and lots of missing data as all the links I've been shown have.

You say a logical argument, well I can present a logic argument about it as well, I want evidence.

I can present a logical argument that a Giant Spagetti Monster created the universe, I want evidence.

The thing about this evidence is that without it you really have nothing more than a bunch of guesses that you put faith in. Time is growing long and evidence is getting harder and harder to come by even though early on they suspected they would find much more evidence that they have.

 

[Mallon]

I mean, all these things about the half life of carbon. How do they know that these things ARE actually accurate,

Because we can callibrate our carbon dating readings against things like ice core data and tree rings. Don't believe me? Here's some reading:

1. Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
2. Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
4. Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

and how do we know that these reports and synopsis's aren't just made up to try to make it so what these scientists say are actually true?

Because these findings go through peer review. And unless you really want to stretch your credibility and insist that the entire global scientific community, Christians and all, is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I don't think you have much of a case.

 

[ChristianFAQed]

Because we can callibrate our carbon dating readings against things like ice core data and tree rings. Don't believe me? Here's some reading:

1. Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
2. Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
4. Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

Because these findings go through peer review. And unless you really want to stretch your credibility and insist that the entire global scientific community, Christians and all, is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I don't think you have much of a case.

That's a bit over simplified. C-14 carbon dating is dependent on living matter or once living matter. They found out after it's discovery that all the historians were at an outrage because their dates were always off. So then they calibrated the readings based off of historical evidence and came up with a bell curve. The accuracy of c-14 carbon dating goes back only 2,500 years because that's how old the sample they got out of the oldest living tree on the planet.

Before that however its only guesses, ice cores can't do the same thing as trees. Trees have rings made once a year which is highly accurate, ice cores don't have rings only guesses.

We can't estimate because we have no idea what the solar activity was way back when that would have effected carbon dating. Even secular scientists agree that there was a layer of water in the atmosphere at some point, which again, we have no idea how that would have affected carbon dating. There are far too many variables to be accounted for so c-14 carbon dating is highly accurate up to 2,500 years ago, after that, its all guess work.

 

[Mallon]

That's a bit over simplified. C-14 carbon dating is dependent on living matter or once living matter. They found out after it's discovery that all the historians were at an outrage because their dates were always off. So then they calibrated the readings based off of historical evidence and came up with a bell curve. The accuracy of c-14 carbon dating goes back only 2,500 years because that's how old the sample they got out of the oldest living tree on the planet.

Before that however its only guesses, ice cores can't do the same thing as trees. Trees have rings made once a year which is highly accurate, ice cores don't have rings only guesses.

We can't estimate because we have no idea what the solar activity was way back when that would have effected carbon dating. Even secular scientists agree that there was a layer of water in the atmosphere at some point, which again, we have no idea how that would have affected carbon dating. There are far too many variables to be accounted for so c-14 carbon dating is highly accurate up to 2,500 years ago, after that, its all guess work.

Well, given that we've established your extreme distaste in carbon dating despite what qualified people have to say, how do you feel about other forms of radiometric dating? Do they all suffer from the same problems as carbon dating? And if so, then why do so many of them agree with one another? And how do you explain the distinct pattern of nucleotides found in nature? Surely, for all the insight you have about why everything we know is wrong, you must have some answers, too.

(And you're wrong about carbon dating going back only 2,500 years. We've callibrated carbon dating with tree ring data going back over 13,000 years. See:
Minze Stuiver, et al., "Radiocarbon Age Calibration back to 13,300 Years BP and the 14C Age Matching of the German Oak and US Bristlecone Pine Chronologies", Radiocarbon, 28 (1986): 969-979.)

 

[gluadys]

Dog's still are wolves, if you think about it.

You know that's very true.

And if you think about it birds are still dinosaurs and humans are still apes.

 

[gluadys]

Ok.
I mean, all these things about the half life of carbon. How do they know that these things ARE actually accurate, and how do we know that these reports and synopsis's aren't just made up to try to make it so what these scientists say are actually true?
I do NOT trust this government more than I can pick up the U.S and throw it. So, I need actual EVIDENCE and/or good solid proof that this is actually how c-14 dating works.

How about actual evidence that your conspiracy theory is true?

Or do you not hold to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

[gluadys]

No, that is not the point, the point is that no one can explain how it evolved. They point back to one ancestor and say Hey, see it did evolve! but the doesn't answer why it would evolved.

The fact that you don't care how many holes there are in the fossil record only hows that you are like every other evolutionist. You have blind faith in evolution that it will fill in the gaps despite its seeming ability to be unable to do that.

Again, you are trying to say that because we don't have a complete history, we don't have a theory.

The theory is not tested by showing a complete history. The theory is tested by showing that the process works.

In general we know very well why anything evolves.

It evolves first because genetic changes introduce inheritable variations into the population.

Secondly, because these inheritable variations are not passed on in equal proportions.

So generation A may show a variation in 5% of the population, but generation A+1 shows the same variation in 6% of the population. Meanwhile some other variation of the same trait nows appears in a smaller group than in the previous generation.

This constant shuffling of what fraction of a population inherits which variation is called genetic drift. In some cases, genetic drift is sufficient to spread a variation to most of a population. This is evolution.

This has been observed hundreds of times in hundreds of species. In fact, in every species studied.

So the onus is on a doubter to say that it didn't happen in the case of the platypus or whatever species you are focusing on. If it happens in all species studied, why would it not be happening in the platypus and its ancestors?

Continuing: there can be factors in addition to genetic drift that affect inheritable variations. One is sexual selection. In sexually reproducing species, some individuals may be more attractive to the opposite sex than others, and so have more opportunities to mate and reproduce. This means that the particular inheritable variations programmed by their genes are reproduced more often and show up in a larger fraction of the next generation. This, too, is evolution. And this "assortative mating" has also been observed many times in many species. So why would it not show up in the platypus and its ancestors?

And of course, you have heard about a third scenario: natural selection. This is when individuals with certain inheritable variations find themselves with certain advantages that promote survival. Their colouring may give them better camouflage so that they can hide more easily from predators (or sneak up more easily on prey). Or they may have better resistance to a virus or disease. There are hundreds of possible ways to get a certain survival advantage and this too allows the genes which program the favorable variations to be reproduced more often. Again, why would this not be happening in the platypus lineage?

So why did the platypus evolve? Because that is what all living things do. The process I just outlined happens in all species automatically. DNA reproduces. It reproduces imperfectly. Imperfect reproduction of DNA reprograms genes which in turn may change the way it is expressed in the host organism. And the variations in a population are not reproduced in the same proportions from one generation to another, so the population changes over time.

Change over time=evolution.

None of this is blind faith. It has all been observed again and again and again in species after species after species.

So the onus is really on you to show why any species would not evolve.

That is the answer to your question and no other answer is needed.

Of course, it is not the answer that satisfies you, because when you ask why it evolved, you are not really asking what makes evolution tick.

You want to know the specific environmental and genetic factors involved in the specific history of this specific species.

Well, we may actually find what those were one day, maybe even sooner than you think.

But not knowing the specific evolutionary pathway this particular species travelled through time is not evidence that it did not evolve.

Posing the question the way you do is like asking if a particular aircraft just off the assembly line can fly. What we can show you is that heavier-than-air flight is possible. We can show you than many similar aircraft successfully fly every day. We can even show you that other aircraft produced earlier on the same assembly line can fly.

What we cannot show you, until it is on the runway and lifting off, is that this particular aircraft can fly.

Does that mean a pilot should assume that it cannot fly and refuse to take it on a maiden flight?

 

[Overmann]

Which I'm sure will include lots of presumptions, guesses and lots of missing data as all the links I've been shown have.

The only presumption being made is the one you're making about the book. I've given you a source I feel will answer your questions and you dismiss it as being of the same caliber as on-line sources recommended to you from likely unpublished internet users? Where is the wisdom in that? By the way, the book I recommended doesn't include links to anything. I cannot readily recall very many that do.

You say a logical argument, well I can present a logic argument about it as well, I want evidence.

I would very much like to hear your logical argument about it.

I can present a logical argument that a Giant Spagetti Monster created the universe, I want evidence.

Wrong; you cannot construct a logical argument about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (whom I assume you are referring to) creating the universe without being intellectually dishonest to yourself and others.

The thing about this evidence is that without it you really have nothing more than a bunch of guesses that you put faith in. Time is growing long and evidence is getting harder and harder to come by even though early on they suspected they would find much more evidence that they have.

Again you refer to 'they' and again I'll assume you are referring to evolutionary biologists... but this time I will ask that you note which ones specifically are not finding as much evidence as 'they' suspected they would because I've had the impression it is quite the contrary. Indeed time is growing long: you should read the book I recommended.

 

[gluadys]

Adaptation involves surviving and doesn't always mean advancing to do so.

Hey, you actually said something right. And here is something else that is right.

Evolution involves surviving and doesn't always mean advancing to do so.

So, with your first go at describing adaptation, you have also described evolution, just as I said you would.

btw: evolution is never about advancing. It is always about surviving and reproducing.

Now would you like to take a stab at describing in more detail just how a species adapts?

I suggest you use your knowledge of genetic inheritance to show what happens.

I also know that if you produce a correct description of the process, you will be describing evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Well, it's safe to say you're a typical atheist, blindly believing in science, just as you say we blindly believe in our God's ability to create the whole universe, and everything beyond.

Actually not safe to say at all here. This thread is in the TE subforum and most of us regulars here are Christians or at least theists.

So the atheist card doesn't play well here.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Ok. You keep saying things like this, but never actually answer my question.
I read what you asked me to read, and still, there is more scientific mumbo jumbo than actual evidence that helps back up c-14 dating.
I mean, all these things about the half life of carbon. How do they know that these things ARE actually accurate, and how do we know that these reports and synopsis's aren't just made up to try to make it so what these scientists say are actually true?
I do NOT trust this government more than I can pick up the U.S and throw it. So, I need actual EVIDENCE and/or good solid proof that this is actually how c-14 dating works.

Like I said, we have independent methods by which we verify the accuracy of the half-lives.

This scientific "mumbo jumbo" is the answer to your questions. It's not our fault if you can't understand it. Using the "I cannot understand it, therefore it's false" argument is an argument from incredulity and therefore fallacious.

Please understand that there is an extensive peer-review process that goes with scientific publications, and please do not trivialize the nature of the process, since many subsequent research builds upon what is already established, which requires that the information in those projects be as accurate as possible.

See my links and those that others have posted. You want evidence? We've already given it to you. The burden of proof is on you to refute the evidence, not on us to present what is already presented.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Actually not safe to say at all here. This thread is in the TE subforum and most of us regulars here are Christians or at least theists.

So the atheist card doesn't play well here.

I'd have to say it's played perfectly well on him.
What else WOULD he believe? I mean, honestly.

 

[Theogonia]

I'd have to say it's played perfectly well on him.
What else WOULD he believe? I mean, honestly.

Is the idea that I'm a Christian really too difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[gluadys]

I'd have to say it's played perfectly well on him.
What else WOULD he believe? I mean, honestly.

Instead of speculating on what he would believe, why not accept his testimony as to what he DOES believe?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

You know that's very true.

And if you think about it birds are still dinosaurs and humans are still apes.

Wow, this made me laugh!!!
Ok, in this hand, you have a bird. A TINY animal that spends most of its time in the AIR!
Now in the other hand, you have a dinosaur. Big, most of them were dumb, and only had enough ambition to survive.
So please, tell me how you take two completely opposite creatures, and say that the bigger one evolved into the smaller one?
Oh, and according to the scientists, didn't the dinosaurs die off when a meteor hit the earth or something of the sort, because they don't believe a global flood happened?

Oh and another thing. If a global flood never happened, then tell me how fossils of seacreatures, sea shells and fishes ended up on top of huge mountains.

 

[Mallon]

Just report him, Theogonia. I did. It is against forum rules (and Christian rules) to deny the sincerity of someone's Christian faith.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Is the idea that I'm a Christian really too difficult for you to comprehend?

No, it isn't. It's just the beliefs you back up are.... Different from all the christians I know.
I haven't discredited the fact that you ARE christian, but all the threads I've posted in with you, make you out to be an atheist.
I'm sorry for the assumption, and I'm sorry if I offended anybody in this forum(which obviously, I did).

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Just report him, Theogonia. I did. It is against forum rules (and Christian rules) to deny the sincerity of someone's Christian faith.

Then I should report him for calling me a typical creationist?!
Same boat here!

 

[Mallon]

Wow, this made me laugh!!!
Ok, in this hand, you have a bird. A TINY animal that spends most of its time in the AIR!
Now in the other hand, you have a dinosaur. Big, most of them were dumb, and only had enough ambition to survive.
So please, tell me how you take two completely opposite creatures, and say that the bigger one evolved into the smaller one?

You should direct your laughing at yourself.
In fact, not all dinosaurs were big. Many dinosaurs were quite small -- no bigger than a chicken or a cat. Scientists are quite confident that some dinosaurs evolved into birds because we've found dinosaur skeletons with feather impressions preserved on them.

(For what it's worth, that last image is from a tyrannosaur.)

Oh, and according to the scientists, didn't the dinosaurs die off when a meteor hit the earth or something of the sort, because they don't believe a global flood happened?

Scientists believe a meteor struck the earth at the end of the age of the dinosaurs because there is ample geological evidence that a meteor struck the earth then. Not because they're looking for a reason to dismiss a global flood.

Oh and another thing. If a global flood never happened, then tell me how fossils of seacreatures, sea shells and fishes ended up on top of huge mountains.

Mountains grow via uplifting. We can observe it happening today. What is now 2000 above ground may very well once have been below water. Really, this is high school material we're covering here. Please don't be so quick to point the finger and laugh at others.

 

[Mallon]

Then I should report him for calling me a typical creationist?!
Same boat here!

There's no rule against calling someone a "typical creationist". You definitely aren't allowed to call a self-confessed Christian an atheist, though.
Honestly, humble yourself a little. You're acting quite belligerantly.