-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution is a FACT!!!!
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
- Status
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Upvote
0
Can't say as I've heard many evolutionary creationists claim that our personal redemption hinges on the historical factuality of Genesis!
I've heard dozens of YECs here claim as much, though. And what could be more important than the afterlife?
Upvote
0
CAI should learn to define evolution properly before issuing a challenge to prove a strawman version of the theory.
Oh, but then they would have to pay out the $1,000 wouldn't they?
Upvote
0
I really think pastorkevin and others completely misread/doesn't understand the original post. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a gene pool over time. This is a fact, and it can be observed. The theory of evolution explains mechanisms that allow this change. Likewise, gravity is defined as the force of attraction between masses. The theory explains what causes those forces.
So, evolution and gravity are both facts, and they are also both theories. So yes, pastorkevin is dead wrong when he says evolution is not a fact. I suspect this problem is very high on these boards, considering that Creationists tend to have more misconceptions about science than the general public, which we already know have poor science knowledge. Rememeber, there's no heirarchy of facts, theories, and laws. Theories aren't promoted to facts and laws. They are all separate concepts. I hope this clears it up.
Waits for another Creationist to go, "nuh uh!"....
So, evolution and gravity are both facts, and they are also both theories. So yes, pastorkevin is dead wrong when he says evolution is not a fact. I suspect this problem is very high on these boards, considering that Creationists tend to have more misconceptions about science than the general public, which we already know have poor science knowledge. Rememeber, there's no heirarchy of facts, theories, and laws. Theories aren't promoted to facts and laws. They are all separate concepts. I hope this clears it up.
Waits for another Creationist to go, "nuh uh!"....
Upvote
0
Gravity is a constant. It is the theory of gravity that changes. Evolution is a fact. It is the theory of evolution that changes. Theories change when new data presents itself. That is how science becomes a more accurate representation of reality.
Upvote
0
Horse Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm
Homonids - Human Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.becominghuman.org/
Vertabrae Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
reptile-birds
reptile-mammals
ape-humans
legged whales
legged seacows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
various
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils#Some_Examples_of_Transitional_Fossils
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/
Also check out the fossil museum if u want pictures.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/index.htm
I'll summarize some of the links from the fossil museum website so you can get to what u want quickly
The link http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilSites.htm shows a general tree of life, as per the fossils found in the strata. You'll notice when you look at the page all the white underlined words are links you can click to get more detail from. It also gives the places of most of the actual sites the fossils were found at.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilGalleries.htm is a list of fossils to which you can view the images.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm is a fossil record and has links at the top of the page to different eras.
I would like to put forward a question. Why are all different types of fossils found in sequential order? If God made all "kinds" of animals and once, and there was a devistating global flood, wouldn't they be mixed up?
There are lots of transitional fossils. To fully understand just how many there are requires a lot of reading. Something that can be a problem when dealing with this topic is that if someone doesn't want to recognize what a transitional form is, they will never accept that they are. For example, if fossil A is found 300 meters down in the strata, and fossil E is found 40 meters down in the strata, i could say that E evolved from A, to which I would be asked to provide transitional fossils. So after much searching I find fossil C, which is 160 meters down and shows characteristics of both A and E. Follow me so far? Now someone could say, "But now you have two gaps, prove that A evolved into C, and that C evolved into E. So i search and search and eventually find fossil D, 100 meters down. It is a perfect example of characteristics between C and E. But someone could still say, "now you have 3 gaps, A to C, C to D, and D to E."
See how this could go on and on? That is why i asked how you would identify a transitional fossil and how many are sufficient evidence.
Anyways, let's take whale evolution as an easy to explain example. Whale's allegedly evolved as a part of the ungulate group (hooved terrestrial mammals). This was first put forward along with many other possible ancestors, but there was little evidence at the time. Now there are lots of fossils supporting the evolution from ungulates, while the other option that had been put forward are now laid to rest.
Sinonyx - wolf sized ungulate which also speciated into other modern day hooved mammals. It existed 60 million years ago.
Pakicetus - 52 million years ago.
Ambulocetus - 120 meters higher in the strata
Rodhocetus - 46-47 million years ago
Basilosaurus - 35-45 million years ago
Dorudon - about 40 million years ago
Both basilosaurus and dorudon are fully aquatic whales, and led to the whales we have today. Not only are these all sequential in features, but they are found in order in the strata layers.
For a lot more detail and other evidences for whale evolution, here is my source http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
This wasn't written by a biologist, that's for sure. Fish and birds have the same 4 base codons. Those build proteins, and it's the proteins that build the animal. There's nothing different about the basic building blocks of the different animals.
The nylon bug can eat nylon using genetic information that wasn't there before, obviously, because nylon hasn't existed very long. There are also many other bacteria and small bugs, and even animals that have developed resistances or even the ability to digest man made material. There was certainly no genetic code for that prior to the invention of those man made materials. Of course, if i submitted that to this false challenge you propose, i would be told that those species developed their new information from pre-existing information that has simply been altered or duplicated then altered. The irony of course, that is exaclty what evolution is, and that is exactly how we get all of lifes organisms from common descent, through mutation, gene duplication etc, all of which have been observed in nature in the present time.
Upvote
0
The theory of gravity is no more constant than the theory of evolution. The Theory of gravity has and does change.
The reason we care is that we find Creationism damaging to Christianity and human reason. It's like taking a step back into the Dark Ages. As for harshness, you'll find Creationists far more likely to claim Theistic evolutionists aren't even Christian because they don't take Genesis literally.
+[/quote]
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
To be honest these boards are not harsh at all, I think they're quite well-moderated (nods to the mods). Over in the real world, some evolutionists call creationists idiots and some creationists call evolutionists apostates. That's about as harsh as it gets. There are vapid, vocal fools on both sides, of course, but by and large there is some pretty intelligent discussion between everyone else.
Stick around. Nobody will have any right to prod you and ask "Friend or foe - creationist, or evolutionist?" Don't be afraid to ask lots, and don't be afraid to look at anything which challenges even your most basic assumptions - for if those assumptions are true they will stand the test, and if they are false they are not worth holding on to. And don't make the mistake of reading plain talk as harshness. Sometimes we have to take off the gloves and be extremely clear and direct about what we think. But that is just a violent interaction between ideas - which need not compromise a strong relationship between people. Enjoy your stay here and be blessed!
Upvote
0
busterdog
Senior Veteran
[/quote]
I am trying to think of an example. I have seen one frequent poster question that conclusion largely by inference, not because evolution is a litmus test in and of itself.. I have seen another say that evolution is not a proper Christian doctrine, which is a completely different charge.
If you don't fit the following, you should not be considered a Christian:
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
And evolution is not the issue. But let's see if you have one example to prove me wrong.
And who are all those atheists who would be Christians but for us dark agers, by the way? Bet the examples there add up to the same number. The dark ages were also know for summary torture and execution without trial. Some of us here would fit that description, but not the YECs.
Upvote
0
So i posted the transitional fossils that some of you were asking to see (jeffweeder and keyarch). Now what? No response? I hate chat forums some times because I don't know what ppls reactions are to certain posts if they just disengage from the conversation. Keyarch, you wanted to see examples of transitional forms, does that mean that showing you some will mean you'll accept evolution? Now that I've shown you those transitions have you changed your mind at all? If not, why even ask in the first place if you are just going to dismiss the evidence?
Upvote
0
keyarch
Regular Member
Sorry, I got busy and didn't have a chance to fully review all the links. I'm not dismissing anything at this point. Since the thread is getting so long and hard to follow, I'll just PM you with my opinion/questions if you don't mind. Then if you want to start a new thread or something, that focuses on the evidence, that would be good. BTW, thanks for taking the time to post the links.
Upvote
0
so allow me to ask what do you think evolution is? can evolution walk a mile but not walk 2?
To dismiss something because it's an "interpretation of data" does not hold up in a court of law.
All the data (blood stains, foot prints, witness accounts, etc.) points to Fred as culprit of a particular crime. Fred pleads that any inference that he was culprit, is "an interpretation of the data", so the judge is forced to let him go.
Does this make any sense to you?
When I find a creationist site, or a book that provides an "interpretation" of at least a tenth of the data concerning evolution, I will seriously start to consider young earth creationism as science.
If all you have is a banana, and peanut butter, then perhaps you need to rethink your position.
Upvote
0
Though I am reluctant to post an article by Richard Dawkins, this one address the "Evolution Challenge" comprehensively:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
I wonder why the reward for such a challenge is so low? Apple offers $10,000 dollars if someone can hack their OS, and the best a creationist can offer is $1,000?
Upvote
0
keyarch
Regular Member
Ok, I click on the links, and all I see is stories that are written by people who already accept evolution and write about the history as if it is fact without much real support other than more of the same.
Maybe it's my own faith that is blinding me to what is supposed to be factual evidence here, but just because animals have similar traits or bone structures doesn't mean that you can piece together this tree of how they evolved. That may be a starting point if you were going to investigate, because for the theory to be true you would expect the similarities. But I expect similarities also due to a common designer (I know you've heard that one a million times).
There are just so many systems, body plans, mechanisms and so forth that need to change from one kind to another (say fish to reptile to bird) that you can't just look at one similar bone structure and expect that all the other things just happened. Each stage would have to be strong enough to survive for quite a while until the next little beneficial thing happened, that a perfectly species would have to get to a failing state before becoming something that works again.
Those in-between stages are what I have not seen. The freaks if you will. They may not have been pretty, but they must have been around in any snapshot of time (and now for that matter). At whatever point you look at these creatures along the evolutionary tree, they appear to be fully functional and formed, and yes, may look like other creatures but are perfect in their own species.
Anyway, I'm still not looking for bias stories written by people claim to be experts and therefore what they write must be fact. I'm looking for pictures of fossils that are in some kind of clearly transitional form. I just don't see everything changing at the same pace in sync with every other change to the point where you wouldn't notice that it was a freak.
Little horses to large ones etc, don't impress me. Variety in size is a minor variation that is part of their design. We have small to large versions of a lot of animals (even people) but they are still the same basic species.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
You might expect similarities from a common designer, though you would expect them to be modular. A transitional between bird and dinosaur might have feathers like both, but it legs structure would be transitional between bird and cheetah. A designer should pick the best from his whole range of designs. While you might expect a similarities from a designer (in a chimeral modular sort of way), we would not expect that from a Creationist designer.
The YEC interpretation says God created kinds. That means his creation is discrete. There should be no transitional form between created kinds just variations within a kind.
As a former YEC myself I understand your distrust of the conclusions of people who already believe in evolution. but you don't need to accept their conclusions that such and such a creature was related to x and y. You don't need to accept their conclusion of when these creatures lived. The evidence of transitionals is not the conclusions of these evolutionists, but the fact that here are fossils that show characteristics intermediate between x and y and that they are found in the geological column (lets not say date) where evolution predicted fossils with these shared characteristics would be found.
YEC on the other hand has predicted that no such intermediate form would ever be found. It contradicts their interpretation of the creation of kinds:
Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker said:
Remember it is YEC that claims any form of transitional would be a freak horribly damaged by unworkable halfway forms. It is evolution that says at every stage of the transition these creatures will be well adapted to their environment. Just what we find in the fossil record. It is YEC that claimed a jaw halfway between reptile and mammal simply would not work, yet the creatures we find in the fossil record with jaws that are ¼, ½, ¾ of the way between reptile and mammal all seem perfectly adapted and fully functional.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Actually, I've never really given much thought to this. But have you ever seen any design exhibition? The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney has a few fantastic exhibits on right now, but you could go down to a local car shop and pick out all the Fords, or find a fashion show and pick a particular designer, or trace a particular architect.
You'd be surprised at how different their designs are. (Why, it's almost as if people want to be creative! Who would have thought that?) And even where they are similar, it would be pretty difficult to try to arrange their designs into a sort of evolutionary timeline. You could take a dozen Ford cars, make a dozen "evolutionary" arrangements out of them, and none of those arrangements would be convincing. There are many ways to logically order a set of common designs, whether on thematic, chronological, or other bases. And it's difficult to make any sort of evolutionary progression for something designed by humans in general.
Well, let's exercise your imagination for a while. Suppose we wanted to convince you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Exactly what sort of "freaks" would you want to see to convince you that it actually happened?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
All CAI needed to do was perform a PubMed search on "evolution". The data is there.
For instance, in the case of hybridization and getting a new species, the genetics have been followed in the following paper:
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996
Speciation is reproductive isolation. This paper tells you the specific genes that change in reproductive isolation and make hybrids infertile:
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998.
In terms of mechanisms, the different types of copying errors (mutations) that change the sequences of DNA are well known. Any textbook on molecular genetics is going to provide all the information CAI needs. For instance, they can read this book:
3. Li, W-H. Molecular Evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland MA,1997.
There are 1) substitutions, 2) insertions, 3) deletions, (all of single bases), then there are 4) translocations, 5) gene duplications, and 6) chromosome duplications.
Then, of course, there is natural selection that sorts thru these DNA changes in terms of specific environments to pick the variations that have the best designs for those environments. That too is documented.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Yes, we've heard it a million times, but it doesn't work. For instance, in terms of a camera eye, we expect the details to be the same -- especially when those details contribute to the efficient function of the design.
Take octopi and vertebrates. They each have a pinhole camera type eye. OK, same designer. But why would that designer put the wires (nerves) behind the retina in octopi eyes but in front of the retina in the vertebrate eye? Pretty dumb designer! (which, of course, is not tolerable if the designer is God).
Let's look at the bones in the wings of birds, pterosaurs, and bats. In birds, the main structural bone of the wing is the ulnar bone. In pterosaurs it was elongated wrist bones. In bats it is finger bones! IF this was all made by some "intelligent" designer, then why did it use different bones for the SAME function in all 3 groups? In detail, the designs are NOT similar. An intelligent designer should use the same design for the same task, yet that doesn't happen in nature. Therefore these wings were not directly manufactured by an "intelligent" designer, unless you want to make the additional claim that the so-called "intelligent" designer is either stupid or suffering from Alzheimer's.
Finally, let's look at sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins. Outside, they are are similar in shape, size, and lifestyle. But there are some major differences. Sharks and ichthyosaurs, for instance, have a vertical tailfin while dolphins have a horizontal one. When the swimming motion of dolphins is analyzed, it is not the swimming motion of sharks and other fish. Instead, it is a modified running motion! This, of course, comes from the land ancestors of dolphins, but a Designer isn't constrained by history, because creationism says there is no history. So, since the swimming motion of sharks is efficient for moving thru water, why not use the same design for dolphins? After all that's the whole point of "similarity of design" argument, isn't it? Why use a modified running motion of a land animal for dolphins? There is no reason under "similarity of design". Only descent with modification -- evolution -- explains the data.
Where did you get this idea that you needed a "failing state"? Instead, the environment shifts and the optimum condition shifts. The population is not "failing", but it is no longer optimum for the new environment. So the population shifts as the less well-adapted do not reproduce and the more well-adapted ones do.
You haven't been looking. They are not "freaks". But in well-preserved and complete fossil records we do have the transitional individuals from one species to another and from one species to another to form higher taxa (new genera, families, orders, and classes). Here are a few. Go look them up and look at the pretty pictures:
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/science/12FOSSIL.html?tntemail1
4. Lucy site at AMNH http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/africa/lucy.php
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
You haven't given much thought to it, but Niles Eldredge did.
Yes, you have recreated his thought processes and data that he presented in his book The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. You might want to get it.As you note, it is impossible to classify human designs in a nested heirarchy. Yet life is classified that way -- by the creationist Linneaus long before evolution was discovered.
Only "descent with modification" can be classified in a nested heirarchy.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
