Evolution or descent with modification?

[OldWiseGuy]

"Evolutionary timescale" is not a phrase I would use and not one I'm conscious of having seen often (ever?). Its use in the linked article makes it the equivalent of "the period over which certain evolutionary changes are thought to have occurred". I would have thought that meaning was self evident from the context, so I have to think you are actually asking me something else. If so, please clarify your question.

I note that there are some peculiar ideas expressed in the article, so if your question relates to the theme of the article please be specific in your question(s).

I see many such peculiar ideas in science articles. Lots of disagreement there.

 

[Ophiolite]

I see many such peculiar ideas in science articles. Lots of disagreement there.

Fine, but that response does not advance us in your plan - which I support - to "get this straightened out . . . beginning with explaining the "evolutionary timescale".
Have I provided you with a satisfactory explanation of the "evolutionary timescale"? If not what is it that you wish to be explained? We cannot get things straightened out until and unless you are specific in your questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's get this straightened out then, beginning with explaining the "evolutionary timescale".

"After the initial discovery of the "mitochondrial Eve", Wilson felt uneasy about using the term "Eve" because it caused many to think that she was the only woman living at that time, much like what is written in Genesis of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also, the usual evolutionary time-scale for man did not allow such a short time as 200,000 years. Rather, it is believed that man has been around for a much longer period of time. Java man is thought to be 800,000 years old. Homo erectus specimens are found all throughout the world. Over forty specimens of Asian Homo erectus which have been found in China, have been dated 220,000 to 500,000 years of age. Lucy, and the earliest remains of specimens that are thought to be of the first to stand upright, are thought to be at least 1 to 4 million years of age."

The Mitochondrial Eve: Have Scientists Found the Mother of Us All? MHRC

Emphasizing those terms only demonstrates an almost complete ignorance of how work is done in the sciences. That does not help your beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's get this straightened out then, beginning with explaining the "evolutionary timescale".

"After the initial discovery of the "mitochondrial Eve", Wilson felt uneasy about using the term "Eve" because it caused many to think that she was the only woman living at that time, much like what is written in Genesis of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also, the usual evolutionary time-scale for man did not allow such a short time as 200,000 years. Rather, it is believed that man has been around for a much longer period of time. Java man is thought to be 800,000 years old. Homo erectus specimens are found all throughout the world. Over forty specimens of Asian Homo erectus which have been found in China, have been dated 220,000 to 500,000 years of age. Lucy, and the earliest remains of specimens that are thought to be of the first to stand upright, are thought to be at least 1 to 4 million years of age."

The Mitochondrial Eve: Have Scientists Found the Mother of Us All? MHRC

No doubt you think those bolded terms means they are just guessing and have nothing to back it up. You are wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No doubt you think those bolded terms means they are just guessing and have nothing to back it up. You are wrong.

Fine, but that response does not advance us in your plan - which I support - to "get this straightened out . . . beginning with explaining the "evolutionary timescale".
Have I provided you with a satisfactory explanation of the "evolutionary timescale"? If not what is it that you wish to be explained? We cannot get things straightened out until and unless you are specific in your questions.

Sure. What is the basis of the evolutionary timescale?

 

[Astrophile]

"Evolutionary timescale" is not a phrase I would use and not one I'm conscious of having seen often (ever?). Its use in the linked article makes it the equivalent of "the period over which certain evolutionary changes are thought to have occurred". I would have thought that meaning was self evident from the context, so I have to think you are actually asking me something else. If so, please clarify your question.

I note that there are some peculiar ideas expressed in the article, so if your question relates to the theme of the article please be specific in your question(s).

The Molecular History Research Center is a young-earth-creationist website - see www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure. What is the basis of the evolutionary timescale?

OK, I'll try again. I don't know what you mean by "the evolutionary time scale". I gave you my interpretation of what it meant. You have failed to tell me whether or not you agree with that interpretation. Until you do so it's kind of pointless for me to start addressing it.

However, I'll give you this answer to what I think you might be asking.

The evolutionary time scale is a dual time scale, one relative the other quantitative. The relative time scale is based largely on the distribution of fossils within sedimentary sequences whose relative age has been patiently constructed through the detailed observation of millions of feet of sediment in many thousands of field exposures and borehole data. The quantitative time scale is based upon dating of those aforementioned sedimentary sequences and more recently genetic analysis tied to mutation rates. I can speak with some small authority on all but the genetic analysis.

In your reply please state clearly whether I am addressing the question you intended to ask. If I am then specify which points you have issues with.

The Molecular History Research Center is a young-earth-creationist website - see

Yes, thanks. Although I had only scanned the text its peculiarities were glaring and diagnostic. But this is the sort of site that OWG derives some of his ideas from, so I'll happily seek to answer his questions as raised there - just as soon as he makes his questions clear.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Molecular History Research Center is a young-earth-creationist website - see www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm

So what did they get wrong? They sound as 'scientific' as any.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So what did they get wrong?

The use of emotionally loaded language (as highlighted by you) can be very persuasive. I'm sure the implications are exactly what they wanted. Leading the uneducated to make erroneous conclusions without directly lying means they can deny any deliberate dishonesty.

 

[Kylie]

Let's get this straightened out then, beginning with explaining the "evolutionary timescale".

"After the initial discovery of the "mitochondrial Eve", Wilson felt uneasy about using the term "Eve" because it caused many to think that she was the only woman living at that time, much like what is written in Genesis of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also, the usual evolutionary time-scale for man did not allow such a short time as 200,000 years. Rather, it is believed that man has been around for a much longer period of time. Java man is thought to be 800,000 years old. Homo erectus specimens are found all throughout the world. Over forty specimens of Asian Homo erectus which have been found in China, have been dated 220,000 to 500,000 years of age. Lucy, and the earliest remains of specimens that are thought to be of the first to stand upright, are thought to be at least 1 to 4 million years of age."

The Mitochondrial Eve: Have Scientists Found the Mother of Us All? MHRC

Are you SERIOUSLY using a creationist article from a creationist website to support science?

No. Stop it. Use science articles from science websites written by scientists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The use of emotionally loaded language (as highlighted by you) can be very persuasive. I'm sure the implications are exactly what they wanted. Leading the uneducated to make erroneous conclusions without directly lying means they can deny any deliberate dishonesty.

But those 'theoretical' terms are used throughout all such evolution articles no matter who writes them. That was my point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you SERIOUSLY using a creationist article from a creationist website to support science?

No. Stop it. Use science articles from science websites written by scientists.

Those same terms would be found there as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But those 'theoretical' terms are used throughout all such evolution articles no matter who writes them. That was my point.

They are used in all peer reviewed articles. Peer review is cutting edge science that has not been confirmed endless times. By the time such an article does filter down to you it very well may have been tested and retested enough that they would drop some of the cautionary language. And one point to remember, as weak as that evidence may seem to you creationists cannot even get evidence that strong for their beliefs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They are used in all peer reviewed articles. Peer review is cutting edge science that has not been confirmed endless times. By the time such an article does filter down to you it very well may have been tested and retested enough that they would drop some of the cautionary language. And one point to remember, as weak as that evidence may seem to you creationists cannot even get evidence that strong for their beliefs.

But seeing is believing for me, as I pointed out, as a hunter. I also was a meatcutter and disassembled all sorts of critters that had very similar designs.

I make all sorts of different things in my woodshop, but the only common feature is that they were all designed by me and are made from a common material. My bird feeder isn't the 'common ancestor' of my workbench or cabinets.

 

[Aman777]

What is your speciality among the scientific evidences of evolution?

I am an expert in God's Truth. Evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within a population over time. In the past 200 years some people who have rejected God's Truth in Genesis, have "added to" that definition and have falsely taught our children that they evolved from the common ancestor of apes.

Evolution is a THEORY based on the facts shown on this Earth. God's Truth tells us that He made at least 3 worlds but evolutionists have rejected His Truth in favor of their incomplete made up false assumption which they call the ToE. It is NOT Science but simply the consensus of people who have been brainwashed, from the 1st grade to believe that this false theory is a scientific fact. It is NOT and never will be...

 

[Aman777]

LOL! You handwaved your arguments in. Do you even know how to support your claims? Once again my little friend refutes all of your claims:

Doesn't matter since you have presented NO evidence to refute me. Unlike some loud mouthed braggarts, I can support my views with actual Scripture, science, history and genetics, which makes your little smilie look as dumb as he is.

 

[Aman777]

If I provide such a message will you stop making your claim? Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is, or are you so invested in your dishonesty that you just cannot stop?

Try me and tell us whether you want to be refuted Scripturally, scientifically, historically or genetically. Theories don't count since they are simply assumptions of people who have rejected God's Truth. ie. the false ToE.

 

[Aman777]

Why should I put up with things when you are the one who chose to play silly games. The world does not revolve around you.

Does to me. God bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't matter since you have presented NO evidence to refute me. Unlike some loud mouthed braggarts, I can support my views with actual Scripture, science, history and genetics, which makes your little smilie look as dumb as he is.

You don't seem to understand. I don't need to provide any evidence to refute you since you provided nothing but empty claims yourself. That is why my little friend refutes you time and time again.

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

You handwave in arguments and my little friend waves them away.

If you could support your claims with actual evidence then I would have to do some more work. I don't see that happening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try me and tell us whether you want to be refuted Scripturally, scientifically, historically or genetically. Theories don't count since they are simply assumptions of people who have rejected God's Truth. ie. the false ToE.

You automatically lose when you make such statements. You only demonstrated that you do not even understand what a theory is.