Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

 

[Speedwell]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

Creationism is not likely route even if the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[Ken Rank]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

What I have always found fascinating is that when we look at animals that supposedly evolved from lower forms of animals... those lower forms die off in favor of the more advanced version. For example, the first "horse" (Eohippus) was basically dog sized and it no longer exists. As it "evolved" into a larger, stronger, and more resourceful animal, the previous version dies off. However... that isn't the case with humans!? The early version of man, the Ape, is still alive and well and would be thriving if not for man's encroachment into their living areas. So when it comes to other animals, the previous version goes extinct, but in man's case... the very earliest version is still alive and all the versions inbetween are gone that led up to man? That doesn't balance out against all we see among all other animals.

 

[pitabread]

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

Biological evolution including shared ancestry between species (phylogenetics) is an applied science. Don't think it's going away any time soon.

 

[DavidFirth]

Creationism is not likely route even if the theory of evolution is wrong.

Why not? And if the theory of evolution isn't 100% right then it is wrong.

 

[pitabread]

So when it comes to other animals, the previous version goes extinct, but in man's case... the very earliest version is still alive and all the versions inbetween are gone that led up to man? That doesn't balance out against all we see among all other animals.

This isn't how things work. For example, fish have a history going back hundreds of millions of years and they still roam the oceans today. There is no requirement that prior forms of life explicitly go extinct just because something new evolves.

 

[pitabread]

Why not? And if the theory of evolution isn't 100% right then it is wrong.

No scientific knowledge is 100% right. But it's still useful and that is what matters.

 

[DavidFirth]

No scientific knowledge is 100% right. But it's still useful and that is what matters.

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

 

[DavidFirth]

This isn't how things work. For example, fish have a history going back hundreds of millions of years and they still roam the oceans today. There is no requirement that prior forms of life explicitly go extinct just because something new evolves.

Really? Prove your theory. Oh, that's right, you can't so you just assume it is fact and teach others likewise. Jesus is right, if the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch.

 

[pitabread]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

Scientific models and theories are simplifications of real phenomena. And as a result of being simplifications they aren't ever going to be 100% accurate.

But just approximate can be good enough to be useful. Newtonian gravity is a perfect example. It's technically "wrong", but yields calculations that can be useful in many (but not all) circumstances.

 

[DavidFirth]

Scientific models and theories are simplifications of real phenomena. And as a result of being simplifications they aren't ever going to be 100% accurate.

But just approximate can be good enough to be useful. Newtonian gravity is a perfect example. It's technically "wrong", but yields calculations that can be useful in many (but not all) circumstances.

I prefer God's word. He guarantees it is 100% right all the time. Science cannot and never will be able to do that.

 

[pitabread]

Really? Prove your theory. Oh, that's right, you can't so you just assume it is fact and teach others likewise. Jesus is right, if the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch.

I don't have to prove anything. If you want to learn about biological evolution and why it's foundational to modern biology and how its supported, there are plenty of available resources. Even free university courses on the subject.

It's up to you whether you want to learn.

 

[pitabread]

I prefer God's word. He guarantees it is 100% right all the time. Science cannot and never will be able to do that.

And yet I'm sure you still enjoy the fruits of scientific knowledge like these magical computing devices we are using to have this conversation.

 

[DavidFirth]

I don't have to prove anything. If you want to learn about biological evolution and why it's foundational to modern biology and how its supported, there are plenty of available resources. Even free university courses on the subject.

It's up to you whether you want to learn.

I've learned enough, but thanks, anyway.

 

[dgiharris]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

that isn't what he said, implied, or inferred. You are twisting what he said.

the statement that science is not 100% right does not mean science is science fiction.

Give you an example. I develop a theory of physics that describes a physical process. My theory maps out this process to 98% accuracy enabling the creation of useful formulas. This is "good enough" for engineers to take my theory and construct complex circuitry designs, mechanical engineering designs, aeronautical designs, etc. All that is required is they put in enough "Wiggle room" to account for my 2% inaccuracy.

We do this all the time in science, there is a term called "factor of safety" and we use it all the time in every branch of engineering.

 

[DavidFirth]

And yet I'm sure you still enjoy the fruits of scientific knowledge like these magical computing devices we are using to have this conversation.

Nice rebound. Actually, we can prove certain things, like the Earth is not flat, we need oxygen and nutrients to survive, etc. We cannot prove the age of fossils or the age of the Earth, though.

 

[DavidFirth]

that isn't what he said, implied, or inferred. You are twisting what he said.

the statement that science is not 100% right does not mean science is science fiction.

Give you an example. I develop a theory of physics that describes a physical process. My theory maps out this process to 98% accuracy enabling the creation of useful formulas. This is "good enough" for engineers to take my theory and construct complex circuitry designs, mechanical engineering designs, aeronautical designs, etc. All that is required is they put in enough "Wiggle room" to account for my 2% inaccuracy.

We do this all the time in science, there is a term called "factor of safety" and we use it all the time in every branch of engineering.

Do you think a 98% probability that Jesus rose from the dead is good enough?

 

[Strathos]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

What is the exact value of pi?

You can't say for sure. But saying it's 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 is certainly a lot more accurate than saying it's 200. Even though the former is still technically incorrect it's far more useful.

 

[sfs]

Nice rebound. Actually, we can prove certain things, like the Earth is not flat, we need oxygen and nutrients to survive, etc. We cannot prove the age of fossils or the age of the Earth, though.

We don't generally talk about proof in science. What we talk about is evidence. We have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical, and we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Anyone who tells you otherwise about either point is either deeply confused or lying to you.

 

[DavidFirth]

What is the exact value of pi?

You can't say for sure. But saying it's 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 is certainly a lot more accurate than saying it's 200. Even though the former is still technically incorrect it's far more useful.

Well, at least you're willing to teach that your number is incorrect. Why not also teach that the theory of evolution is far from 100% correct? Right now it is taught as correct in every public school in this country. Thats wrong.