Icons of Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.

On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.

Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?

Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.

There's a lot of nonsense in this post, specifically the gross confusion of what a theory means in science versus what a theory means in laymen terms, along with the strange commentary on stalagmites and stalactites that anyone knows do not need millions or even thousands or even hundreds of years to form.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact ...

I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:

1. Being buried in a national cemetery.
2. Having a capital named after him.
3. Having his face on monetary currency.
4. Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.

I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So much for creative out of the box objectivity. The I am right and you are wrong attitude shows a closed mind.

For some reason you clipped a "conversation" between myself and another poster that was (again for some reason) about "atheism". It was not relevant to the subject of the thread. If you care to stick around, just know that I feel no obligations to defend the claims of others who don't believe in god, nor to read their stuff, nor to justify not believing to others.

As a Christian and an engineering tech with scientific understanding evolution which means change is a fact. If people move from the equator to the north pole their bodies probably would adapt by growing a lot of hair that they do not need at the equator. Certain changes are reasonable to consider.

Hmm. That might explain my chest...

Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.

On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.

Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?

Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.

With modern understanding of life, DNA, and the complexity of the universe the concept of it creating itself and like coming from nothing is totally crazy to me. Believing what we want to believe rather than being objective and seeking understanding may temporarily fell like we are so superior and right pumping our egos. But reality will hit and we will eventually on earth or before God the Creator wake up.

We could all read this when you posted the exact same text in the previous message 15 minutes earlier.

 

[BCP1928]

I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:

1. Being buried in a national cemetery.
2. Having a capital named after him.
3. Having his face on monetary currency.
4. Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.

I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.

They thought he was right because they could verify the observations he made that he based his theory on. That's still the way science works, BTW.

 

[BCP1928]

There's a lot of nonsense in this post, specifically the gross confusion of what a theory means in science versus what a theory means in laymen terms, along with the strange commentary on stalagmites and stalactites that anyone knows do not need millions or even thousands or even hundreds of years to form.

It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.

 

[AV1611VET]

They thought he was right because they could verify the observations he made that he based his theory on.

Yup -- just like Thalidomide was verified by its observations.

That's still the way science works, BTW.

No argument there.

But science is myopic and relies heavily on trial-and-error.

Errors can slip through the cracks of even the staunchest scientific scrutiny.

And it may take years and years before it's caught.

Did you know that Aristotle's science stumped the growth of science for two thousand years?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.

Polystrate Fossils

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.

It's one of the old chestnuts. It is almost as if none of these people have ever seen a flooded forest with the trunks of trees that have been in water for a few decades. (Fake lakes are good for this.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:

1. Being buried in a national cemetery.
2. Having a capital named after him.
3. Having his face on monetary currency.
4. Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.

I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.

Yes, there was no way to majorly verify what Darwin said in his time, but there was enough evidence to show that he was right, not the least that there's more than enough evidence that exists today that shows that he was correct.

So both you and dale are really SOL on saying he'd be appalled. Though you guys do like speaking for the dead...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, there was no way to majorly verify what Darwin said in his time, but there was enough evidence to show that he was right, not the least that there's more than enough evidence that exists today that shows that he was correct.

Interesting how Darwin is right, when people talk about how wrong he was; and Darwin is wrong, when people talk about how right he was.

So both you and dale are really SOL on saying he'd be appalled.

Well I don't think he'd be doing some kind of victory dance.

Though you guys do like speaking for the dead...

Darwin repented on his death bed, six months before he was buried in a prominent cemetery.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Interesting how Darwin is right, when people talk about how wrong he was; and Darwin is wrong, when people talk about how right he was.

An example of this being...?

Well I don't think he'd be doing some kind of victory dance.

No, he'd probably go "Hmmm.... interesting. Can I have a cup of tea now?"

Darwin repented on his death bed, six months before he was buried in a prominent cemetery.

And this is a lie, as has been told to you many times but you don't care since you do so enjoy speaking for the dead.

 

[Kylie]

I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.

Darwin made testable predictions which were testable back then, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from.

And since then, his theory of evolution has been tested and found to be accurate. That's why evolution by means of natural selection is the foundation of modern evolutionary science.

 

[Kylie]

Yup -- just like Thalidomide was verified by its observations.

Here's some advice for you, AV...

 

[Astrophile]

I concur!

He stoops to concur.

The earth is of old but not millions of years old.

This is almost the only scientific statement in your post, and it is incorrect. The Earth is 4540 ±20 million years old.

This I know, fossil-layer round robin thinking is totally errant. Specific fossils at x layer with each layer taking y time??? and then stated the date of the layers are based on what fossils are in them is circular logic - totally speculative.

You are confusing relative ages with chronological ages. Geologists during the late 18th and the 19th centuries worked out the temporal succession of fossils on the principle that the fossils that were in the lowest rocks of an outcrop were the oldest and those in the highest rocks were the youngest. The relative ages were not based on the belief that simpler fossils were older and more complex fossils were younger.

Assiduous collecting of fossils and analysis of the succession of the rocks in which they occurred led to the establishment of a complete stratigraphic succession from Lower Cambrian (oldest) to Quaternary (youngest) long before there was any possibility of measuring the ages of rocks in years. Christian geologists of the 19th century understood and accepted this fossil succession.

The chronological ages of rocks are based on radiometric dating of igneous rocks, not on any characteristics of fossils. The chronological age of sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain is determined by interpolation between the ages of igneous rocks below (and therefore older than) and above (and therefore younger than) the sedimentary rocks. For example, if a bed of sedimentary rock contains Lower Carboniferous fossils and igneous rocks below and above the bed yield ages of 350 million years and 335 million years, we may infer that the Early Carboniferous epoch is between 350 and 335 million years old. There is no circular logic; the relative (stratigraphic) ages and the chronological ages are obtained by completely different methods.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's some advice for you, AV...

So noted.

 

[RileyG]

Yup -- just like Thalidomide was verified by its observations.



No argument there.

But science is myopic and relies heavily on trial-and-error.

Errors can slip through the cracks of even the staunchest scientific scrutiny.

And it may take years and years before it's caught.

Did you know that Aristotle's science stumped the growth of science for two thousand years?

I mean...people used to think life started spontaneously. Put a crumb in a corner and it would turn into a mouse...

 

[RileyG]

It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.

I'm not a creationist, so a lot of this terminology is very new to me.

How fascinating!

 

[Juvenal]

I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:

1. Being buried in a national cemetery.
2. Having a capital named after him.
3. Having his face on monetary currency.
4. Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.

I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.

Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey, a national church, not a national cemetery. With Newton for company, I don't imagine he'd likely be appalled. The only capital named after him is the capital of the Northern Territory in Australia, with population. c. 250,000 and a population density of about 1 person for every 2 square miles. The £10 note featuring Darwin was replaced by the £10 Jane Austen note, and hasn't been legal currency since 2018.

As to being the Father of Evolution, if it wasn't him, it would have been Wallace. The theory of evolution was inevitable as soon as Lyell opened up deep time. When it's railroading time, somebody's going to build a railroad. I can't imagine Darwin feeling anything other than relief that it was him.

Good for him on crossing the finish line first, but the rumors of genius are overblown, IMHO. THH Huxley, aka Darwin's Bulldog, ironically said it best when he described his reaction to reading the first edition.

Darwin sent him an advance copy, and when Huxley first read it, his reaction was, “How exceedingly stupid not to have thought of that.” Like many of the best ideas, evolution by natural selection seemed obvious once someone had thought of it.​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Archaeopteryx is interesting in relation to the evolution of birds primarily as the first sight of a possible early stage in avian evolution. It is one of those missing links you are so fond of declaring don't exist. I think we have thus far found around a dozen examples of it,

14, apparently.

Incredible Detail on This Archaeopteryx Fossil Could Help Settle Flight Debate​

This newly imaged specimen, number 14, was almost lost to scientific inquiry – kept in the hands of private collectors for decades before the Field Museum procured it in 2022.