Is evolution a fact or theory?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There are true scientists (some) who do their research and studies unbiased and who honestly evaluate their results (see people like Francis Collins who I don't entirely agree with, he's Theistic Evolutionist) but they cannot get dna off the old "things" which they have certainly tried (I wonder why). This whole business is for the most part of trying to attempt to move people away from God (the enemy's intent) and to disprove the Bible. Fortunately we have the Holy Spirit to combat that.

Subject to Jesus all things, every thing.

The Father is Holy. ABBA is SPIRIT.

The battle is not ours, but God's, and He is Victorious !

Maybe what .... no, not maybe. All that they DO GET off the "old things" DISPROVES their false "THEORIES" - and continually shows that YAHWEH CREATED ALL .... HAHAHA HE laughs at their evil plans of the enemy ! And HE exposes all of them ....

 

[The Barbarian]

Too bad they haven't been able to find any dna in any of these "fossils". If they did then maybe they could prove once and for all whether or not they were human ancestors?

Phenotypes (physical characteristics) are indicators of genetic relatedness. The problem is sorting out analogous features (those that convergently evolved to look the same) and homologous features (those indicating common descent, even if they may not look the same).

I don't really care how old the earth is (whether it's billions of year or not). It doesn't prove anything let alone evolution that we evolved from apes or chimpanzees.

Correct. Evolution has been observed directly, but it does not depend on any particular age of the Earth. It should be noted that Darwin won an argument on the age of the Earth (with Lord Kelvin) based on his observation that many millions of years would be necessary for evolution to have produced common descent. At the time, Kelvin's calculations of the heat flux of the Earth and Sun indicated perhaps 10 million years at most. Later on, when radioactivity was discovered, Darwin's view won out.

What matters to me is the history of civilization as we know it. The Bible regardless is still as solid as a rock.

It is, although some particular interpretations of the Bible haven't fared very well.

 

[2tim_215]

Phenotypes (physical characteristics) are indicators of genetic relatedness. The problem is sorting out analogous features (those that convergently evolved to look the same) and homologous features (those indicating common descent, even if they may not look the same).

Correct. Evolution has been observed directly, but it does not depend on any particular age of the Earth. It should be noted that Darwin won an argument on the age of the Earth (with Lord Kelvin) based on his observation that many millions of years would be necessary for evolution to have produced common descent. At the time, Kelvin's calculations of the heat flux of the Earth and Sun indicated perhaps 10 million years at most. Later on, when radioactivity was discovered, Darwin's view won out.

Yes. If you believe in common descent but it doesn't really prove it. The earth age (OE) if true doesn't prove than men descended from apes although it is true that evolutionists try to use it to prove that it does. The fact that the human genome is just a difference of 2 between a human and a monkey does not prove that the monkey is a common ancestor. What it does prove is that the have a common creator/designer. Anyone familiar with how design works knows what it means by "leveraging" your design.

It is, although some particular interpretations of the Bible haven't fared very well.

For those who don't know how to interpret them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes. If you believe in common descent but it doesn't really prove it. The earth age (OE) if true doesn't prove than men descended from apes although it is true that evolutionists try to use it to prove that it does. The fact that the human genome is just a difference of 2 between a human and a monkey

No, that's wrong. Monkeys are quite different than humans. Other apes are rather closely related to humans. In fact, chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

does not prove that the monkey is a common ancestor. What it does prove is that the have a common creator/designer.

No, that won't work. For example, humans have hands, lower backs, hips, knees, and feet that don't work so well, precisely because they are modified from quadrupedal apes. A designer would have done things very differently, if we were designed from scratch. On the other hand, if we evolved from apes, it makes perfect sense.

Anyone familiar with how design works knows what it means by "leveraging" your design.

Designers are starting to realize that evolution works better than design for many complex problems. This is why engineers are going with genetic algorithms that mimic evolutionary processes for many things that have been resistant to design.

Turns out, God was right, as usual.

 

[2tim_215]

I'll go with a designer rather than evolution. An almighty/all powerful infinite God doesn't need things to evolve if He is that. If you want to de-neuter God go right ahead. I don't think he'd appreciate it.What difference does it make how he did it. He just did it, just the way He did it. By speaking the world into existence. Is the God you believe in capable? Yes, the One I believe can and did. No disrespect meant to you here.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll go with a designer rather than evolution. An almighty/all powerful infinite God doesn't need things to evolve if He is that.

Rather, He doesn't need to separately create each thing de novo. He's not some little middle eastern godling who must run around making a rabbit here and a tree there. What we learn from His creation is that it's elegant; it works by relatively few rules. Indeed, that's why engineers are now mimicking evolution; it works better than design.

If you want to de-neuter God go right ahead.

A Creator Who makes all living things by natural processes is far more powerful than one who would have to do it all a bit at a time. I think one reason creationists deny Him that kind of power is that it makes them uneasy to think of a God that great.

I

 

[2tim_215]

Rather, He doesn't need to separately create each thing de novo. He's not some little middle eastern godling who must run around making a rabbit here and a tree there. What we learn from His creation is that it's elegant; it works by relatively few rules. Indeed, that's why engineers are now mimicking evolution; it works better than design.

Sure, He doesn't need to. But that doesn't mean that He didn't. One thing for certain, He could do it either was. That was entirely up to Him, not us nor the scientific community. He says it took Him 6 days (even though I know, 1 day is as a thousand years with Him) and I believe Him. And even though the earth might be billions of years old (or whatever the real number happens to be) that doesn't preclude His ability nor Him from actually having done this (a six day creation).

A Creator Who makes all living things by natural processes is far more powerful than one who would have to do it all a bit at a time. I think one reason creationists deny Him that kind of power is that it makes them uneasy to think of a God that great.

You make an argument which sounds reasonable (at least you are a believer in comparison to someone who uses their "theory" to attempt to disprove God) but the Bible says that He formed man out of the dust in the ground and "breathed" into him the breath of life and thus man became a living soul. That doesn't sound like something that would take God too long to do and so I'm going to go along with that, rather than billions of years which some men would postulate. Seems to me for the God of the Bible this should be rather simple. Thus only men find a way to make it more complicated than it needs to be. He didn't need billions of years to accomplish such a magnificent and miraculous feat as the act of creation is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, He doesn't need to. But that doesn't mean that He didn't. One thing for certain, He could do it either was.

The evidence He left for us, shows he used evolution to create the diversity of life we see today.

That was entirely up to Him, not us nor the scientific community.

Yep. Scientists are just observing what He did.

He says it took Him 6 days (even though I know, 1 day is as a thousand years with Him)

The word we translate as "day" can mean "day", "always", "forever", "in my day", and other things. So one of those.

You make an argument which sounds reasonable (at least you are a believer in comparison to someone who uses their "theory" to attempt to disprove God)

Science is by it's very methods, limited to the natural universe. It can neither affirm nor deny God. But if you're a Christian, you can learn much about Him from observing the way He manages creation.

but the Bible says that He formed man out of the dust in the ground and "breathed" into him the breath of life and thus man became a living soul.

Man was, like all other living things, produced naturally, as the parable you mentioned says. However, we aren't merely bodies; our souls are given directly by God, which makes us different than other animals.

That doesn't sound like something that would take God too long to do and so I'm going to go along with that, rather than billions of years which some men would postulate.

It won't hurt you to believe so. God doesn't care if you accept the way He created living things. It's just not a salvation issue.

Seems to me for the God of the Bible this should be rather simple.

Right. One of the things you find in science, is that at the bottom, it's always simple and elegant. So instead of running around, creating everything in bits and pieces, He created a universe that unfolds as He wills it to do.

Thus only men find a way to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

This is why engineers have found that complicated problems may be solved very simply by copying evolutionary processes.

He didn't need billions of years to accomplish such a magnificent and miraculous feat as the act of creation is.

As St. Augustine noted, He did it in an instant, from which everything else came to be as a result of His creation.

 

[2tim_215]

The evidence He left for us, shows he used evolution to create the diversity of life we see today.

It depends on what you mean by evolution. I'm sure you're familiar with this. this. There's six different types of what gets referred to as evolution:

1. Cosmic Evolution – The origin of time, space, and matter with the Big Bang.
2. Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.
5. Macro Evolution – Changing from one kind of animal into another kind. Ex: ape to human.
6. Micro Evolution – Variation within the kinds (species). Ex: long-haired, short-haired, long-legged, short-legged, etc.

There is no such proof of 1-5. If you want to claim 6, that's ok but none of the others have been proven to be true. I know you've shown a number of pictures but I'm not sure of their validity or interpretation. Of course there have been many who refute some of those in this thread.

Yep. Scientists are just observing what He did.

Or what they want it to be to fit in within their world view which has nothing to do with true science..

Observed? What scientists were present when creation took place? And what instruments were used to take measurements?

The word we translate as "day" can mean "day", "always", "forever", "in my day", and other things. So one of those.

Or it could just mean day.

Science is by it's very methods, limited to the natural universe. It can neither affirm nor deny God. But if you're a Christian, you can learn much about Him from observing the way He manages creation.

Well then, people shouldn't try and use it for the purpose of denying God's existence.

Scientific method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I’d say that it’s pretty hard to observe, measure and experiment with something that supposedly happened billions of years ago. What can evolution teach me as a child of God? Am I supposed to change my behavior? Do I have a better chance to go to heaven? I don’t really see much of an advantage other than causing confusion.

Man was, like all other living things, produced naturally, as the parable you mentioned says. However, we aren't merely bodies; our souls are given directly by God, which makes us different than other animals.

If true what you say, then there's no need for God. And where do you get that as a parable? There are no parables in the Old Testament (Proverbs?) that I know of. Parables are a New Testament/Jesus thing. As for the difference between animals and humans (we both have souls) it's that humans have spirits (animals don't). Many of us mistake spirits (pneuma) for souls (psuche) but they're different as we see that they'redifferent Greek words.

It won't hurt you to believe so. God doesn't care if you accept the way He created living things. It's just not a salvation issue.

I agree. It shouldn't be a salvation issue and neither will it hurt me to NOT believe he created the Universe according to Darwinian Evolution. It does make me ask more questions that I believe cannot be answered while on this earth which does not help me at all as if anything it tends to confuse and God says He's not the author of confusion.

Right. One of the things you find in science, is that at the bottom, it's always simple and elegant. So instead of running around, creating everything in bits and pieces, He created a universe that unfolds as He wills it to do.

I agree to the part where you say that He created the universe to unfold as He sees fit. This to me explains the diversity in species. I just don't believe the same holds true for "kinds" as described in the Bible. Dogs are still dogs and don’t come from pigs. Neither do ants come from hippos nor do fish from birds.

This is why engineers have found that complicated problems may be solved very simply by copying evolutionary processes.

Perhaps if you can't solve them any other way and maybe it will take 100s or 1000s or billions of years for man to do but it wouldn't take God anywhere near that long. It’s much easier (and more efficient) for an engineer to leverage an existing design than to re-invent the wheel which I would assume would be the complexity involved in trying to use what you refer to as “evolutionary processes” (whatever that is). As a former design engineer, I’ve done that (leveraged earlier designs) a number of times and it is quite common, especially in this day and age.

As St. Augustine noted, He did it in an instant, from which everything else came to be as a result of His creation.

Doesn't sound as though it took billions of years (an instant is much less than a billion years as supposed evolution claims) so maybe Augustine was right.

 

[The Barbarian]

It depends on what you mean by evolution.

Since that can be confusing for people unfamilar with science, let's go with Darwin's term "descent with modification." (DWM)

There's six different types of what gets referred to as evolution:

No. There are an unlimited amount of things, since "evolution" means "change." Anything that changes, can be said to have "evolved." Many creationists try to obfuscate with it. So we'll use DWM for this discussion, then.

Descent with modification has been directly observed. Even macroevolutionary events have been observed. Often enough that many professional creationists admit that new species descent from older species.

Some, like the Institute for Creation Research admit the evolution (DWM) of new species, genera, and families of organisms.

Scientists are just observing what He did. (regarding common descent)

Observed?

Yep. He left abundant evidence for us to find.

What scientists were present when creation took place?

The argument that one cannot know anything one was not there to observe is obviously false. Geology, fire investigation, forensics, etc. all give lie to that idea.

And what instruments were used to take measurements?

Pretty much everything at the disposal of scientists from rulers to particle detectors.

The word we translate as "day" can mean "day", "always", "forever", "in my day", and other things. So one of those.

Or it could just mean day.

If you let the text interpret itself, you can see it could not be "day." As Christians noted in ancient times, it was absurd to read it as literal days. Mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, for example.

Science is by it's very methods, limited to the natural universe. It can neither affirm nor deny God. But if you're a Christian, you can learn much about Him from observing the way He manages creation.

Well then, people shouldn't try and use it for the purpose of denying God's existence.

No scientist would do that. Even Richard Dawkins says that science can't rule out God.

Scientific method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I’d say that it’s pretty hard to observe, measure and experiment with something that supposedly happened billions of years ago.

You've been badly misled about that. We've learned a great deal about the way thing were a couple of billion years ago. God gave us intelligence and curiosity for a purpose. And He left us evidence to find things out.

What can evolution teach me as a child of God?

For one thing, an appreciation of how great and wise He is. Unlike some little pagan god, prancing around making one thing at a time, He made the universe to unfold as He intended. If you accept His word in Genesis, you'll know that He made the Earth and the Earth brought forth living things according to the way He created it. That's how it works. God is much wiser and more powerful than most YE creationists are willing for Him to be.

Am I supposed to change my behavior? Do I have a better chance to go to heaven?

It's enriched my faith as I learn more about His creation. It could do that for you.

I don’t really see much of an advantage other than causing confusion.

God is truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

Man was, like all other living things, produced naturally, as the parable you mentioned says. However, we aren't merely bodies; our souls are given directly by God, which makes us different than other animals.

If true what you say, then there's no need for God.

Except for that thing about a soul. And the fact that the very nature that produced humankind was a creation of God. Stuff like that.

And where do you get that as a parable? There are no parables in the Old Testament

St. Paul disagrees with you, writing that the story of Abraham and Issac is figurative.

I agree to the part where you say that He created the universe to unfold as He sees fit. This to me explains the diversity in species. I just don't believe the same holds true for "kinds" as described in the Bible.

We can test that belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Dogs are still dogs and don’t come from pigs. Neither do ants come from hippos nor do fish from birds.

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if they did. I'm thinking that if you knew what evolutionary theory was about, you'd be less opposed to it.

It’s much easier (and more efficient) for an engineer to leverage an existing design than to re-invent the wheel

That's what evolution does. Would you like me to show you some examples?

which I would assume would be the complexity involved in trying to use what you refer to as “evolutionary processes” (whatever that is).

Look up "genetic algorithms."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.560.7082&rep=rep1&type=pdf

As a former design engineer, I’ve done that (leveraged earlier designs) a number of times and it is quite common, especially in this day and age.

That is part of evolutionary processes. Read the link and see what else is involved.

Barbarian observes:
As St. Augustine noted, He did it in an instant, from which everything else came to be as a result of His creation.

Doesn't sound as though it took billions of years (an instant is much less than a billion years as supposed evolution claims)

The initial creation was instaneous, I think. But over billions of years, everything else came about from that initial creation, according to His will. So Augustine wrote.

so maybe Augustine was right.

I think so.

 

[Job 33:6]

It depends on what you mean by evolution. I'm sure you're familiar with this. this. There's six different types of what gets referred to as evolution:

1. Cosmic Evolution – The origin of time, space, and matter with the Big Bang.
2. Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.
5. Macro Evolution – Changing from one kind of animal into another kind. Ex: ape to human.
6. Micro Evolution – Variation within the kinds (species). Ex: long-haired, short-haired, long-legged, short-legged, etc.

There is no such proof of 1-5. If you want to claim 6, that's ok but none of the others have been proven to be true. I know you've shown a number of pictures but I'm not sure of their validity or interpretation. Of course there have been many who refute some of those in this thread.



Or what they want it to be to fit in within their world view which has nothing to do with true science..

Observed? What scientists were present when creation took place? And what instruments were used to take measurements?



Or it could just mean day.



Well then, people shouldn't try and use it for the purpose of denying God's existence.

Scientific method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I’d say that it’s pretty hard to observe, measure and experiment with something that supposedly happened billions of years ago. What can evolution teach me as a child of God? Am I supposed to change my behavior? Do I have a better chance to go to heaven? I don’t really see much of an advantage other than causing confusion.



If true what you say, then there's no need for God. And where do you get that as a parable? There are no parables in the Old Testament (Proverbs?) that I know of. Parables are a New Testament/Jesus thing. As for the difference between animals and humans (we both have souls) it's that humans have spirits (animals don't). Many of us mistake spirits (pneuma) for souls (psuche) but they're different as we see that they'redifferent Greek words.



I agree. It shouldn't be a salvation issue and neither will it hurt me to NOT believe he created the Universe according to Darwinian Evolution. It does make me ask more questions that I believe cannot be answered while on this earth which does not help me at all as if anything it tends to confuse and God says He's not the author of confusion.



I agree to the part where you say that He created the universe to unfold as He sees fit. This to me explains the diversity in species. I just don't believe the same holds true for "kinds" as described in the Bible. Dogs are still dogs and don’t come from pigs. Neither do ants come from hippos nor do fish from birds.



Perhaps if you can't solve them any other way and maybe it will take 100s or 1000s or billions of years for man to do but it wouldn't take God anywhere near that long. It’s much easier (and more efficient) for an engineer to leverage an existing design than to re-invent the wheel which I would assume would be the complexity involved in trying to use what you refer to as “evolutionary processes” (whatever that is). As a former design engineer, I’ve done that (leveraged earlier designs) a number of times and it is quite common, especially in this day and age.



Doesn't sound as though it took billions of years (an instant is much less than a billion years as supposed evolution claims) so maybe Augustine was right.

You say that nobody was around millions of years ago to see things like evolution or the formation of the earth or continents. But really, we don't need to be present in the past to see what has happened.

There are times where I am driving to work, and I see a bunch of backed up traffic, behind two cars that have been smashed to pieces. Now, I didn't need to be present at the scene of the car accident, to know that it happened.

Yes it is true that I wasn't around to see the accident. And really those cars could have been made, smashed up, as if there was an accidental, but in reality there wasn't. But the likelihood of there being an accident is far greater than the likelihood of someone creating a smashed car.

And this is basically what we do in geology. We use present day evidence to observe the after effects of events of the past.

And it works the same way in biology. Nobody actually needs to be present on the day of your birth to confirm that your mother is in fact your mother. Because your history is recorded in your biological makeup. And all anyone has to do is just look at your DNA to determine your origins. Nobody actually needed to be alive or present in the past to confirm this.

 

[2tim_215]

You say that nobody was around millions of years ago to see things like evolution or the formation of the earth or continents. But really, we don't need to be present in the past to see what has happened.

There are times where I am driving to work, and I see a bunch of backed up traffic, behind two cars that have been smashed to pieces. Now, I didn't need to be present at the scene of the car accident, to know that it happened.

Yes it is true that I wasn't around to see the accident. And really those cars could have been made, smashed up, as if there was an accidental, but in reality there wasn't. But the likelihood of there being an accident is far greater than the likelihood of someone creating a smashed car.

And this is basically what we do in geology. We use present day evidence to observe the after effects of events of the past.

And it works the same way in biology. Nobody actually needs to be present on the day of your birth to confirm that your mother is in fact your mother. Because your history is recorded in your biological makeup. And all anyone has to do is just look at your DNA to determine your origins. Nobody actually needed to be alive or present in the past to confirm this.

Yes, in your example you may have a pretty good idea but you cannot determine the exact details and precisely when it took place. In your example you might get relatively close but pretty tough when it comes to the earth's age. A lot of that is speculative with respect to its accuracy. For the most part, you could say that it's "good guesses" with the problems that are associated with the dating methods.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, in your example you may have a pretty good idea but you cannot determine the exact details and precisely when it took place. In your example you might get relatively close but pretty tough when it comes to the earth's age. A lot of that is speculative with respect to its accuracy. For the most part, you could say that it's "good guesses" with the problems that are associated with the dating methods.

If it's 4.2 billion or 4.3 billion, how important is it?

 

[Job 33:6]

When it comes to dating of the earth, really there are a few simple points to keep in mind.

1. Relative dating methods (cross cutting relations, inclusions, superposition, faunal succession alone are easily enough to demonstrate a planet that is millions of years old, at minimum.
Relative Dating #1: EARTH SCIENCE LAB

2. Radioactive methods are cross-checked with one another. Things like the K-T boundary have been dating using varying methods, which yield the same result.

Not only are dates correlated between methods (Ar/Ar, U-Pb, Rb-Sr etc.), but they are also correlated among samples from various localities (Mexico, Canada, Haidi etc.)

3. Radioactive ages can also be confirmed through a common sense approach of comparing ages with rates of continental drift.

For example, and I will do this right now because I enjoy it,

I open google earth.

I measured the distance between Africa and South America, parallel to fractures that are perpendicular to the mid-oceanic ridge.

The distance measured is 254,460,435 centimeters (see the google earth image below).

A quick google search identifies rough estimates for continental drift. About the rate at which our fingernails grow, 2.5 cm per year.

So, we take 254,460,435, divided by 2.5 cm per year, and we get an age of...

101 million years.

And, low and behold, the rate of tectonic drift also affirms radioactive dates taken from basalt of the mid oceanic ridge. Based on the image above, the rocks should be between 83-118 million years old, so 101 million is accurate.


Is it a coincidence that these numbers just so happen to match up? No of course not. If our dates were truly so sporadic or unpredictable or incorrect, they wouldnt yield a gradient of results originating from their point of origin.

And i can run these numbers 100 times over and they will continue to give me the same ages.

 

[Job 33:6]

And, young earthers can argue all they want about this and they can quote RATE or whoever creation institute or Ken Ham etc.

It doesnt really matter. We could bury the entire Noahs Ark ship museum of kentucky, in research papers affirming these data.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Also, you continue to bring up radioactive dating, but you know nothing of geology. You arent in a position to critique radioactive dating if you do not have an understanding of relative dating to begin with.

Please explain how radioactive dating work.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian notes that Gingrich accurately demonstrated that nostrils/blowholes show transitional forms in whales.

Gingrich demonstrated no such thing. All he did was find a few possible extinct species and extrapolate using his vivid imagination. It would require tens of thousands of transitions to evolve from a land animal to a whale; and that assumes that genetic evolution is even possible since it far exceeds the bounds of probability.

Of course. The transition:

was obvious as soon as we started finding fossil whales. It's just one of many ways in which they are transitional.

How does that come close to proving whale evolution? BTW, do you have photos of the actual fossils?

There's lots more. Want to see more?

I would like to see anything that proves macroevolution; but I won't hold my breath.

And now you know better.

Yes, now I know better than to argue with a dreamer.

The ones who predicted all those transitional forms before they were found? Know what's even more impressive than that? We never find one that the theory says should exist. No whales with gills, no whales with horozontal swimming motions. Just the predicted forms. This is why even knowledgeable creationists admit that these transitions are strong evidence for evolution.

It is all about information, not superficial appearances. No knowledgeable scientist would believe mutations add useful information, but rather subtracts from it.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Gould was still well aware of the many transitional fossils. He has plenty of literature on them as well. When he refers to spaces in the record, he is discussing spaces with relation to the idea in which there would be billions of fossils. Of course Gould would acknowledge any of the transitionals discussed here in this forum as clear evidence for evolution.

Please provide references for those claims about Gould. I believe it is important to read exactly what he said, don't you?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
Stephen Gould:Evolution as Fact and Theory in Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.

So? Gould realized the fossil record does not support gradualism; and he and Eldredge attempted to explain away that enormous failure with an entirely new theory that states the obvious: species appear abruptly and fully formed, and then stasis.

Gould was a most excited by the findings of Gingerich and Thewissen, and in particular with the discovery of the fragmented skeleton of the Rodhocetus. He wrote:

"Rodhocetus lacks tail vertebrae, so we can't tell for sure whether or not this whale had yet evolved a tail fluke. But evidence of the beautifully preserved spinal column — particularly the unfused sacral vertebrae, "making," in the words of Gingerich et al., "the lumbocaudal [back to tail] column seamlessly flexible" — indicates strong dorsoventral (back to belly) flexion at the rear end of the body — the prerequisites for swimming in the style of modern whales (with propulsion provided by a horizontal tail fluke, driven up and down by bending the vertebral column). I was particularly pleased by this result, since I closed my essay with a mini-disquisition on multiple adaptive peaks and the importance of historical legacies, as illustrated by vertical tail fins in fishes vs. horizontal flukes in whales — both solutions working equally well, but with whales limited to this less familiar alternative because they evolved from terrestrial ancestors with backs that flexed dorsoventrally in running. Gingerich and colleagues conclude:'This indicates that the characteristic cetacean mode of swimming by dorsoventral oscillation of a heavy muscled tail evolved within the first three million years or so of the appearance of the archaeocetes.'" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past." Natural History, 1994]​

Little did Gould know that about a decade after his death, Gingerich would admit (on camera) that he erroneously imagined the whale fluke and flippers.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Batbarian observes:
Barbarian notes that Gingrich accurately demonstrated that nostrils/blowholes show transitional forms in whales.

Gingrich demonstrated no such thing.

You've been lied to about that:

How does that come close to proving whale evolution?

Shows that the predicted movment of nostrils to the top of the head happened in a stepwise fashion.

BTW, do you have photos of the actual fossils?

I would like to see anything that proves macroevolution;

Do you know the scientific definition? What do you think it is?

Barbarian asks:
The ones who predicted all those transitional forms before they were found? Know what's even more impressive than that? We never find one that the theory says should exist. No whales with gills, no whales with horozontal swimming motions. Just the predicted forms. This is why even knowledgeable creationists admit that these transitions are strong evidence for evolution.

It is all about information, not superficial appearances.

The information we get from those fossils, for example, show that the blowhole moved backwards from the snout in a series of steps over a good number of transitional forms. As you now realize, even more important is that we don't see transitional steps where the theory says there shouldn't be any.

No knowledgeable scientist would believe mutations add useful information, but rather subtracts from it.

They lied to you about that, too. For example, a culture of bacteria was shown to have evolved a new enzyme system through a series of mutations. Perhaps you don't know how "information" is determined in population genetics. How do you measure information, and how do mutations change the amount of information in a population genome?

If you don't know, don't answer, and I'll show you in the next post.