• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is evolution a fact or theory?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mathinspiration, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am neither clueless about the English language nor deliberately obtuse about your meaning. Have you considered the possibility that your argument was lacking in some way.
    No, according to evolutionary biology, our species went from stronger to being both smarter and better at long distance running -- and therefore better at hunting.
    Here seems to be the main problem with your reasoning: you're treating strength, intelligence, and technology as if they were binary attributes. In reality, we developed primitive technology -- basic stone tools -- long before we developed the degree of intelligence we have today, and before we became as (relatively) weak as we are today.
     
  2. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Perhaps you have me confused with someone else -- I've never thought chromosome 2 was good evidence for evolution. As for evidence, I think I already gave this link once. In any case, that's one of the many pieces of evidence for common descent.
     
  3. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Okay. Bye now.
     
  4. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  5. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I was not mistake, you are the one who quoted chromosome 2 as one of the evidences, see below.

    And yes, I saw that link, that that is speculation (i.e. this looks like what happened), not good evidence (after repeated test, we verified this is what happened).

    To make some hypothesis into a theory, there must be actual test, that can be verified and repeated, good example of such are germ theory, or genome targets that test out what determine the eye color of mosquito.

    Now compare that to what you think is fact, i.e. humans are evolved from some primates that is also the common ancestor of apes. Not only that is not repeatably tested, none of the tiny genom changes are tested either. consider RISC and CISC cpus, they look alike to the naked eye (the older models will look like each other then their mordern counter parts), but they are of different architecture.

     
  6. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You are mistaken, since I've never quoted chromosome 2 as a piece of evidence for evolution. You quote me as saying that we have scientifically tested the theory that there was a chromosome fusion that produced our chromosome 2.
    You appear to be confused about something quite basic. What I described in that link is this: If common descent is true, then we will see several specific things. When we look at the data, we see exactly those things. The English word for this process is "test"; what I describe is a test of the theory of common descent. It doesn't stop being a test just because you want to call it something else. The overall process of developing the hypothesis ("common descent"), constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways"), and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations") is called "science".

    Now, if you think that the test I described isn't evidence for common descent, all you have to do is come up with an alternate explanation for the observed data. So far your response to evidence consists of nothing but saying "Is not". So have at it: what's the other explanation for the data?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  7. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I could unpack this, but I will simply agree with it, and will patiently await a poor response.
     
  8. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No. I didn't comment on this thread to argue with people. I just wanted to give my two cents. All evolutionists are welcome to count themselves wise. But I do not agree with it. Whatever your arguments, I find the whole notion to be nothing more than speculation. It can't be proven. And that's as much as I really care to say on the matter at this point.
     
  9. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    @AFrazier
    In fairness, you did say,

    "Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so."

    with respect to there being transitionals.

    A transitional fossil, by definition, is going to be an animal that shares traits of those pre existing (ancestral groups) and post existing (descendant groups) itself in the fossil succession. Tiktaalik having fins, gills and scales, depicts pre existing traits of fish. Tiktaalik presenting robust shoulders and wrist bones, and a flat head with an unfused skull, are traits of amphibians, which are post existing descendant groups.

    It is, by the nature of its existence, a transitional fossil, which you requested proof of existence.

    But, I will let it go, if you would like.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  10. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    662
    +227
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi K-BIF, we haven't chatted in a while - hope things are going well for you brother!

    I enjoy poking at evolution for amusement from time to time and would start off to say that aside from (macro)evolution not being in alignment with the Bible, I think the discussion around transitional fossils carries with it high hopes but with little empirical support.

    From what I've been reading about fossils is that by in large, what gets classified as a 'transitional' fossil is the very rare exception... the rule of thumb is there are no transitional fossils. Will you agree that this is widely accepted within secular science, hence the development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium (basically, since scientists really aren't finding the extent of transitional fossils as would be expected in support of Darwinian evolution, the theory was developed that life doesn't gradually evolve but instead does nothing for long periods of time, then suddenly morphs drastically)?

    Similar to Cambrian explosion - we suddenly have complex life (not really much to speak of as far as transitional forms).... hence the word "explosion" in the name. God created complex life from the beginning as is stated in Genesis (days 5 and 6 <-- actual days, see Exodus 20:8-11 if needing confirmation that Genesis is not allegory/poetry/imagery/etc...).

    Also, Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to the main skeleton and would not have supported it's weight, so it is speculation to suggest this represents the missing link between sea and land life. Tiktaalik was a fish, just as God created fish on day 5. That's not to say it wasn't different from the 'original' types of fish created on day 5 as there may have been micro-evolutionary changes that allowed it to develop as a species and adapt to it's environment, but it was a fish from the beginning and was a fish up to the time it went extinct.
     
  11. JackRT

    JackRT Flat earther waking up ... Supporter

    +11,474
    Canada
    Freethinker
    Married
    What you have just described is macro-evolution.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  12. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    662
    +227
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Dang, your dog is too cute!! Is he rotten or well-behaved? I digress...

    Now, to macro-evolution, it is my understanding that fish that diversify and remain fish only occurs as a result of micro-evolution... as akin to Noah only needing to have 2 of every kind (Google Baraminology for how creationist scientists are classifying "kinds"), say the bear kind, which can diversity and become all the variety of bears we have today.

    Contrary to micro-evolution, I thought macro-evolution was at a level above species, that explains how primitive protozoa eventually became me (did not happen this I know, for the Bible tells me so). Anyway, please elaborate the terms as one thing I'll say is true about evolution is that the ideas keep changing and evolving so what one thought to be true 10 years ago may no longer be true today.
     
  13. JackRT

    JackRT Flat earther waking up ... Supporter

    +11,474
    Canada
    Freethinker
    Married
    Thank you. She is gone two years now. Very high energy. Totally loving. Absolutely fearless --- or stupid. Took her three skunks to master the technique of killing them without getting sprayed. I miss her deeply.
     
  14. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    662
    +227
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I am so sorry to hear, but truly glad she brought you much joy and I'm sure some laughs along the way! I have a 3-yr old female beagle and a 4-yr old female Jack-Chi (sp?)... Jack Russell-Chihauhau mix. The Jack_Chi is like a 12-lb soldier that is super attentive, obedient, and intelligent. The beagle is... well, she's... sweet and loving - we'll just leave it at that - ha ha.

    Without getting too far off topic, I believe God created a dog kind and as has been observed in just a short amount of time, dogs can be bred, cross-bred and we can have a very diverse 'kind' as we see today. Going back to the earliest life forms found in geological layers we don't see a slow gradual progression, but rather a sudden appearance of very complex life... which wouldn't require millions/billions of years to arrive at the life we see in the present.

    Thoughts?
     
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,637
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    But a little later...
    [​IMG]

    Acanthostega does have legs attached to the spine. It's still a fish, with fishlike tail, internal gills, lateral line sytem, and so on, but it walked on the bottom of ponds and streams. Still a bit too weak to hold itself up on land.

    But a bit later...

    [​IMG]
    Icthyostega could walk on land, and did. Still pretty fishlike,but less so than it's predecessors.

    As you see, all these are relatively small changes between each step. But there's a big difference between the earliest in the line, and Icthyostega.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am not mistaken. I asked for a repeatable verifable test for common descent of human and apes, and chromosome 2 fusion is exactly the thing you provided.

    I am not confused, as your test described above got way too many flows. Now let's assume it is some "aliens" that created life on earth, based on your steps I can create the following so called test (with your word substituted, from mutation to the aliens reused prior DNA like a library):
    developing the hypothesis (change "common descent" to alien creation)
    constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways" change mutations to DNA reuse)
    and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations" again change mutations to "DNA reuse")

    See how everything much up? And because we don't see any fossile evidence of one sort of species very gradually changing to other species, and that we still have species that didn't change much for millions of years, they all pointed to creation. Since you reject God I simple substitude God to alien so you can see clearly.
     
  17. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi Noble Mouse,

    Hope you are doing well, as well.

    The best way to understand punctuated equilibrium (PE), is to look at the research published on it, by those who proposed it. But also to understand the perspective in which it is presented.

    [​IMG]

    See above for a figure depicting differences in thought between the two.

    It isnt that PE proposes that there are no intermediate forms (3 proto horses are noted in the figure above, before the first proto horse and the final modern day horse, for example). Rather, it proposes that intermediate forms are of rarer occurrence due to variable rates of evolution. Or rather appear in more intermittent locations, due to variable rates of evolution.

    Alternatively, perspective is significant as well.

    [​IMG]

    As the geologic record itself exists in a PE manner. Rocks do not exist in an infinite number of intermediate layers, so why should fossils?

    It was never Goulds intent to propose that there were no transitionals, rather, the fossil succession is composed of an intermittent fossil sequence due to one of the two reasons above (varying mutation rates, or temporal separation of rock).

    But also, you have to take into account that Goulds PE is viewed through the lense of paleontology. The evidence originating from paleontology is not for or against PE, nor is it for or against gradualism. Rather it is a matter of perspective. From a paleontology stance, either could be true, or both at different times.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The cambrian explosion is predated some 100 million years by microscopic shelled organisms, some presenting the same morphological features as those seen in the explosion. Things like brachiopods, mollusks, echinoderms etc.

    Arthropod trace fossils predate the cambrian explosion as well.

    So, it isnt as sudden as some make it out to be, 100 million years is quite a long time.

    Even if we ignored things like the first microscopic shelled organisms, and strictly stuck with a time frame between kimberella, and the burgess shale, we are still looking at 50 million years of time, which is an extraordinarily long amount of time. Even if it were just 10 million, this too would be extraordinarily long.
     
  19. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You speak as if tiktaalik is a single specimen. Several specimen have been discovered (at least 10 individual tiktaaliks). They have robust shoulder bones, and wrist bones that rotate, with flat heads with eyes on top like an alligator. Their skulls are also unfused from the rest of their body.

    These certainly are not fish. And by trying to debate the point, all you are doing is justifying its place as a mixture and transitional between the two. The only reason we are able to even have this dispute is because tiktaalik is both fish and non fish, in one body.
     
  20. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,478
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Did you see my post about tiktaalik?
     
Loading...