Is evolution a fact or theory?

[NobleMouse]

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. Its like trying to shoot 3 pointers when you are still learning to dribble. Youre saying that I am avoiding discussing how to shoot 3's, well, i dont bother shooting 3's with people who cant dribble.

Show me that you can dribble, and can shoot 1s and 2s, then we can shoot 3s together.

Yes I love to bring it up because I admit I'm a bit of a button-pusher and I know you see radiometric dating as untouchable, despite its well-documented assumptions and axioms that are unfalsifiable. Now, I can provide you with the sources to back up what I've written by those with PhD's in Geology and well... more experience than you, and you can try to claim they are liars and religiously motivated... but seems less fun since we've already been down that path a time or two now.

Quick!! How do you know a system was closed since the formation of a rock?! Just kidding, it's a trick questions because you can't know for sure whether a system was closed the entire time, or that all of the daughter isotopes present were from the present radioactive parent isotopes.... but both are assumptions, along with a constant decay rate over time in isochron dating.

 

[4x4toy]

Do you have sources that aren't religiously motivated? It is nice hearing from our Christian brothers and sisters, but at times, they aren't necessarily more accurate, just because of the faith we share.



Well Gould doesn't propose that life...abruptly showed up. The person in the video, Kurt Wise, described some kind of a stasis and related it to punctuated equilibrium. But PE, doesnt actually state that species abruptly appear. Because Gould's descriptions are referring to...long spans of time, like millions of years. Abrupt in the eyes of a geologist, is eons in the eyes of a biologist. Its a matter of perspective.

Regarding the 100 times around the world thing, to simplify it, I was basically just asking for sources demonstrating that long term preservation of pliable tissue, is not possible.

Thanks Mouse

Genesis 1 says life abruptly showed up . Psalms 46:10

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

Check this out.

This was published in 2011, which is pretty recent.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tish_archaeological_and_paleontological_sites

These scientists are actually on the forefront of determining just how long certain forms of collagen last in animals dated back 1.5 million years. This is relatively new research in uncharted territory.

When it says 1.5 million years, isn't that the "conventional" date? Right?? The sources I provided were done independent of conventional dating techniques. This is why the dating schemes sometimes receive the critique of applying "circular reasoning" - we say something is 1.5 million years old on the basis of some dating scheme, then when we find something that doesn't last a million years, we say, "oh look, I guess this DOES last longer than a million years." Research done independent of conventional dating methods shows collagen and DNA do not last a million years, so it should raise questions of how the fossils were dated and the reliability of the dating method applied.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that partially-evolved structures in humans are suboptimal, and often cause us considerable trouble)

Can I assume you reject the concept of original sin?

If you think we have a defective lower back because of original sin, you've missed His point completely.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

That is old "news".

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.

He is still pushing that nonsense?

See above. No point in denial. It's why your fellow creationist Kurt Wise said that cetacean fossils are "strong evidence" for evolution.

Gingerich was interviewed by Werner at a later date.

Yep. After the postcranial skeleton of Pakicetus was found. Surprisingly, it had a very whale-like skull, and a body only slightly adapted to water. This points up Gould's note that evolution tends to make "mosaics", with different features evolving at different paces.

Gingerich initially promoted Rodhocetus as a fluke-tailed swimmer.

It might have had a fluke. But it retained legs capable of propulsion. The tail was large, muscular, and broad, meaning it aided in movement. Whether or not it had a broadened fluke at the end is unknown.

A repositioned nostril (if that is what it is)

That's what a blowhole is, yes. And it's an important part of whale evolution, since it make breathing easier in motion. But as you now realize, it's just one of many such transitions.

As a rationalist, it appears to be an extinct species to me: probably a form of alligator of crocodile.

Nope. No one with even a superficial knowledge of anatomy and mammals would think so. For example, it has a single bone in the lower jaw, and the mammalian middle ear. It lacks cervical ribs and has many, many other mammalian features.

Pakicetus is, as your fellow creationist admits, very good evidence for evolution.

Debunked.

Nope. In fact, the skull is so whale-like, it was assumed to have a very whale-like body. It was quite a surprise to find that it was only slightly evolved for water in its post-cranial skeleton. As Kurt Wise says, it's evidence for the evolution of whales from land animals, exactly what the theory predicted before it was found.

Then Ambulocetus:

Debunked.

Nope. Ambulocetus is more adapted for water. It could still get around on land, somewhat like a sea lion, but it was clearly more comfortable in the water. Notice the rear feet are large and broad, like tose of otters, to swim more efficiently. The evolution of these primitive whales explain why modern whales have horizontal flukes; they evolved from the mammalian swimming motion.

Then Rodhocetus:

Debunked.

Nope. As you see, Rodhocetus was even less adapted for land than Ambulocetus, and with those tiny front legs, probably had a great deal of difficulty in moving around.

And then Dorudon, which retains legs, but clearly could not move around on land:

Evolved from what?

From more primitive whales. And now you understand why your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise, admits that these transitionals are strong evidence for evolution.

Unless there is a plethora of transional forms,

When I was young, we hadn't found any other than Basilosaurus. All we had were predictions. And now, we have a plethora of such transitional forms. A partial list of just the Archocetes:
Family Ambulocetidae
(Eocene)



Dorudon

• Ambulocetus
• Himalayacetus
• Gandakasia

Family Basilosauridae
(Late Eocene)


Basilosaurus cetoides reconstruction

• Basilosaurinae
  • Basilosaurus
  • Basiloterus
  • Eocetus
  • Platyosphys
• Dorudontinae
  • Ancalecetus
  • Chrysocetus
  • Cynthiacetus
  • Dorudon
  • Masracetus
  • Ocucajea
  • Saghacetus
  • Supayacetus
  • Zygorhiza
• Stromeriinae
  • Stromerius[1]

Family Kekenodontidae
(Oligocene)

• Kekenodon
• Phococetus

Family Pakicetidae
(Early to Middle Eocene)


Ambulocetus skeleton in front and Pakicetus behind

• Gandakasia
• Pakicetus
• Nalacetus
• Ichthyolestes

Family Protocetidae
(Eocene)


Rhodocetus kasrani reconstruction

• Georgiacetinae
  • Babiacetus
  • Carolinacetus
  • Georgiacetus
  • Natchitochia

• • Maiacetus skeleton
  • Pappocetus
  • Pontobasileus

• Makaracetinae
  • Makaracetus

• Protocetinae
  • Aegyptocetus
  • Artiocetus[2]
  • Crenatocetus
  • Dhedacetus[3]
  • Gaviacetus
  • Indocetus

• • Kutchicetus minimus reconstruction
  • Kharodacetus[3]
  • Maiacetus
  • Protocetus
  • Qaisracetus
  • Rodhocetus
  • Takracetus
  • Togocetus[4]

Family Remingtonocetidae
(Eocene)

• Andrewsiphius
• Attockicetus
• Dalanistes
• Kutchicetus
• Rayanistes[5]
• Remingtonocetus

List of extinct cetaceans - Wikipedia

There's lots more. Want to see more?

There is another way to look at it, which I heard or read somewhere:

"Thousands of paleontologists since Darwin have found no whale transitions."​

"Two paleontologists have discovered Rodhocetus,Ambulocetus, and Pakicetus."

And now you know better.
​

Which paleontologists have the most vivid imaginations?

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

When it says 1.5 million years, isn't that the "conventional" date? Right?? The sources I provided were done independent of conventional dating techniques. This is why the dating schemes sometimes receive the critique of applying "circular reasoning" - we say something is 1.5 million years old on the basis of some dating scheme, then when we find something that doesn't last a million years, we say, "oh look, I guess this DOES last longer than a million years." Research done independent of conventional dating methods shows collagen and DNA do not last a million years, so it should raise questions of how the fossils were dated and the reliability of the dating method applied.

Given the recent nature of the research, and the replicated findings of tissue by the woman with the T rex fossils, im not sure that there is a true conventional date.

This is something that people should pay attention to. Its the evolution of scientific finds and understanding. We test, we learn, we discover, we debate.

What we have are people who say that 65 million years is too long for preservation from some scientists. Other scientists saying, no, its not too long at all. Then you have others who are producing research to test these limits in various ways.

The dating methods vary with each test, as do the samples that are tested, their origins, and their locations and histories of preservation. For example, the 1.5 million year tests appear to revolve around holocene fossils. Hence the title of the article...

"Collagen survival and its use
for species identification
in Holocene-lower Pleistocene
bone fragments from
British archaeological
and paleontological sites"

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll leave it at what I've provided. The research was done by well-qualified scientists and you attempting to discredit on the basis of their faith comes as a surprise and I'm kind of disappointed.


I agree PE doesn't actually state that species abruptly appear... but rather is a response to the apparent lack of transitional forms that were once expected to be found... even by the loose standards of evolutionists. The research done on soft tissue demonstrated collagen and DNA doesn't last for even a million years (let alone 65+Ma), both of which are being found in dinosaur bones. You asked for sources, and I provided. In fairness though, if you wish to not agree with their results, that is fine.

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.

Also, regarding your sources, if they were truly well qualified scientists, their research ought to be found elsewhere beyond religion based websites. Typically young earthers say that there is a conspiracy against them, but in reality, their works are just poor. Especially those of AIG, some of their articles are just awful.

Also, you keep bringing up DNA, but i dont think there was actually any DNA in the T rex fossil.

 

[The Barbarian]

Given the recent nature of the research, and the replicated findings of tissue by the woman with the T rex fossils, im not sure that there is a true conventional date.

It should be pointed out that tissues are defined as groups of cells organized for one or more functions. So far, no one has found intact cells that old, much less tissues. What has been found are long-lived organic subtances like heme and collagen.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a piece, written by the researcher who had discovered the T rex collagen.

"There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded? How does fossilization really occur? How much can we learn about animals from preserved fragments of molecules? The sequencing work hints that analyses of this material might eventually help to sort out how extinct species are related— once we and others build up bigger libraries of ancient sequences, and sequences from living species, for comparison. As these databases expand, we may be able to compare sequences to see how members of a lineage changed at the molecular level. And by rooting these sequences in time, we might be able to better understand the rate of this evolution. Such insights will help scientists to piece together how dinosaurs and other extinct creatures responded to major environmental changes, how they recovered from catastrophic events, and ultimately what did them in."

 

[Job 33:6]

It should be pointed out that tissues are defined as groups of cells organized for one or more functions. So far, no one has found intact cells that old, much less tissues. What has been found are long-lived organic subtances like heme and collagen.

I noticed that as well, here is another quote:

"Keratin proteins are good candidates for preservation because they are abundant in vertebrates, and the composition of this protein family makes them very resistant to degradation— something that is nice to have in organs such as skin that are exposed to harsh conditions."

 

[The Barbarian]

Gould was still well aware of the many transitional fossils.

"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.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Sandstone sediments in particular seem to protect against complete loss of organic remains, possibly because the porous sands allow the corrosive fluids that form during decomposition to drain away."

"Especially deep burial may promote soft-tissue preservation because it protects against oxidation, changes in pH and temperature, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation that can occur at the surface. Eventually the animal comes into chemical equilibrium with the underground environment, which may be key to preservation."


Theres quite a bit to read about this. A good topic

 

[Job 33:6]

"our papers detailing the sequencing work, published in 2007 and 2008, generated a firestorm of controversy, most of which focused on our interpretations of the sequencing (mass spectrometry) data. Some dissenters charged that we had not produced enough sequences to make our case; others argued that the structures we interpreted as primeval soft tissues were actually biofilm—“slime” produced by microbes that had invaded the fossilized bone. There were other criticisms, too. I had mixed feelings about their feedback. On one hand, scientists are paid to be skeptical and to examine remarkable claims with rigor. On the other hand, science operates on the principle of parsimony—the simplest explanation for all the data is assumed to be the correct one. And we had supported our hypothesis with multiple lines of evidence. Still, I knew that a single gee-whiz discovery does not have any long-term meaning to science. We had to sequence proteins from other dinosaur finds. When a volunteer accompanying us on a summer expedition found bones from an 80-million-year-old plant-eating duckbill dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis, or “Brachy, ” we suspected the duckbill might be a good source of ancient proteins even before we got its bones out of the ground. Hoping that it might contain organics, we did everything we could to free it from the surrounding sandstone quickly while minimizing its exposure to the elements. Air pollutants, humidity fluctuations and the like would be very harmful to fragile molecules, and the longer the bone was exposed, the more likely contamination and degradation would occur. Perhaps because of this extra care—and prompt analyses—both the chemistry and the morphology of this second dinosaur were less altered than Brex’s. As we had hoped, we found cells embedded in a matrix of white collagen fibers in the animal’s bone. The cells exhibited long, thin, branchlike extensions that are characteristic of osteocytes, which we could trace from the cell body to where they connected to other cells. A few of them even contained what appeared to be internal structures, including possible nuclei. Furthermore, extracts of the duckbill’s bone reacted with antibodies that target collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not manufacture, refuting the suggestion that our soft-tissue structures were merely biofilms. In addition, the protein sequences we obtained from the bone most closely resembled those of modern birds, just as Brex’s did. And we sent samples of the duckbill’s bone to several different labs for independent testing, all of which confirmed our results. "

After we reported these findings in Science in 2009, I heard no complaints

 

[Job 33:6]

"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.

@NobleMouse

This one is for you.

But yea, anyone who actually examines Goulds work knows that he was well aware of transitions and recognized them as products of evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Young earthers think rodhocetus is "some form of alligator or crocodile"? Facepalm*

 

[The Barbarian]

Generally, YE creationists aren't very knowledgeable about biology, although there are significant exceptions. Most bright middle school students know the difference between mammals and alligators.

 

[Job 33:6]

You know whats interesting...you have hundreds of these mammalian proto whale like animals, but they are also...sort of like pakicetus looking whales. But not really. From a taxonomical stance, the easiest way to describe them is as, cetaceans. So you have alllll these cetacean fossils, and they are predominantyl...from this same temporal location of the geologic succession.

And here, it isnt that one is literally at a lower elevation than another, rather the succession is on its side, and the animals transition from southwest to northeast. With the lower lying land based animals being to the southwest and the marine being to the northeast. Without a single whale being found beyond the eocene.

 

[Job 33:6]

Its as if the global flood knew the shapes of the cetaceans teeth and skulls, and decided to sort these fossils based on the shape of their teeth and skulls. Without a single whale like cetacean falling before the terrestrial cetaceans.

But who would dare suggest that the flood sorted these animals based on the shape of their teeth?

And just as we are missing the proverbial cambrian rabbit, here too we are missing the proverbial...Cambrian (or more specifically, paleocene) whale.

 

[NobleMouse]

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.

"...many transitional fossils" is relative. If we say thousands of fossils clearly appear to be what is conventionally considered a transitional fossil, then "thousands" sounds like many. But if it is thousands out of billions and billions of non-transitional fossils, suddenly we understand why the hypothesis of PE exists (I say "thousands" on the basis of the following article where it is stated "At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers."):

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

Also, regarding your sources, if they were truly well qualified scientists, their research ought to be found elsewhere beyond religion based websites. Typically young earthers say that there is a conspiracy against them, but in reality, their works are just poor. Especially those of AIG, some of their articles are just awful.

This question has been asked before, and is a good question. See article:
Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

The reality is that some scientists who do publish in mainstream journals are biblical creationists and you and I may not know it (unless we have a prior knowledge they are biblical creationists otherwise) because the nature of the article does not directly deal with a topic that addresses the age of the earth, the universe, fossils, etc... As is also evidenced in the article, there is filtering that takes place whereby views that hint towards a creator and/or a young creation are deliberately not published... hence your statement, "Typically young earthers say that there is a conspiracy against them..." rings true.

Also, you keep bringing up DNA, but i dont think there was actually any DNA in the T rex fossil.

I only reference DNA as it was discussed in the AiG article: (Solid Answers on Soft Tissue)

"DNA Survival Rates. More recently, scientists analyzed the integrity of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 fossil Moa bones of various ages to determine a decay rate for mtDNA.3 Moas were giant flightless birds probably hunted to extinction several hundred years ago, last alive in New Zealand. The researchers calibrated their DNA decay rates with carbon dates taken from the same fossils.4 Accordingly, bone mtDNA could last no more than 650,000 years before it totally disintegrated.
So, even the oldest possible ages for these biochemicals keep them from lasting one million years, while showing they could last thousands of years."

The DNA was in reference to Moas, so you are correct that this was not in reference to a T Rex fossil.

 

[The Barbarian]

"...many transitional fossils" is relative. If we say thousands of fossils clearly appear to be what is conventionally considered a transitional fossil,

More like millions of them. In fact, as you saw, it's very hard to think of any two major groups that the theory connects, which do not have transitional forms. Even more important, there aren't any transitional forms where the theory says they shouldn't be. These two facts are a devastating problem for creationism, which has no explanation for them.

If creationism were right, either transitional forms would not exist at all, or would exist for all forms, even those not connected in evolutionary theory.

The reality is that some scientists who do publish in mainstream journals are biblical creationists and you and I may not know it (unless we have a prior knowledge they are biblical creationists otherwise) because the nature of the article does not directly deal with a topic that addresses the age of the earth, the universe, fossils, etc...

This is generally because they aren't biologists, and therefore can write in their own particular discipline without the cognitive dissonance that would occur if they had to write about biology. Hence engineers, physicists, mathematicians, etc. make up the bulk of creationists who have degrees in science.