Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Oh Ok sorry I didn't realize. No worries then. I look forward to the debate.

Well it's less like a debate, and more like a classroom scene. I've been working methodically through the Lines of Evidence, as presented on a site created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology, with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.*

(if you click on the link (above), you'll see I've already got quite far along. Others here are still busy with Homologies, but I'm eager to push on to Distribution of Time -- It's kinda useful, because I've got two university subjects coming up, and one I'm currently busy with - part-time though )

Hopefully when I'm settled, I'll do a degree course. Still trying to choose between Anthropology and Geology.

---
* Understanding Evolution

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hi Doveman,

Questions relating to you comment (which was in response to something which KTS stated), are piling up. (please read below your comment)

Would you please be so kind as to respond to the questions by bhmste and KTS?

The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin. A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant. The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

The statement you responded to yesterday:

KTS: The patterns of the similarities of DNA and genes between different species is best explained with evolution.

BHMSTE'S QUESTIONS:

BHMSTE 1 : What recorded history of man's origin would you be referring to?

BHMSTE 2 : And, why wouldn't objective evidence align with this recorded history, if the history is accurate?

KTS' QUESTION:

Doveman: The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin.

KTS: But it is very consistent with reality.

Doveman: A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant.

KTS: I see no evidence that a person can be resurrected as a new person and I see no evidence that evolutionary processes are irrelevant.

Doveman: The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

KTS 1: Care to provide any actual scientific evidence to support this? Something that can be checked and tested?



Thanks in advance,
lewiscalledhimmaster

 

[stevevw]

Well it's less like a debate, and more like a classroom scene. I've been working methodically through the Lines of Evidence, as presented on a site created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology, with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.*

(if you click on the link (above), you'll see I've already got quite far along. Others here are still busy with Homologies, but I'm eager to push on to Distribution of Time -- It's kinda useful, because I've got two university subjects coming up, and one I'm currently busy with - part-time though )

Hopefully when I'm settled, I'll do a degree course. Still trying to choose between Anthropology and Geology.

---
* Understanding Evolution

OK cool I will check it out. I have actually seen this website before in my research.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

OK cool I will check it out. I have actually seen this website before in my research.

Once you've caught up, you might want to read through the thread -- just to see what sort of input there has been in response to the various lines of evidence which relate to Evolution.

Right from the very first comment (which unfortunately, has been deleted - I suspect the person was 'banned' - Fancy123), there have been any number of side issues (my bad, for responding to them). The one raised by Fancy123, was the matter of how scientists regard certain words like: fact, hypothesis, law and theory -- fortunately this was laid to rest by the end of pg. 2 -- and discussions about the Lines of Evidence began.
It's been on and off, but it's been very exciting -- sometimes, I felt like just walking away -- but here I am still reading and studying.

I hope you have fun reading it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Like I said, I can't wait any longer for someone who's clearly not coming back.

So, let us forge on ahead into what I've been told by RickG ( Dating Methods & Sediments left by Noah's Flood ) is where the rubber meets the road:

DISTRIBUTION OF TIME

'Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.'

A. LINES OF EVIDENCE : DISTRIBUTION OF TIME : CHRONOLOGY

a. Relative Dating

'....By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils.'

b. Numerical Dating

'....relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine “older than X, but younger than Y” dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.'

B. LINES OF EVIDENCE : DISTRIBUTION OF TIME : GEOGRAPHY

'The distribution of living things on the globe provides information about the past histories of both living things and the surface of the Earth. This evidence is consistent not just with the evolution of life, but also with the movement of continental plates around the world-otherwise known as plate tectonics. ....'

Time to do a spot of thinking, and return when I've sussed out RickG's posts (links in my 2nd sentence above.)

Take care, and have a lovely week.

 

[God's Child]

This thread is being closed at OP's request.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[God's Child]

Mod Hat On​

This thread is being reopened at OP's request.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[[serious]]

Hey! Welcome back! Hopefully we can all continue on a little more civilly now.

 

[FredVB]

I think similarities in the physical and genetic make up of creatures in nature is to be expected if it is the case that they are designed from one Creator, and that has basis. The fossil evidence that many believe to be the strong evidence for evolution is full of gaps, though there are myriads of fossils now available to science. So evolution in between where the gaps separate populations in what is seen as geologic history is assumed.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think similarities in the physical and genetic make up of creatures in nature is to be expected if it is the case that they are designed from one Creator, and that has basis.

No one is saying that evolution is evidenced simply because two species share some similarities. We all agree that a common designer could mix and match different design units to produce new designs. In fact, a designer can mix and match these design units any which way. For example, a designer could take feathers from a bird, three middle ear bones from mammals, and a forward facing retina from squid to produce a new species.

Evolution, on the other hand, can not freely mix design units. Evolution is limited to modifying features found in ancestors. That means that if none of your ancestors were birds, then you can't have feathers. Adaptations that evolve on one branch of the tree of life can not disconnect and attach elsewhere. Evolution can only produce what is called a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. A common designer is not limited in this way.

This means that if life was created separately by a common designer that we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. There is no reason for a designer limit themselves to the pattern of similarities that evolution would produce. Therefore, if we see the pattern that we would expect from evolution, a nested hierarchy, this is evidence against design and evidence for evolution.

What do we see when we compare complex life? We see a nested hierarchy which has no reason to be there if design is true and evolution is false.

The fossil evidence that many believe to be the strong evidence for evolution is full of gaps, though there are myriads of fossils now available to science. So evolution in between where the gaps separate populations in what is seen as geologic history is assumed.

What features would a fossil need in order to fill the gap between modern humans and earlier apes?

Or is it just a matter of you rejecting any fossil, no matter what it looks like?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hey! Welcome back! Hopefully we can all continue on a little more civilly now.

You're a cat lover, right?

I remember the very first time that I plucked up enough courage to ask a really close friend, all about Evolution. Immediately he began talking about cats and dogs. Though he didn't feel comfortable with the idea of Macro Evolution, he seems to be less concerned about it now.
There's a lot I'm still not comfortable with, but this thread is really helping me come to grips with the theory of Evolution.

I'll be watching from a distance, but still glad that you've decided to continue to participate.

Thank you.

 

[Doveaman]

Hi Doveman,

Questions relating to you comment (which was in response to something which KTS stated), are piling up. (please read below your comment)

Would you please be so kind as to respond to the questions by bhmste and KTS?



The statement you responded to yesterday:

KTS: The patterns of the similarities of DNA and genes between different species is best explained with evolution.

BHMSTE'S QUESTIONS:

BHMSTE 1 : What recorded history of man's origin would you be referring to?

BHMSTE 2 : And, why wouldn't objective evidence align with this recorded history, if the history is accurate?

KTS' QUESTION:

Doveman: The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin.

KTS: But it is very consistent with reality.

Doveman: A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant.

KTS: I see no evidence that a person can be resurrected as a new person and I see no evidence that evolutionary processes are irrelevant.

Doveman: The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

KTS 1: Care to provide any actual scientific evidence to support this? Something that can be checked and tested?

That humans and apes share similar DNA is the evidence.

Prehistoric humans and apes were recreated (resurrected) from the DNA of a prehistoric creature.

Evolution theory says descent with modification.

Re-Creation theory says resurrection with modification.

Two different theories, same evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That humans and apes share similar DNA is the evidence.

That human and ape genomes fall into a phylogeny is the evidence.

Prehistoric humans and apes were recreated (resurrected) from the DNA of a prehistoric creature.

Why would this produce results that are indistinguishable from the process of evolution?

 

[TLK Valentine]

That humans and apes share similar DNA is the evidence.

Prehistoric humans and apes were recreated (resurrected) from the DNA of a prehistoric creature.

Evolution theory says descent with modification.

Re-Creation theory says resurrection with modification.

Resurrected how? A mechanism would be appreiciated.

Two different theories, same evidence.

Nine months ago, Bob and Sally were childless; now they have a baby. The baby is the evidence.

One theory says they had sexual intercourse and she got pregnant.

Another theory says a stork delivered the baby.

Two different theories, same evidence.

 

[Kylie]

That humans and apes share similar DNA is the evidence.

Prehistoric humans and apes were recreated (resurrected) from the DNA of a prehistoric creature.

Evolution theory says descent with modification.

Re-Creation theory says resurrection with modification.

Two different theories, same evidence.

Except you said that the evidence was BETTER explained by recreation instead of evolution, and I asked you to provide science to support this. You have not done so, you've just repeated your claim and said that the same evidence supports both.

 

[[serious]]

Every time Dove mentions recreation, all i think of is the preexisting word:
RECREATION: refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion

 

[Kylie]

Every time Dove mentions recreation, all i think of is the preexisting word:
RECREATION: refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion

Given that he is talking about creating life, I think of procreation (which I do recreationally )

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Every time Dove mentions recreation, all i think of is the preexisting word:
RECREATION: refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion

(my bold)

Being that his faith icon is 'Christian', it might also be true that there is more to it than that, or is it 'this than that'?

Knowing a little about this pathway* I'd venture to say that he's referring to the discovery of self to self.

---
* Jesus said, 'I am the resurrection and the life...."

 

[Gracchus]

Every time Dove mentions recreation, all i think of is the preexisting word:
RECREATION: refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion

What a difference a hyphen makes: recreation, re-creation.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing at all. The different species of fruit flies can no longer breed with one another, which is precisely what makes them different species.

Now, before someone says "But they're still flies! Call me when they turn into dogs or cats!" the point is that they're still the same genus, just different species. We'd have to go a lot further back to see where they split from one genus to another... and further still to see.... well, you get the idea.

But aren't you taking this process that occurs within a species and then expanding on it into places where is shouldn't go. What is happening within the fly genus has all the info within the gnome of those flies. The genetics are either deleting or recombining to create new combinations that can make changes to the flies ability to grow bigger, change colour and even have a new feature or ability. But its still a fly with a new ability and doesn't change into a frog or lizard. Where is the evidence for this.