Lines of Evidence

[bhsmte]

The Earth is old. I really cannot fathom how much you have to torture you mind not to get that.

The reality is though, the torture they would endure to admit the earth is old, is even greater.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.

I remember reading Glenn Morton's story, and it was very hard for him. ( Why I left Young Earth Creationism ) He still posts to his blog.

 

[RickG]

I remember reading Glenn Morton's story, and it was very hard for him. ( Why I left Young Earth Creationism ) He still posts to his blog.

The odd thing about Glenn Morton is that he was able to see through misrepresentations of geology, but as far as I know, he still denies climate change in his blog.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The odd thing about Glenn Morton is that he was able to see through misrepresentations of geology, but as far as I know, he still denies climate change in his blog.

I hope he writes a book about it, for his story should not be hidden. Obviously there are many others out there, who are writing about their own experiences ( Giberson, Miller, etc. )
I remember following his conversations on the net, but most of that is gone now. He was a man in transition, as a lot of us are.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.

So, let's chat.

Moving On: HOMOLOGIES:

'Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. ....'

(more to follow, in the next post)

In the meantime, here's a little something to feed your inquiring minds:
Why Darwin Still Matters : Demonizing Darwin by Dr. Eugenie Scott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cF3BIPRaPQ

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.

So, let's chat.

Moving on:

Lines of Evidence : Homologies : Anatomy (Part 1)

'....People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs.
On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides. ....'


----


Additional reading: (back on the topic of the Fossil Record : Transitional Fossils @ CHARLES DARWIN & EVOLUTION





'....Anthropologists disagree with the exact relatedness of all these species, they certainly don’t form a straight line. Instead, there a lots of branches of related species; one of which eventually led to us. Other branches show that hominin evolution went down different routes. For example some species from the hominin genus Paranthropus were a lot stockier than other humans and the males were often a lot larger than the females, a bit like gorillas. Recently a new skeleton was found in Flores, Indonesia. It dates back to about 18,000 years ago so our own species was around already. The skeleton is very small suggesting an adult body size of about 20kg: a real life hobbit! Some scientists think this skeleton is a new species, they call it Homo floresiensis, others though think it’s a diseased Homo sapiens....'*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc6M11rNTV4



---
* Charles Darwin & Evolution


Are you interested in studying Biological Anthropology? Division of Biological Anthropology

 

[Zosimus]

I would accept that postulate. Math is based on a well defined set of postulates that I accept. That one starts getting a little fuzzy. As a general rule, I accept the postulate, but at high energy or small scales, we can only really describe things as probabilities. What caused a vase to fall works, what caused a thorium atom to spontaneously decay at a given moment, not so much.

No, he stated a postulate, as I've already pointed out.

I'll ask again:
Is it more productive to debate with evidence or without?

You are missing the point and misrepresenting my argument. The claim is normally thrown about by those who do not wish to provide evidence of their own. In reality, both sides should provide evidence of some sort. Any side that just says, "Unless you can prove (to my satisfaction) that your position is right, I reject it completely."

So I never said that arguments should proceed without evidence. Rather it is those who employ Hawkins' Razor who claim that they can dispense with evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

Whatever -- are you going to answer the question?

I smell religion.

I believe I already have. However, it's been so long since I saw the question that I've forgotten what it was.

 

[Zosimus]

That's all folks!

I'm glad you brought this up because someone closed the "Evolution According to Zosimus" thread (completely without consulting me, of course... the nerve of some people...)

At any rate, I'll say it again.

Speciation is not known to occur.

Against this some people will say, "No, we've observed speciation."

Have you? How can you know that animal X is a different species from animal Y? There is no reliable, objective test that can be administered to determine whether the two animals belong to different species. Accordingly, you cannot say that the two animals are of different species.

Accordingly, any claim that speciation has occurred should be met with agnostic skepticism.

 

[Zosimus]

Put this one in your pipe ans smoke it. If evolution were false, we would find fossils of a flora and fauna in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is we don't. That is not an assertion nor an assumption, rather an observed verifiable fact.

Let me see whether I understand your logic.

If the frequency of alleles did not change from generation to generation, then we would observe that one specific flora or fauna occurred in all layers of geological strata?

Sorry, I don't see how one implies the other.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The Earth is old. I really cannot fathom how much you have to torture you mind not to get that.

The reality is though, the torture they would endure to admit the earth is old, is even greater.

True. It makes one appreciate what a tough journey it must be for those who escape creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded. Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.

I could give you the webpage of evidence but it's a "biased" source.

Jack, both sides are biased, one biased with factual evidence and one biased with misrepresentations of that evidence. Let's discuss one of the bias's.

1st - Mount St. Helens has nothing to do with evolution.

2nd - The mud debris with both upright, angled and flat debris was a localized event and in no way related to anything occurring on a global scale.

3rd - The canyon formed by the Mount St. Helens "Lahar" does not resemble the Grand Canyon in the slightest. Furthermore, the small said canyon grew to a larger size because it was unconsolidated earth that was washed away, not solid rock.

This is a good example of how the creationists claim that the evidence is the same for both sides, but both sides are just biased by different "world views" or assumptions is bunk. The Mount St. Helen's eruption did NOT produce anything like the Grand Canyon, yet creationists have repeatedly presented it as an example of how a structure like the Grand Canyon can form very quickly from a catastrophic event.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Mount St. Helen's eruption did NOT produce anything like the Grand Canyon, yet creationists have repeatedly presented it as an example of how a structure like the Grand Canyon can form very quickly from a catastrophic event.

I have pictures from when I WAS THERE.
Yes it did do as they say.

But lets check it today. This picture is the spot I stood, but the
erosion has removed the dramatic trench that used to be there.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mt+St+Helens,+Gifford+Pinchot+National+Forest,+Washington+98616/@46.216243,-122.1870641,3a,75y/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s-Yd-oBlg1DDU%2FTBVK9xvnCzI%2FAAAAAAAADuk%2FQCFhA2p0uu8!2e4!3e15!4m2!3m1!1s0x54969956568a2691:0x69ddb4f4b6cf94c7!5m1!1e4


But you can still see some of what was like a scale model of the grand canyon below.

 

[[serious]]

You are missing the point and misrepresenting my argument. The claim is normally thrown about by those who do not wish to provide evidence of their own. In reality, both sides should provide evidence of some sort.

If all parties agree that arguments require evidence, then it sounds a lot like arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Any side that just says, "Unless you can prove (to my satisfaction) that your position is right, I reject it completely."

I would agree that neither side should do that, but that isn't what the concept forwards. If we wanted to put a corollary in for insufficient evidence, I'd imagine it would read something like, "That which can be asserted with weak evidence can be rejected with stronger evidence"

So I never said that arguments should proceed without evidence. Rather it is those who employ Hawkins' Razor who claim that they can dispense with evidence.

Only in cases where no evidence to support the original claim was provided.

Let's try an example.

Let's say I claim that the world was created by pixie dust last Thursday. If i provide no evidence for that, I assume we both agree that you can simply reject the notion without having to provide evidence.

Now, let's say I provide evidence in the form of a purported pixie day planner with the entry "create world with pixie dust" dated last Thursday.

Now, that's evidence, but I imagine it would not be compelling evidence. We would probably agree that leftovers in your fridge dated last Wednesday would be at least equal evidence establishing a world older than Thursday.

Alternatively, you could challenge one of those claims inherent in the new evidence I presented. I, in presenting my defense, made an explicit claim that that day planner belonged to the pixie that created the world and that the world creation proceeded as planned last Thursday. If you don't accept that pixies exist, you could then move on to that subordinate argument and reject that postulate until evidence for the existence of pixies is provided. The debate would continue in the vein until we reach either shared premises from which we can work, or until we've realized we are operating with irreconcilable premises, such as my earlier hypothetical about someone who rejects direct observation as being generally reflective of reality.

 

[[serious]]

I'm glad you brought this up because someone closed the "Evolution According to Zosimus" thread (completely without consulting me, of course... the nerve of some people...)

At any rate, I'll say it again.

Speciation is not known to occur.

Against this some people will say, "No, we've observed speciation."

Have you? How can you know that animal X is a different species from animal Y?

We could attempt to cross breed them. Since species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, establishing that they can or can't interbreed would be a pretty definitive test of whether they are the same species

There is no reliable, objective test that can be administered to determine whether the two animals belong to different species. Accordingly, you cannot say that the two animals are of different species.

I just gave you a test.

Accordingly, any claim that speciation has occurred should be met with agnostic skepticism.

Unless some such test can be devised, such as the test specified above. Then we could look at examples of speciation and test them.

We could start with the examples I previously identified:

It's actually been extensively observed in plants, both in the wild and through breeding. I can give you lists on lists of plant examples of speciation. Bacteria, due to being asexual, have a different meaning of species, so we'll set them aside.

So let's move on to animals. We've got bunches of examples there as well. Several fruit fly experiments, house flies, parasitic worms, and lots of others.

But let's shift the goal posts some. Let's say that plants don't count, and lab results don't count, and even demand a vertebrate example. Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.

More shifting! show us a land animal! Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.

No! a mammal! Faeroe Island house mouse has us covered. They were introduced to the island about 250 years ago and have since become a separate species.

There are lots more examples likely to arise in the future. Want a bigger animal? The domesticated silver fox is being bred and if it continues to be strictly reproductively isolated, will eventually lose the ability to reproduce with it's ancestral population. We also have bunches of ring species that are just a die off of connecting populations away from new species status.

 

[Split Rock]

I have pictures from when I WAS THERE.
Yes it did do as they say.

But lets check it today. This picture is the spot I stood, but the
erosion has removed the dramatic trench that used to be there.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mt+St+Helens,+Gifford+Pinchot+National+Forest,+Washington+98616/@46.216243,-122.1870641,3a,75y/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s-Yd-oBlg1DDU%2FTBVK9xvnCzI%2FAAAAAAAADuk%2FQCFhA2p0uu8!2e4!3e15!4m2!3m1!1s0x54969956568a2691:0x69ddb4f4b6cf94c7!5m1!1e4


But you can still see some of what was like a scale model of the grand canyon below.

IT IS NOT MADE OF ROCK.

IT IS MADE OF MUD.

The Grand Canyon is made of Sandstone, Limestone and Shale.

They are not anywhere near the same and more importantly the features of the canyon cannot be created by the same processes as formed the "Lahar" at St. Helen's.

 

[SkyWriting]

IT IS NOT MADE OF ROCK.

IT IS MADE OF MUD.

The Grand Canyon is made of Sandstone, Limestone and Shale.

They are not anywhere near the same and more importantly the features
of the canyon cannot be created by the same processes as formed the "Lahar" at St. Helen's.

The same type of erosion features were formed
in mud (not rock)
just as Creationist groups claim:

"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "

Having been to both, the erosion features look the same in mud, as the rock formations in the grand canyon.
Some geologists have proposed that the grand Canyon was cut in weeks due the draining of an inland sea.

 

[Loudmouth]

They were formed
in mud
just as they claim:

"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "

The walls of the Grand Canyon are hundreds of feet of vertical rock. Your Mt. St. Helens example is 30 feet of slumped mud. They are not comparable.

 

[RickG]

They were formed
in mud
just as they claim:

"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "

I'm a bit confused and I think Split Rock may be as well. When you say "they", who are the "they", mainstream geologists or creation geologists?

 

[EternalDragon]

True. It makes one appreciate what a tough journey it must be for those who escape creationism.

The earth has to be old. A young earth wouldn't support life, a
young sun or a young universe wouldn't support life. A young Adam
and Eve would not survive without parents. Young animals would not
survive and a young eco system would not support that newly created
life.

Everything had to be "very good" to support life.