Macroevolution:

[Astrophile]

I'm asking if it was a "fact," per this post:

It is a fact that in 2004 Pluto was classified as the 9th planet. (I suppose that is also a fact that in 1810 Ceres was classified as the 8th planet.) However, there is always something arbitrary about names and classifications. There aren't sharp dividing lines in nature, so there isn't a clear-cut division between a real planet and a dwarf planet; scientists have simply chosen to call Pluto and other bodies like it dwarf planets. Arguing about whether Pluto was really the 9th planet in 2004 seems to me to be disputing over words rather than substance. Pluto itself hasn't changed; it is only its classification that has changed.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't explain why we get strong evidence for progressive stepwise evolution and speciation.

I will though:

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

See gorilla here?
See human there?
See bonobo there?
See chimpanzee there?
See orangutan there?

Put all five side-by-side, then draw lines connecting them.

Then put dots around and connect them to the five, claiming "common ancestors."

Voila! evolution explained!

I love this video. It shows evolution to be nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pluto itself hasn't changed; it is only its classification that has changed.

Then I submit "facts" can be misleading.

 

[PsychoSarah]

not always. many fossil doesnt contain any DNA. and scientists still claiming for convergent evolution base on morphology.

I said genetics AND body structure are used to determine convergent evolution. Morphology is body structure. I did not say that both were always used; if circumstances demand that DNA cannot be utilized, then people have to make due with what they can use.

even if they had they still cant evolve naturally.

You don't think anything can evolve naturally, so why bring up cars and jets, items which no one is claiming evolve naturally? There's no reason to even think that a biological organism would have a structure similar to a car because the properties of flesh and metal are entirely different. That's why I told you that the closest thing to a "living watch" that could develop is an organism with an exceptional sense of time and not a literal watch with gears of bone, etc.

exactly like those tetrapod tracks:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ack-the-invasion-of-land-by-18-million-years/

-_- that's still falling between fish and amphibians. A tetrapod older than the oldest fish fossil is what would break a cladogram. Consider the numbers 0 and 10, representing the first fish and the first amphibian, respectively. Now, let's say prior to the discovery of the fossil tracks you mention, the earliest tetrapod was represented by the number 5. Now it's represented by the number 3 instead, to related to it existing at an earlier date, but still after the first fish and before the first amphibian. All relevant transitionals from fish to amphibian MUST exist between the time frames of the first fish and the first amphibian. Any hypothetically found that predate the first fish would break the connective lineage between those groups. Any that are newer than the first amphibian are a part of branching lineage that branched off somewhere in between the first fish and the first amphibian.

So, tetrapod evolution can be pushed back some without breaking lineage order. But there is a clearly defined limit. Which your source's fossil doesn't violate.

as i said above: it doesnt matter because even if we have found a self replicating car with dna it will not prove any evolution.

Living cells have nothing to do with cars, so relevance?

 

[stevil]

I will though:

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

See gorilla here?
See human there?
See bonobo there?
See chimpanzee there?
See orangutan there?

Put all five side-by-side, then draw lines connecting them.

Then put dots around and connect them to the five, claiming "common ancestors."

Voila! evolution explained!

I love this video. It shows evolution to be nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

That's a very high level explanation, with a trusted professor showing us, visually, a branch which highlights 1. that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees rather than us being descended from chimpanzees and 2. showing that our common ancestor with chimpanzees is more recent than our common ancestor with gorillas and then more recent than our ancestry with orangatangs.

The actual evidence is much more detailed and is quite substantial.

What is your understanding with regards to the spread of humans across the globe?
I assume you think we are all related (as per adam and eve?). Do you agree that we came from Africa and then spread across the globe from there?
Have you seen the genetic evidence for this?
They can trace certain genetic markers, and find out when certain markers first appeared and then propogated to people residing in various areas. These show a migrationary progression as humans spread across the globe.

The same approach can be used to show a migration through time as well as divergence of species and even convergenge again.
Us humans can a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and then our ancestory diverged a bit and at some later point we met up and intermingled again. That is what they infer from the genetic evidence that they find in humans and chimpanzees.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your understanding with regards to the spread of humans across the globe?

It's very simple:

• Negroids from Ham
• Mongoloids from Shem
• Caucasoids from Japheth

I assume you think we are all related (as per adam and eve?).

Yes.

Do you agree that we came from Africa and then spread across the globe from there?

No.

There was a bottleneck event that occurred in 2348 BC: a worldwide flood.

From then, we came from Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

 

[stevil]

There was a bottleneck event that occurred in 2348 BC: a worldwide flood.

From then, we came from Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Well, OK.

I have a personal question for you. Not as an arguing point, but just to understand you a bit better.
Do you think, as a tax payer, that your government should invest money in such endeavour, like DNA sequencing and research regarding gaining a scientific understanding as to the history of humans and other animals?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think, as a tax payer, that your government should invest money in such endeavour, like DNA sequencing and research regarding gaining a scientific understanding as to the history of humans and other animals?

That's a tough question.

I don't know enough about DNA sequencing to make a judgement call.

If it means anything, my ophthalmologist, who has a successful practice, is a YEC.

 

[Kylie]

That's a tough question.

I don't know enough about DNA sequencing to make a judgement call.

If it means anything, my ophthalmologist, who has a successful practice, is a YEC.

That doesn't sound like you, AV. Didn't you once say:

"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."​

Unfortunately that thread no longer exists, but your quote has been immortalized on the net for all time.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't sound like you, AV. Didn't you once say:

"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."​

I did indeed: and I stand behind that quote 100%.

But that quote wouldn't answer his question about how I feel about the government supporting DNA sequencing with my taxes.

Unfortunately that thread no longer exists, but your quote has been immortalized on the net for all time.

The quote is a good one.

It basically points out that one doesn't have to know anything about A, if one believes -A to be true.

I know very little about Mormonism , but I know enough to stay away from it.

 

[lesliedellow]

It basically points out that one doesn't have to know anything about A, if one believes -A to be true.

One needs to know something about A if he wants to give a rational reason for his belief that ~A is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

One needs to know something about A if he wants to give a rational reason for his belief that ~A is true.

What if he wants to give a theological reason instead?

 

[lesliedellow]

What if he wants to give a theological reason instead?

Then one still needs to show that B is more plausible than A, which one cannot do without a knowledge of A.

Without a knowledge of A, one is only likely to produce one of the many strawmen that creationists regularly put forward, and which rightly receive the contemptuous dismissal they so richly deserve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then one still needs to show that B is more plausible than A,

I disagree.

I ≠ O

And if I believe in I, then I don't need to know anything about O.

This is demonstrated so many times by evolutionists here.

They stick to evolution like protein to DNA, yet can't even recognize the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

If you can even get one to discuss creationism, he wants to discuss everything but the creation week.

 

[stevil]

I disagree.

I ≠ O

And if I believe in I, then I don't need to know anything about O.

This is demonstrated so many times by evolutionists here.

They stick to evolution like protein to DNA, yet can't even recognize the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

If you can even get one to discuss creationism, he wants to discuss everything but the creation week.

It seems to me you have a very literal understanding of the bible. It becomes almost a book of everything, including science and human history etc. I'm assuming you are a YEC and consider the whole universe to be < 10,000 years old????

I kinda respect that to some degree because I understand the difficulties in taking the position that some phrases are to be taken literal and some are to be taken as poetic or allegorical. It sounds like cherry picking doesn't it?

But on the other hand I understand enough about the empirical evidence at hand to know that a young earth is preposterous and that Evolution is built upon masses of observable evidence, evidence that comes from many different directions.

It would be fruitless for me to try and "educate" you as to the evidences because as you rightly point out science conclusions can and have been (in many circumstances) proven incorrect. Your own theology has no falsifiable criteria so cannot be proven incorrect (and so has never yet been proven to be wrong - ever). Your theology does not stand atop of empirical evidence, so the fact that your theology conflicts demonstrably and drastically with the observed evidence does not invalidate your theology.
Of course people who respect the physical evidence and respect the field of science, probably think you are nuts . But you are not alone, and I find it interesting to try and understand your mind (in a respectful way).

 

[xianghua]

That would only be true if they are homologous. Are they?

if they were not then why the paper conclude it may be the result of convergent loss?

so or so: there is no nested hierarchy here.

Depends on the self replicating camera. When those self replicating cameras fall into a nested hierarchy, it would indicate shared ancestry and evolution.

so a self replicating camera can evolve naturally? ok.

 

[xianghua]

Cephalopod eye - Wikipedia
The structures of the Cephalopod eye are different to the vertebrate eye.
It seems there was a debate as to whether this occured as to parallel evolution or convergent evolution, but due to the evidence the convergent evolution explaination won out.

again: where is the evidence that the eye can evolve by evolution?

I think evidence for design would be if you found a designer, or if you found design plans, especially if you found various design plans for the same structure

so if you will find only a watch on another f ar planet you cant conclude design by looking at the watch?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm assuming you are a YEC and consider the whole universe to be < 10,000 years old????

You're close.

I'm an Embedded Age creationist, with Embedded Age being defined as: maturity without history.

I believe the universe was created as old as it is, but only 6020 years ago, in 4004 BC.

If the earth is 4.7 billion years old, then fine.

But it has only been in existence for 6020.

Thus the earth is 4.7 billion years old physically; but only 6020 years old existentially.

 

[xianghua]

. That's why I told you that the closest thing to a "living watch" that could develop is an organism with an exceptional sense of time and not a literal watch with gears of bone, etc.

but we do find gears in nature:

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

so nature is unexpected.

-_- that's still falling between fish and amphibians.

but it predate the first fishpod. so it indeed break the hierarchy. like my jet example.

Consider the numbers 0 and 10, representing the first fish and the first amphibian, respectively. Now, let's say prior to the discovery of the fossil tracks you mention, the earliest tetrapod was represented by the number 5. Now it's represented by the number 3 instead,

by the same logic: if human evolve from a rat-like ancestor ( lets call it 0) about 70my ago, then even a 50 my fossil of human will make no problem for evolution. and we can stiil claim that human evolve from an ape-like ancestor even that the first ape (lets say about 30 my)appeared after the first human.

 

[stevil]

Thus the earth is 4.7 billion years old physically; but only 6020 years old existentially.

Now I'm thoroughly confused?
Are you meaning that humans only came to be on Earth 6020 years ago?