proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

Okay I wouldn't want to give you any lengthy response you were not asking for.

Let me just ask a couple of questions if you please. At the moons current drift rate of 1.5 inches a year that means that it was only about 750 feet closer around 6000 years ago. How much closer at the same rate of drift was it during the assumed life time of T-Rex?

As the earth's current magnetic field is known to have decreased by over 7% since 1835, giving it a half life of 1400 years, how strong would that make the magnetic field around the time of T-Rex? (note: I am not talking about the polar shift, but rather the overall strength of the field)

I have many more I'll save, but one final thought... if you were exploring a sunken ship and found a chest of old coins dating from the oldest being 1762 to the youngest being 1945, then what is earliest possible date the ship could have sank?

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest avoiding creationist sources, have you actually fact checked these claims using legitimate scientific sources?

Did you know that for the last couple of years we’ve been measuring the magnetic field with satellites? It’s increased over Asia by 2%, do you know why?

As for your ship example, no one with a modicum of sense would use coins to figure out when it sunk.

 

[kwame1]

All you did was make allusions to the fact that there was a time when we survived with less knowledge than we have now. Which is true, but unless you're actively advocating for stopping the quest for knowledge to improve our technology, society and general well-being, you really don't have a point.



And yet evolution (inc. phylogenetics which is the study of evolutionary relationships) is an applied science within those very fields, particularly with respect to modern genomics.



You won't find any evidence of a "common design" scientific model in any medical research.

oh so you think the ancient times had no knowledge..?they were even advance more than we are..they stated every thing,every scientific method and we are just feeding from their works...
you think you came from a dying star, right I GUESS the dying star is very Genius to contain all the information to design every species in the universe. the dying star made the sun and made it stand still so the earth and moon will revolve and all that.....Wow the star is GOD ....evolution was assumption not fact.....I have a question Why dont humans evolve anymore.

 

[Jimmy D]

How do you call the dramatic differences between the bone structure of Eohippus and Oligohippus (the next step in the so called chain) a finely graduated chain? Where are the stages showing the development of those new bone structures? They just suddenly appear in one step. What does the term "finely graduated" mean to you exactly? Again why do most honest paleontologists admit that no such finely graduated chains exist?

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

In what way are these changes “dramatic”? Can you point them out? If you don’t like the term “finely graduated” I’ll drop it, no problem, I’m not getting hung up on semantics. If you’re asserting that honest palaeontologists are suggesting that this sequence is not entirely convincing I’d like a citation please....

It’s not the impression I’m getting.

"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation."

Evolutionary Biology, D. J. Futuyma, Sinauer Associates 1986, p.409

"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden 1988, p. 131)

"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Evander 1989, p. 125)

"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)

All that aside, I know that you will reject any evidence for evolution out of hand, that’s up to you, I actually asked for your explanation, not your objections. How do you explain all these similar fossils which appear to become more and more like the modern horse chronologically according to the strata we find them in? Can’t you answer?

 

[kwame1]

E

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest avoiding creationist sources, have you actually fact checked these claims using legitimate scientific sources?

Did you know that for the last couple of years we’ve been measuring the magnetic field with satellites? It’s increased over Asia by 2%, do you know why?

As for your ship example, no one with a modicum of sense would use coins to figure out when it sunk.

Even our Brains God made it so no wonder we are soo intelligent that we want to disprove that someone is behind this magnificent universe...but we cant survive outside this our globe...
i know you will say water evolve from the dying star as well....

 

[kwame1]

why i

Conceptually speaking, it's a wee bit more complicated than you seem to be suggesting. Nothing just "sprang" into existence. And one of the biggest conceptual hurdles is the length of time involved and concept of existence itself, which quite frankly is impossible for the human to properly conceive.

why is it impossible haven't you reached the peak of evolution yet?

 

[kwame1]

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

In what way are these changes “dramatic”? Can you point them out? If you don’t like the term “finely graduated” I’ll drop it, no problem, I’m not getting hung up on semantics. If you’re asserting that honest palaeontologists are suggesting that this sequence is not entirely convincing I’d like a citation please....

It’s not the impression I’m getting.

"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation."

Evolutionary Biology, D. J. Futuyma, Sinauer Associates 1986, p.409

"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden 1988, p. 131)

"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Evander 1989, p. 125)

"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)

All that aside, I know that you will reject any evidence for evolution out of hand, that’s up to you, I actually asked for your explanation, not your objections. How do you explain all these similar fossils which appear to become more and more like the modern horse chronologically according to the strata we find them in? Can’t you answer?

oneday the next generation will find fossils of extinct lions...they will write books proving lions evolved from tigers.

 

[BradB]

Neither the contents of paragraph 5, nor any of the text in the first six pages relate to the discussion of horse evolution prior to publication of On the Origin of Species. i.e. your link does not support your assertion. I think you are misreading paragraph 5, though I am at a loss to see how.

After going back and re-reading the article I linked to, I see that I indeed had misread it. Thank you for pointing this out. My sincere apology to everyone in this regard and especially to Jimmy.

 

[BradB]

Preach on, brother, preach on!

I SHALL CAST OUT THAT FOWL DEF AND DUMB SPIRIT HALLAHLUYAH! Just kidding.

In all earnest though, when Jesus said "Go into all the world a preach the gospel" I don't think the word carried the same connotation it does today. Today we think of "preaching" as strictly the emotional proclamation of something religious in nature. But at the time it simply meant to publically proclaim or teach a truth requiring a course of action. Jesus was simply telling us to go everywhere and teach His truth which requires the hearers to take action. In Isaiah 1:18 God tells sinners "Come and let us reason together." He wants to discuss our human condition of sin with reason or understanding. In Romans 1:20 we are called to come to an understanding of God's existence through an examination of the physical scientific evidence of creation. In 1 Peter 3:15 God calls Christians to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. Again this call isn't for some sort of hyper emotional pep talk like we see in most churches today, but rather it is a call to reason with people and their understanding. It's a call to proclaim or teach publically the truth of Jesus Christ in a reasonable way that requires those who hear it to take a course of action. God even tells us we cannot truly have faith that pleases Him without first coming to an understanding that He exists, and that He will reward those who earnestly seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

By that definition... yes I am preaching my brother. Those who resort to only "preaching" in a way that just tugs on emotional strings, are copping out so they don't have to actually "study to show themselves approved. They are also condemning their converts to walk away after the pep rally is over and wonder if they really have the truth? This causes the state we classically call back sliding which is false because they never truly believed to begin with. They were just "trying something." I've even seen bumper stickers that say "TRY JESUS," like one would try on a shoe to see if it fits. Yet Jesus commended the one who takes time to really count the cost. To really examine the facts and see if he has what it takes to truly commit.

Blessings to you friend.

 

[BradB]

Right, they can form in various ways, ergo, not evidence of a global flood. In fact, if you are basing your claims of a flood on the biblical account I’ll go further and say that these fossils are evidence against it, such violent flood waters erode trace fossils.

I agree that areas where water is moving it would destroy them. We have no idea what exactly the conditions were like during this event. Did the water just come washing over every land continent? Did it just rise slowly covering some? Did it come up and go down several times before finally engulfing everything? We don't know. We can only imagine what it might have been like by some of the clues given us in its description. Several scenarios would allow for large locations to be covered with a sediment layer tracks to be laid down and then covered again and again, before everything settled. Have you ever studied the strata laid down by the eruption of Mount St. Helens? The layers look remarkably similar to those we see elsewhere and traditionally consider to be separated by vast amounts of time. Yet these layers were laid down in only a few short hours. The text says that the water came from two sources. First it came heavily down from the sky and second it came from great fountains of the deep which burst forth.

 

[BradB]

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest avoiding creationist sources, have you actually fact checked these claims using legitimate scientific sources?

Did you know that for the last couple of years we’ve been measuring the magnetic field with satellites? It’s increased over Asia by 2%, do you know why?

As for your ship example, no one with a modicum of sense would use coins to figure out when it sunk.

Again I am not talking about polar shift. I am talking about over all field strength. And I realize that determining when a ship sank is much more complex than just looking in a chest of coins. The obvious point however that you seem to have attempted to side step is that we know that the youngest coin found in the chest dictates that the ship could not have gone down prior to that date. Likewise it doesn't matter how old some dating methods appear to make the earth. If there are any conditions which exist that make it impossible to be that old then they dictate the age.

 

[USincognito]

Have you ever studied the strata laid down by the eruption of Mount St. Helens? The layers look remarkably similar to those we see elsewhere and traditionally consider to be separated by vast amounts of time.

No they don't. Well, they do look like ash and mud layers (because that's what they are), but in no way do they resemble limestone, shale, sandstone, marble, granite, etc.

 

[pitabread]

Have you ever studied the strata laid down by the eruption of Mount St. Helens? The layers look remarkably similar to those we see elsewhere and traditionally consider to be separated by vast amounts of time. Yet these layers were laid down in only a few short hours.

The Mount St. Helens 'canyon' layers are only superficially similar to other stratigraphic layers. The underlying composition of those layers (volcanic ash and mud) is considerably different from other stratigraphic layers made up of different materials (e.g. limestone, sandstone, etc).

 

[Ophiolite]

After going back and re-reading the article I linked to, I see that I indeed had misread it. Thank you for pointing this out. My sincere apology to everyone in this regard and especially to Jimmy.

Thank you. The passage does juxtapose two different periods so that a quick read can be misleading.

 

[pitabread]

If there are any conditions which exist that make it impossible to be that old then they dictate the age.

Conversely, what about conditions that make it impossible to be too young?

For example, the ICR's own RATE project concluded that they have to account for hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity. By any reasonable conclusion, this would point to a planet a lot older than 6000 years.

 

[BradB]

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

In what way are these changes “dramatic”? Can you point them out? If you don’t like the term “finely graduated” I’ll drop it, no problem, I’m not getting hung up on semantics. If you’re asserting that honest palaeontologists are suggesting that this sequence is not entirely convincing I’d like a citation please....

I'm "citing" myself here. I said from the beginning that if you want to convince ME from the fossils that evolution aka universal common descent happened, then I would need to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain between two major forms. I am no paleontologist and am all together untrained in this field and even I can count ribs. Unless you are saying some mutation happened that brought about the change all at once then this doesn't convince me. I can see very clear similarities also and am not blind to them. The problem that I have been asserting all along is similarity can be explained by having a common creator. So to convince me otherwise I need a FINELY graduated chain. Not one of every single generation, but just showing the gradual progressions leading to the next stage.

 

[BradB]

No they don't. Well, they do look like ash and mud layers (because that's what they are), but in no way do they resemble limestone, shale, sandstone, marble, granite, etc.

 

[BradB]

The Mount St. Helens 'canyon' layers are only superficially similar to other stratigraphic layers. The underlying composition of those layers (volcanic ash and mud) is considerably different from other stratigraphic layers made up of different materials (e.g. limestone, sandstone, etc).

Funny story about that. I have geologist friend who I recall telling about the time he sent off core samples taken from the site and according to him geologists who were unaware of where they were taken from thought differently. If you are interested I will text my friend and see if I can find out the specific details.

 

[Jimmy D]

After going back and re-reading the article I linked to, I see that I indeed had misread it. Thank you for pointing this out. My sincere apology to everyone in this regard and especially to Jimmy.

Don’t mention it, we’ve all done it mate.

 

[BradB]

Conversely, what about conditions that make it impossible to be too young?

For example, the ICR's own RATE project concluded that they have to account for hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity. By any reasonable conclusion, this would point to a planet a lot older than 6000 years.

Very good point. I suppose that in theory you could not have a condition exist where one said it was impossible to be young and the other said it was impossible to be old at the same time. One would have to conclude that one or the other measurements and or conclusions were incorrect.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm "citing" myself here. I said from the beginning that if you want to convince ME from the fossils that evolution aka universal common descent happened, then I would need to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain between two major forms. I am no paleontologist and am all together untrained in this field and even I can count ribs. Unless you are saying some mutation happened that brought about the change all at once then this doesn't convince me. I can see very clear similarities also and am not blind to them. The problem that I have been asserting all along is similarity can be explained by having a common creator. So to convince me otherwise I need a FINELY graduated chain. Not one of every single generation, but just showing the gradual progressions leading to the next stage.

Hi Brad, I’m just on my phone this weekend which isn’t conducive to typing posts so I’ll have to brief. I don’t think the rib thing is that big a deal, pigs have actually got many more ribs now than they did a few thousand years ago thanks to selective breeding and I believe a certain mutation.

Humans have added new bones to the pig

Even some humans can have an extra rib, it’s not that uncommon. I wouldn’t be surprised if better examples could be found in nature.

A couple of extra or less ribs over a few million years really isn’t an insurmountable problem.

As I mentioned before though, I know you don’t accept them as an example of evolution, I don’t expect you to change your mind on the say so of a stranger on the internet! I’m just curious as to how they could be explained from a creationist standpoint.

Cheers!