proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

no. i actually said that the quickest stalactites growth is about 30 cm per 100 years. so there are also stalactites that can reach up to 15 meter or even more. im talking about the average. so keep this in mind.




see above. only the average count.




this is another topic since its different method like radiometric dating. i focus now about stalactite growth rate and not about radiometric dating. each point at time.

Don't waste my time, "Only the average counts". We'll just ignore the ones that are demonstrably older then? LOL

 

[Jimmy D]

again, this is what i said: the average rate is about 10 cm per 1000 years.

the quickest stalactites growth is about 30 cm per 100 years.

So you've given us the average rate and the fastest rate what would the slowest rate be? How long would your favourite metre long stalactites take to grow at the slowest rate?

So what does all this demonstrate? Stalactites grow at different rates under different conditions and are in no way an accurate way of measuring the age of the Earth.

And with that I'm finished on stalactites.

 

[xianghua]

Don't waste my time, "Only the average counts". We'll just ignore the ones that are demonstrably older then? LOL

no. because on avergae, a tipical stalactite is about 50-100 cm long. since the average rate is about 10 cm per thousand years, its means that the majority of stalactites are about 5000-10000 years old. very simple. those stalactites that are much longer evolved at much higher rate then the average. so we should expect to find some of them but they arent the majority.

And with that I'm finished on stalactites.

why? because its support a young earth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

no. because on avergae, a tipical stalactite is about 50-100 cm long. since the average rate is about 10 cm per thousand years, its means that the majority of stalactites are about 5000-10000 years old.

I found a source that says the range is more like 15-120 cm per 1000 years for the range. The longest stalactite in the world is 8.2 meters long. That would give a range of about 6,800 years to about 56,000 years old... just noticing that huge range should give you an idea that stalactites are not a reliable way to measure the age of the planet, even if you could guarantee that the largest ones started forming at the same time the Earth formed... which you can't.

very simple. those stalactites that are much longer evolved at much higher rate then the average. so we should expect to find some of them but they arent the majority.

-_- the longer they get, the more fragile they become.

why? because its support a young earth?

Comment: how long do you think a stalactite can form before it connects to the stalagmite below it? Also, how stable do you think those structures are?

 

[xianghua]

I found a source that says the range is more like 15-120 cm per 1000 years for the range. The longest stalactite in the world is 8.2 meters long. That would give a range of about 6,800 years to about 56,000 years old... just noticing that huge range

again: this exceptional isnt count since its not the average. so to get the most accurate estimattion we need to look at the majority of stalactites and not at the minority of them. and this is what i did.

-_- the longer they get, the more fragile they become.

true. so?

Comment: how long do you think a stalactite can form before it connects to the stalagmite below it? Also, how stable do you think those structures are?

depend on the cave height. why?

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. There are literally millions of potential observations we could make that would falsify evolution.
- A bird with wings and arms
- Lizards with mammary glands
- Lobsters with vertebrae
- Roses with melanocites
- Humans and armadillos sharing more DNA than humans and chimpanzees
- Fish with fur
etc. etc.

No that would prove evolution not falsify it. Be cause evolution claims we all came from the same ancestor therefore we evolved from a thing that wasn't us in the beginning. What was a bird before it was a bird? What was a bird before it evolved feathers?

 

[rjs330]

Species.

> Birds from birds.
Order.

> Monkeys from monkeys,
Not a monophyletic classification.

> beetles from beetles are the only way things change.
An order with 400,000 species.

I guess "kind" means anything you want it to.


Birds were, and are theropod dinosaurs.


Ooops.
The house spider genome reveals an ancient whole-genome duplication during arachnid evolution | BMC Biology | Full Text

Analysis of synteny conservation across the P. tepidariorum genome suggests that there has been an ancient WGD in spiders. Comparison with the genomes of other chelicerates, including that of the newly sequenced bark scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus, suggests that this event occurred in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions,​

The Last Common Ancestor of Most Bilaterian Animals Possessed at Least Nine Opsins
Colonial origin for Emetazoa: major morphological transitions and the origin of bilaterian complexity. - PubMed - NCBI
[Origin of bilateral-symmetrical animals (Bilateria)]. - PubMed - NCBI

More speculation and assumption. All the suggestions are assumptions. You have no evidence to show it actually happened. Evolution is full of that.

 

[pitabread]

What was a bird before it was a bird?

Therapod dinosaurs.

What was a bird before it evolved feathers?

Based on available evidence, the evolution of feathers pre-date what we would consider true "birds".

 

[rjs330]

Species.

> Birds from birds.
Order.

> Monkeys from monkeys,
Not a monophyletic classification.

> beetles from beetles are the only way things change.
An order with 400,000 species.

I guess "kind" means anything you want it to.


Birds were, and are theropod dinosaurs.


Ooops.
The house spider genome reveals an ancient whole-genome duplication during arachnid evolution | BMC Biology | Full Text

Analysis of synteny conservation across the P. tepidariorum genome suggests that there has been an ancient WGD in spiders. Comparison with the genomes of other chelicerates, including that of the newly sequenced bark scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus, suggests that this event occurred in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions,​

The Last Common Ancestor of Most Bilaterian Animals Possessed at Least Nine Opsins
Colonial origin for Emetazoa: major morphological transitions and the origin of bilaterian complexity. - PubMed - NCBI
[Origin of bilateral-symmetrical animals (Bilateria)]. - PubMed - NCBI

Take a look at the Emetazoa article and break that down in plain English for the common folk. Wonder if you really can or if you just posted a bunch of stuff you have no idea what it says.

 

[PsychoSarah]

again: this exceptional isnt count since its not the average.

That stalactite is not average in size, sure, but that doesn't automatically mean that it MUST have formed faster than stalactites normally do. Plus, when it comes to using something to age the Earth, these sorts of exceptional things are the most critical. I highly doubt that the average rock on this planet dates to 4.5 billion years old, but we don't use the average age of rocks to date something to begin with. The Earth should be at least as old as the oldest rock on the planet, and using the average rock age would just pointlessly make it such that we dated this planet younger than some of rocks that come from it... which wouldn't make sense. Plus, this type of dating method always errs on the young side to begin with, since chances are the oldest rock we find didn't exist for exactly as long as the planet did.

so to get the most accurate estimattion we need to look at the majority of stalactites and not at the minority of them. and this is what i did.

Looked at their average what? Size or age? Average size is irrelevant to their age if the speed of formation is so variable. Average age is equally pointless; the Earth should be at least as old as the oldest stalactite, and it shouldn't matter if most stalactites are within a specific age range in terms of trying to use them to date the planet... which is a dumb thing to do anyways because they are extremely fragile and become more fragile as they grow longer. That is, we wouldn't expect the average stalactite to exceed a certain size, since beyond that point, they are liable to break.

true. so?

The fragile nature of stalactites is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the majority of them are no more than a few thousand years old. Once they get too big, they break. If a stalactite can only possibly last for, say, 30,000 years or so at most, they could never be used to date the planet, because if the planet is older, there wouldn't be any stalactites as old as the planet is.

-_- also, dating methods have to match up with each other, you don't get to make up a convoluted dating method just because it could get the results you want while completely not matching up with anything else.

depend on the cave height. why?

I realized while typing this response that my reasoning behind asking that was erroneous, so ignore it.

 

[rjs330]

This sub-forum relates to science. I have no objections to you basing your beliefs upon scripture and personal revelation. I have no objection to you ignoring, or rejecting science in your personal life. These are very much rights you should enjoy and which I would defend. You are fully entitled to express your beliefs and the basis for your beliefs in this sub-forum.

However, I have serious objections to you misinterpreting, misunderstanding, misapplying, distorting, selectively ignoring, manipulating and misrepresenting the findings of science and the scientific method in a calculating, self righteous, ignorant, aggressive, snide manner within these pages. To declare, as you have done, that there is no evidence of common ancestry of birds and spiders is untrue. And it is an untruth that is known to you.

Quote scripture all you will, it shall not wash the stench of hypocrisy from your words.

[The report button is, I think, below and to the left. Feel satisfied that your goading has worked!]

There is no hypocrisy at all in my words. There is no evidence we came from a common ancestor. All the evolutionary so called evidence is nothing more that supposition and assumption. You cannot reproduce it, test it or observe it. It's all nothing more that wild guesswork simply because they believe in evolution from a common ancestor. Therefore everything they find is more evidence despite the fact they can't really observe, test or reproduce it.

 

[rjs330]

who is the designer

My point exactly and shows precisely why science will never accept common design. To believe in it you have to ask who the designer was. Therefore Science will never accept it or even consider it. You are evidence of that.

 

[rjs330]

since evolution comes from a common ancestor as you claim..and the ancestor is a dying star which gave rise to all of us then there was intelligence embedded in the dying star...which means the dying star is A GOD.. and thts the GOD we are talking of....the creator.

You may have me confused with someone else. I don't believe in evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

Even a cursory examination of the current scientific literature suggests otherwise. You're just in denial.



Let's put this to the test, shall we?

Have you heard of phylogenetic footprinting? It's an algorithmic technique utilized in genomic comparisons for identifying regulatory regions of genomes for a given species. In a nutshell, it works by identifying conserved regions of genomes of respective organisms with the underlying assumption that regions that are more conserved due to selective pressures are more likely to be important to the organism's function than non-conserved regions. Of course, the actual comparison is far more involved than that, not the least of which owes to relative overall levels of genetic divergence between species.

Now I happen to have a paper handy on an algorithmic approach for this which incorporates phylogenetic trees: Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting



And just to rehash, a phylogenetic tree is a data set describing the evolutionary relationships of species or higher taxa: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

For example:

Phylogenetic trees are more than just pretty pictures. They describe a specific data set of relationships between respective species describing both which species/taxa share common ancestry, as well as the relative levels of divergence between each (given via the branch length).

The algorithm in paper linked above incorporates this phylogenetic tree data thusly:



... etc, etc. You can read the paper for all the pertinent details.

My challenge for you is simple: You keep claiming that "common design" can do the same thing evolutionary approaches can accomplish, yes?

Given the above example, please describe how a "common design" approach would be used in an algorithmic approach to perform genomic comparisons and in particular in the context of the above paper and in lieu of using phylogenetic trees.

If you can provide the details of such an approach--keeping in mind this will involve first describing your common design framework, inherent assumptions, and applicability to underlying genomes--then I will be happy to cede the argument that common design can be a viable approach.

On the other hand, if you can't do this, then I think re-reading Romans 1:22 seems appropriate.

All those things you talk about are evidence of common design. You assume it is evidence of evolution. It's evidence of common design.

 

[rjs330]

The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless. It cannot be used for further research, it does not lead to further paths of research, it does not lead to increasing our knowledge, it is not based on observation of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning, it does not in any way explain what has been found, it does not in any way invalidate evolution, and, most importantly, it makes no testable predictions of what will be found in the future. In other words, it has none of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. Yes, common design works just as well, but so does aliens breeding us as slave labour, for which there is also no evidence.

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?

Of course it does. It leads us to understand that God created everything using a common design. Therefore we can look at DNA and cells and see commonalities that can be used is research and the fact that things There are commonalities in all life is a perfect foundation to build upon. You do not need evolution for that.

 

[rjs330]

Therapod dinosaurs.



Based on available evidence, the evolution of feathers pre-date what we would consider true "birds".

Therefore a bird was not always a bird according to evolution. So growing feathers is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor?

 

[bhsmte]

I see the pigeon chess continues.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no hypocrisy at all in my words. There is no evidence we came from a common ancestor. All the evolutionary so called evidence is nothing more that supposition and assumption. You cannot reproduce it, test it or observe it. It's all nothing more that wild guesswork simply because they believe in evolution from a common ancestor. Therefore everything they find is more evidence despite the fact they can't really observe, test or reproduce it.

It is still a reasonable inference, based on currently available evidence, and there is no evidence against it. What have you got?

 

[pitabread]

All those things you talk about are evidence of common design. You assume it is evidence of evolution. It's evidence of common design.

This is just a hand-waving non-answer.

First of all, we're talking about application of biological evolution, not evidence. Second of all, continuing to claim that anything that is evidence for evolution is somehow also evidence for "common design" makes zero sense, unless you're trying to argue that life was designed to appear it had evolved.

I'll just take this as a further admission by you that you think life has the appearance of evolution. At this point, you've yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

 

[pitabread]

There is no hypocrisy at all in my words. There is no evidence we came from a common ancestor. All the evolutionary so called evidence is nothing more that supposition and assumption. You cannot reproduce it, test it or observe it. It's all nothing more that wild guesswork simply because they believe in evolution from a common ancestor. Therefore everything they find is more evidence despite the fact they can't really observe, test or reproduce it.

This post makes no sense given the context of your later post where you claim "All those things you talk about are evidence of common design. "

That latter claim implicitly implies that you believe that the evidence used to support evolution is inherently valid, even if you think it somehow supports your fantasy conclusion of "common design".

But then to also claim that there is "no evidence we came from a common ancestor" implies that you are rejecting that very same evidence. The evidence you claim is evidence for common design.

So either the evidence for evolution is inherently valid which is the implication in claiming it also somehow supports common design. Or the evidence for evolution is inherently invalid, in which case it doesn't support common design.

One way or another, you've contradicted yourself.