Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So an eruption happens 100 years ago, let’s say. Tomorrow a flood happens and surrounds the lava flow. 10 years from now we date the bones in the sediment as 100 years old?
The biggest objection is that every single fossil remains the same for that type of fossil. That every time you come to the end of the line you insert mythical non-existent common ancestors. That you ignore how variation actually happens, wolf to chiwahwah through interbreeding and that they remain the same species.
The only thing evolution has going for it is for people to ignore how variation in the species actually occurs, and to ignore their own deffinition of subspecies. And to postulate imaginary ancestors for ever link between separate species. Your entire theory is built on error and mythical creatures....
Except Relativity doesn’t apply anywhere but within the solar system to non ionized matter, .1% of the universe.
The same with biology. Your taking known changes caused by interbreeding, Wolf to chiwahwah, ignoring they always remain the same species, then having to add 96% ad hoc theory once you leave the realm of actual biology and enter the past where somehow everything happened differently than we observe today.
The biggest objection is that every single fossil remains the same for that type of fossil. That every time you come to the end of the line you insert mythical non-existent common ancestors. That you ignore how variation actually happens, wolf to chiwahwah through interbreeding and that they remain the same species.
The only thing evolution has going for it is for people to ignore how variation in the species actually occurs, and to ignore their own deffinition of subspecies. And to postulate imaginary ancestors for ever link between separate species. Your entire theory is built on error and mythical creatures....
Then the opposite makes sense. That if they are mating and producing fertile offspring, then they have not reached this point, and therefore no speciation has occurred.
As quoted by the biologists to him....
But if non mating leads to speciation, which you agreed made sense, then while they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring they are the same species. I would agree you could classify them as subspecies, but maybe not even that being they are of mixed ancestory and as the biologist put it have decidedly fuzzy dna.
What earlier stage? They are still interbreeding and producing fertile offspring which are just as fit as the parent stock. It’s only “messy” because they don’t want to have to admit Darwin was wrong.
And song and courtship is a learned behavior, not a biological one. Like that finch that flew over from the mainland' and then taught his offspring his song. Are you suggesting that birds that imprint on neighboring birds song patterns, or eggs left in the nest and imprint to new parents, suddenly change species because of song pattern and new choice of mates?
Before technology, are you suggesting that Asians which tended to mate only with Those who spoke Asian should be classified separate from Africans, due to language or song pattern?
So you can’t think for yourself, understood.
And what part of extensive interchange of genomes, leading to mixed ancestory to the point the lines were decidedly fuzzy, interbreeding right in front of their eyes. Did you find to match with prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure any offspring are sterile? What did you find in that extensive interchange of genomes that led you to conclude their was a reduction in gene flow between them?
Except it hasn’t prevented anything. Again, what part of extensive interchange of genomes leading to mixed ancestory and lines that were decidedly fuzzy, led you to believe their has ever been a point in time when their was any barrier to interbreeding?
Then the opposite makes sense. That if they are mating and producing fertile offspring, then they have not reached this point, and therefore no speciation has occurred.
As quoted by the biologists to him....
But if non mating leads to speciation, which you agreed made sense, then while they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring they are the same species. I would agree you could classify them as subspecies, but maybe not even that being they are of mixed ancestory and as the biologist put it have decidedly fuzzy dna.
What earlier stage? They are still interbreeding and producing fertile offspring which are just as fit as the parent stock. It’s only “messy” because they don’t want to have to admit Darwin was wrong.
And song and courtship is a learned behavior, not a biological one. Like that finch that flew over from the mainland' and then taught his offspring his song. Are you suggesting that birds that imprint on neighboring birds song patterns, or eggs left in the nest and imprint to new parents, suddenly change species because of song pattern and new choice of mates?
Before technology, are you suggesting that Asians which tended to mate only with Those who spoke Asian should be classified separate from Africans, due to language or song pattern?
So you can’t think for yourself, understood.
And what part of extensive interchange of genomes, leading to mixed ancestory to the point the lines were decidedly fuzzy, interbreeding right in front of their eyes. Did you find to match with prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure any offspring are sterile? What did you find in that extensive interchange of genomes that led you to conclude their was a reduction in gene flow between them?
Except it hasn’t prevented anything. Again, what part of extensive interchange of genomes leading to mixed ancestory and lines that were decidedly fuzzy, led you to believe their has ever been a point in time when their was any barrier to interbreeding?
Huh? If the salt crystal physically moves, everything in it moves too. If the salt crystal moves by dissolving in one direction and crystalizing in another, then that will have no effect at all on bacteria living in water nearby.Salt crystals in solid rock salt formation kilometers in the ground will move molecule by molecule. During the process, the bacteria kept in the salt crystal will also be moved molecule by molecule, i.e. killed.
Huh? If the salt crystal physically moves, everything in it moves too. If the salt crystal moves by dissolving in one direction and crystalizing in another, then that will have no effect at all on bacteria living in water nearby.
1 source, dude, you have one source that brings up DNA comparisons and hybridization in Galapagos finches, and that same source suggests that they should be further divided into more species. Clearly, the DNA evidence doesn't suggest that they are all the same species.No, you all just can’t accept the dna data and the scientific definition of subspecies.... I understand, if you accepted the dna data and your own scientific definitions, you couldn’t claim they were separate species.
Hahahahaha, maybe not in the Galapagos finches specifically, but that wouldn't eliminate all other examples of speciation.Because then you wouldn’t have speciation.
I know the story for this guy, and he was actually in the right. In his off time, he'd often discuss with students whether they thought his discovery was evidence for a young Earth or not. The university fired him for it, and he won his lawsuit against them. It wasn't for reporting the finding at all. My guess is that the university might have assumed that he was spreading YEC propaganda rather than a discussion, or perhaps teaching it during class. Yeah, he was wrongfully fired, and deserved to win his case. A university is a corporate entity, though, not an extension of the scientific community. It's not like the journal Nature blacklisted him.They did, but when he reported it he got fired from his position, for simply challenging the claimed dates before it was found. That’s what happens when you go against the established religion of evolution.
University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones | God Reports
According to the testers “The vessels soaked in the hemoglobin solution, produced by lysing red blood cells, “remained intact for more than 2 years at room temperature with virtually no change. This represented a 200-fold increase in stability in the presence of hemoglobin, Schweitzer reports, confirming hemoglobin’s tissue fixation properties and supporting the possibility that iron could thus, under the right conditions, protect biomaterials (tissues, cells, and molecules) from degradation over deep time.“
Again, it's not literally soft, I've told you as much, it became pliable when exposed to the chemicals used to clean out fossils. It's not like you break open a Triceratops femur and meat as fresh as ham from the local deli plops out. Also, I looked more into it, and the process by which the T. rex tissue was found was due to the person cleaning the fossils actually making a mistake. That is, if there hadn't been that tissue there, she would have probably been fired for irreversibly damaging a T. rex fossil.But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years?
You are presuming that the molecular structure is entirely intact, when it isn't. The preservation is highly imperfect, and it is notable that it is entirely connective tissues that seem to make it.While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could.
Also, that's not what it said: it was a 200 fold increase in the stability of the vessels in the presence of hemoglobin. Plus, in a little over two years, the vessels were indistinguishable from when they were first treated, so I think that experiment would have to go on at least long enough to observe some decay before an accurate measurement of the preserving properties of hemoglobin on connective tissue could be assessed, don't you?
I'll mention again that our knowledge of preservation is imperfect, and I've said my piece on how I don't think 2 years was sufficient to determine how well hemoglobin could preserve connective tissue.The common thread running through “many exceptionally preserved fossils,” Schweitzer notes, is the presence of iron, which is found in hemoglobin.
And a 200 fold increase would put them around 20,000 to 40,000 years, far short of your 99,800,000 fold increase needed.
No, they say contamination because the material is rather similar to living organisms, with the T. rex "soft" tissue being very structurally similar to that of a chicken. Even though I support evolution and the model that birds are descended from bird-hipped dinosaurs, I find it a little bit suspect that the tissue in the T. rex was structurally very similar to bird meat I could easily find in my refrigerator. I mean, I understand the mastodon being structurally similar to an elephant, given how closely related they are, but for an 8,000 kg T. rex to have a similar connective tissue structure to a less than 1 kg animal seems off. From a person that poured a material onto a fossil that would have destroyed the mineral components of the fossil. Yeah, I understand why someone might be skeptical about that whole situation. I personally trust that if the tissue was fraudulent that it would have been caught as such by now, but skepticism is perfectly valid too.And collegen, and pigments. And I believe it is much more than 5 now, but papers are scarce until they make up their minds if it’s fact or fiction. Half are arguing its contamination because they still don’t accept that a 200 fold increase can explain the 99,800,000 fold increase actually required.
-_- how to replicate a process that takes millions of years in a human lifetime? Plus, while the iron is still heavily present in the tissues, other components key to that preservation process could have themselves ironically decayed faster than the tissue did, or decayed once exposed to open air. Here's hoping more fossils like this are found, to hopefully shed more light on the process.Interesting, but lab tests so far only show a possible 200 fold increase in preservation. Again, far short of the 99,800,000 fold increase actually required. One can speculate all one wishes.
The change in populations over time is the observation the theory attempts to explain, and isn't really contestable. However, the how and why it happens certainly is.So evolution is only one possibility and not certain?
Sure, and I would change my mind if there was more evidence supporting that these fossils were 6000 years old rather than millions of years old. I just don't think our knowledge of tissue preservation is comprehensive enough for the dinosaur tissue to be an indication of the age of the fossil. We can't even figure out why some human bodies seem to defy decay yet.Or that your assumption of age may be incorrect? After all, there are no absolutes, right?
195 years is relatively young compared to 4.5 billion. Has to be the weirdest age attributed to the planet I have heard. But I'd say too old to call you a YEC.I guess if you consider 195 million years relatively young. But I agree since they are around 40,000 years old, relatively young.
Time is relative, we base time as it passes from the perspective of our planet, no more and no less. However, mathematically, the difference between the time on this planet and the time within space at large is very small. However, a story for you, so that I can express my view on this matter as clearly as possible. An astronaut leaves Earth and travels through space at light speed for what he perceives to be 10 years before returning. However, from the perspective the people on that planet, over 1000 years have passed. Is the planet 10 years older, or over 1000 years older? I would say that the planet is 1000 years older, because over 1000 years of events have taken place on it. Thus, even if I could observe the planet, moving in a time state such that a year for me was a billion years for Earth, I wouldn't consider the planet a mere 1 year older if I returned after what I perceived as a year later.That’s the same mindset of the twin in motion who could not get one single observation correct. He also believed more time passed for him, when less time actually did.
4.5 billion years because you don’t adjust your clocks for the time dilation that occurred.
In order for these things to occur faster, the motion of the molecules of the planet would have had to be significantly faster. In case you haven't noticed, time doesn't pass significantly faster for Venus than it does Earth, so even if you factored in the planet's molten early years, it wouldn't have resulted in a significant enough time dilation to make 4.5 billion years out of 195 million.Instead using the slower clocks and slower decay rates of today to calculate what occurred faster and faster the further back you go. You assume it was constant, as the twin assumed time remained constant for him, and again, was wrong in every single observation he made.
Next time you bring this up, I'm going to present it to a physics major and watch them rage over how off you are about time dilation.
Then if they can still interbreed, they are not recently separated species, but the same species. Speciation requires reproductive isolation.Just as a minor point, many descriptions of evolution are over-simplified when they talk about speciation. They assume just one species concept (a species concept is a definition of what defines a species, particularly in terms of saying that two populations are different species or not), the biological species concept where two creatures cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Species that are now that different that they cannot hybridise are quite separate, and recently spectated species are unlikely to be this separated. Speciation can also be reversed. E.g. when Lake Victoria became turgid due to water outflow from agriculture (and other things), then fish couldn't see each other properly, females didn't choose the right mates, and some species collapsed back into one. It appears that this happened between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthals.
No, it’s what we would expect from people ignoring their own definition of the biological species concept and then trying to double talk their way around why they just ignored it.This is what we would expect from the theory of evolution. Small difference in (e.g.) colours combined with sexual selection can separate species. However, if you put recently speciated females together with the wrong species of males, frequently they will mate and produce fertile offspring. E.g. fish in tanks managed by idiot aquarists.
That very definition separates Kinds. Kind after Kind. If they can reproduce they are of the same Kind. The only question that remains for similar creatures, such as finches, is if they can reproduce.It doesn't make any sense in terms of 'kinds', because no definition of 'kind' that I've ever seen would separate the fish that can interbreed from the fish that can't interbreed.
And some people refuse to accept the results of extensive interchange of genomes, leading to mixed ancestory, with lines that are decidedly fuzzy. And he wants to classify them as separate species based on phenotype-based taxonomy, which the phylogenetic analysis showed important discrepancies with it.1 source, dude, you have one source that brings up DNA comparisons and hybridization in Galapagos finches, and that same source suggests that they should be further divided into more species. Clearly, the DNA evidence doesn't suggest that they are all the same species.
All the others can be shown to be incorrect classifications as well. They’ll only stand if you ignore the data and the definitions.Hahahahaha, maybe not in the Galapagos finches specifically, but that wouldn't eliminate all other examples of speciation.
Just who do you thinks trains scientists? Universities also do more research than most individual scientists, or they do it in conjunction with universities, because that’s where the undergrads are for help and most of the top of the line equipment.I know the story for this guy, and he was actually in the right. In his off time, he'd often discuss with students whether they thought his discovery was evidence for a young Earth or not. The university fired him for it, and he won his lawsuit against them. It wasn't for reporting the finding at all. My guess is that the university might have assumed that he was spreading YEC propaganda rather than a discussion, or perhaps teaching it during class. Yeah, he was wrongfully fired, and deserved to win his case. A university is a corporate entity, though, not an extension of the scientific community. It's not like the journal Nature blacklisted him.
It crystallized around the liquid to begin with. That the process of recrystalization would result in the same is not sound, since it was apparently extremely rare that it happened this way to begin with, since this is the only find so far.I still have no idea what you're talking about. What diffusion process? What diffuses when salt crystalizes out of a solution? Why does it matter whether it's recrystallization or just initial crystallization?
No, mine was in response to post #31.My first post in this thread was in response to post 35. Seriously, just stop with the deflection.
Again, 100% your argument, not mine.
And you believe lava flows exist everywhere sedimentary rock is found?No, we wouldn't do that at all. Because we can easily tell the difference between recent flood sediments and layers of sedimentary rock from deep time.
What we have is ancient rocks bracketed by lava flows that can be dated. So, if we have a dateable lave flow, then some sedimentary rock (not just sediment), then some more dateable lava. We can say that the sedimentary rock is from a time between the two bracketing lava flows.
Are you suggesting that creatures don’t evolve? If you are going to play stupid I’ll treat you like you are stupid.Are you suggesting that fossils should evolve? Individual fossils?
You got no evidence for common descent. Every single line ends on a missing common ancestor, that you then use to claim you got evidence for common descent to the ones before.BTW: If we have common descent, which we have huge amounts of evidence for, then the common ancestors are not 'mythical'. They must have existed.
Except mutations are irrelevant. Variation occurs when Asian mates with African. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, and the Afro-Asian appears suddenly and fully formed in the record. Just as we observe in the fossil record. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.Nobody is ignoring how variation in species occurs. Variation in species is a keystone of evolutionary theory, and it wouldn't work without it.
So rather than admitting that I was right, you choose to move the goalposts. The same thing happens every time I do this to you. If you cannot admit to an error you would do better to say nothing.No, mine was in response to post #31.
You then chose to interceed, assuming the stance of post #31, since mine was in response to this.
Errr... As I posted, but you apparently didn't see....
The other reason is they have had a long time to diverge through natural selection and random drift. The pattern is illustrated by the four oldest living species at the base of the Darwin's finch radiation; warbler finch (Certhidea), Pinaroloxias (Cocos Island finch), the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis) and vegetarian finch (Platyspiza). They are so distinct from each other that they span the entire morphological space of the present day radiation (Grant & Grant 2008). Unlike the more recently derived species they are not known to hybridize (Grant 1999).
Moot point. See above.Moot point. See above, they don't all hybridize.
Was it? You’re the one that was just arguing against it. Now you agree the lines are so mixed they are how did he put it, decidedly fuzzy?No. There is nothing to indicate that, besides, what he said was accurate wasn't it?
They all hybridize, or they wouldn’t be of mixed ancestory....Moot point. See above, they don't all hybridize.
They all hybridize, or they wouldn’t be of mixed ancestory to the point of the lines being decidedly fuzzy.Moot point. See above, they don't all hybridize.
Yet as observed, finches with different song patterns did hybridize, so no isolation is occurring.Of course I'm not suggesting that, what a bizarre strawman. It's still a mechanism of reproductive isolation which ever biologist you ask, so why are you ignoring scientific definitions? Besides....
See above, they don't all hybridize.
So your claims that song patterns isolate creatures, then has no merit whatsoever because you refuse to apply it to other creatures that have done the same thing in the past.I suggest that you stop and think about how ridiculous this question really is.
This is representative of your sloppy and narrow thinking. You identify a particular feature or mechanism of one specific case, apply it elsewhere where it isn't necessarily relevant, and then claim it supports your weird ideas..
You can’t think for yourself, understood.I just don't convince myself that I know better than the people who actually do the research because their findings conflict with my religious views - which is what all this really is about.
Moot point, they are of mixed ancestory, they all hybridize. See above, they said the same thing of all the others for 200+ years.Moot point. See above, they don't all hybridize.
Moot point. See above, they don't all hybridize.
Except they aren’t seperate species, reread the deffinition of subspecies, and stop accepting evolutionary lies that ignore their own definitions.Besides, several species (relatively) recently descended from a small ancestral flock in a classic case of adaptive radiation are all related? Shocking! Who would have expected that! (sarcasm intended).
No, I just don’t ignore the scientific definitions to preach my religion like you do.It seems that you cognitive bias is so strong that whatever research is presented, which seems perfectly reasonable to everyone else, appears flawed to you if it doesn't conform to your "alternative", preconceived beliefs. I know you won't acknowledge this, but I hope that you can reflect on it, however briefly, and try and approach the subject with a more open mind.
That’s what they said about all the others for 200+ years..
You do realise you haven't provided the scientific definitions of species, don't you? The one you insist on using from the dictionary is not the scientific definition. But of course you know that, it's part of the dishonest misrepresentation you thrive on.No, I just don’t ignore the scientific definitions to preach my religion like you do.
It’s funny you should point out the clear inconsistency of the Grants.Errr... As I posted, but you apparently didn't see....
The other reason is they have had a long time to diverge through natural selection and random drift. The pattern is illustrated by the four oldest living species at the base of the Darwin's finch radiation; warbler finch (Certhidea), Pinaroloxias (Cocos Island finch), the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis) and vegetarian finch (Platyspiza). They are so distinct from each other that they span the entire morphological space of the present day radiation (Grant & Grant 2008). Unlike the more recently derived species they are not known to hybridize (Grant 1999).
Don’t fool yourself, less than a few centimeters per day.Without applying relativity, GPS would be off by several miles.
Ptolomey and his bunch thought they were correct too.*I* am not doing anything in biology.
Biologists study biology. And they are in consensus about evolution.
You, as a non-biologist, are claiming that they are all wrong.
And you just keep arguing that majority means right, when everyone once thought the earth was the center of the solar system. One person disagreed.And you just continue claiming that all biologists are wrong and you know better.
It's not "my" theory either. It's a theory which is the result of +150 years of research by millions of actual scientists.
And you are also again ignoring the point that was raised: clearly your source is completely biased.
You do realize you haven’t either, so since you provide none at all, the dictionary trumps your nothing.You do realise you haven't provided the scientific definitions of species, don't you? The one you insist on using from the dictionary is not the scientific definition. But of course you know that, it's part of the dishonest misrepresentation you thrive on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?