What you aren't being told about astronomy

[Astrophile]

Be honest with yourself. If you had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the Husky and mastiff - and then later in the strata found the Chinook - you would claim either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. You would be wrong, but you would claim it anyways and say you were right - just as you claim it for creatures in the fossil record that you have never seen in life. Creatures that mated with other infraspecific taxa of their species just as the Husky and Mastiff mated to produce the Chinook. Please stop ignoring the observational data when it comes to classifying the fossil record.

No, I should not do that. I am not a biologist or a palaeontologist, so I should never say that one fossil animal evolved into another unless I could cite a professional biologist in support of that hypothesis. If I had never seen a dog before and found the fossils you mention, I should not know what to make of them.

 

[The Cadet]

Whether it is Husky and Mastiff producing the Chinook

What two interspecies taxa mated to form the Husky? What two interspecies taxa mated to form the Mastiff?
Then ask that same question of those respective taxa.
Then of the respective taxa of those answers.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
For any creationists, confused about the term "evolution" meaning different things in different disciplines, you could always use Darwin's term "descent with modification." Could save a lot of embarrassment.

Creationists confused!?

Most of them. A few know better, but try to conflate "evolution" with the big bang, star formation, and so on. That's why, if it confuses you, it's better to use Darwin's term to keep focused on evolutionary theory.

We're the ones bringing it to evolutionists' attention.

I'm showing you an easy way to keep it straight in your mind.

I've had some tell me that the formation of planets has nothing to do with evolution.

Nothing to do with Darwin's theory or the successive modifications of it. Some professional creationists like to conflate it with "stellar evolution" or similar stuff. If you want to talk about biological evolution, just use "descent with modification."

 

[The Barbarian]

Question: is abiogenesis a part of evolution?

Not part of evolutionary theory, (descent with modification, remember) which merely assumes life had started somehow, and describes how it changes over time. Darwin, for example, speculated that God just created the first living things. It's not part of the theory.

I say YES.

See above.

And if you try to conflate it with other theories of change (that's what evolution means)

... I'm going to assume you're trying to evade answering honestly.

Like most creationists do.

And here we go...

Just YES or NO.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

The dishonesty here is to suppose that "evolution" has the same meaning in physics, astronomy, biology, etc. when in fact, it refers to many different theories.



Does abiogenesis have anything to do with evolution?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Barbarian]

What, exactly, is this fence? I keep hearing creationists talk about some boundary that keeps evolution from only going so far, but I don't think I've heard any explanation on what exactly it is. What is this limit?

I'd like to see this, too. What organism is at the fence, with a genome that cannot change any longer? And I'd like to see the evidence for that belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not part of evolutionary theory, (descent with modification, remember)

Evolution theory ... as you call it ... is more than just biological evolution.

There are some seven different types of evolution ... all wrapped up into what is called cosmic evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

Evolution theory ... as you call it ... is more than just biological evolution.

No.

There are some seven different types of evolution ... all wrapped up into what is called cosmic evolution.

What you call "cosmic evolution" is called "science".
Of course, I have been around long enough to have noticed that you try to define words to mean whatever you want them to mean. When you do that, all the real meanings, leak out through the cracks, and all that you demonstrate is that you have fallen off the wall.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Not part of evolutionary theory, (descent with modification, remember)

Evolution theory ... as you call it ... is more than just biological evolution.

Evolutionary theory? Nope. Just descent with modification.

There are some seven different types of evolution ...

Thousands, if you merely take it to mean "change." Languages evolve. Organizatons evolve. Fashions evolve. And so on. Biological evolution, however, is merely descent with modification.

Remember, if you get confused, just remember "descent with modification", and you'll be o.k.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biological evolution, however, is merely descent with modification.

Biological evolution is.

But abiogenesis is a part of chemical evolution.

Together, they are both a part of cosmic evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Biological evolution is.

But abiogenesis is a part of chemical evolution.

An entirely different theory. If you want to talk about that, instead of descent with modication, let's do another thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

An entirely different theory. If you want to talk about that, instead of descent with modication, let's do another thread.

Fair enough.

Just don't tell me abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, unless you qualify it first.

Or we'll end up taking it to another thread.

 

[-57]

How about 8...

"The Origin and Evolution of The Solar System" by Michael M. Woolfson
"Evolution of Stars: The Photospheric Abundance Connection" by G. Michaud
"Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" by Francesca Matteucci
"Solar System Evolution - A New Perspective" by Stuart Ross Taylor
"Stellar Structure and Evolution" by Rudolf Kippenhahn
"Dynamic Evolution of Star Clusters - Confrontation of Theory and Observation" by Piet Hut and Junichiro Makino
"Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges" by Martin Bureau and E. Athanassoula
"Galaxy Formation and Evolution" by Houjun Mo

I noticed how the evo-mined missed the point of your argument...and focused upon the term evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What two interspecies taxa mated to form the Husky? What two interspecies taxa mated to form the Mastiff?
Then ask that same question of those respective taxa.
Then of the respective taxa of those answers.

Why don't you look it up, but I can guarantee the Husky also did not evolve from anything.

And if you asked those questions you would realize that it all leads back to an interbreeding pair - with no evolution at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Husky

That all the variation we see among the dog species is the result of different infraspecific taxa within the species mating without any evolution at all. So stop refusing to apply reality to the fossil record.

Yet we never hear of this in the theory of evolution - all we hear about is claimed mutations - when mutations have brought about no variation that we have ever observed in real life. Not even different infraspecific taxa - let alone a new species.

This is what mutation causes.

But evolutionists will never admit the truth to themselves. They won't even admit to the simple little mistake in classification with Darwin's finches - even if they are interbreeding right in front of their eyes. No, evolution has no veracity left at all - they have defeated themselves by refusing to correct or admit to their own mistakes. They can no longer be trusted with the little truths, let alone the big ones.

 

[Gracchus]

... That all the variation we see among the dog species is the result of different infraspecific taxa within the species mating without any evolution at all. So stop refusing to apply reality to the fossil record.

Biological evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in an interbreeding population over time. It is an observed phenomenon, a fact, a reality.

Yet we never hear of this in the theory of evolution - all we hear about is claimed mutations - ...

You might hear more if you would stop screeching hymns and took your fingers out of your ears.

... when mutations have brought about no variation that we have ever observed in real life. Not even different infraspecific taxa - let alone a new species.

If it brought about no change, then it isn't a mutation. You have slipped your gears. You are making no sense, because then you post:

This is what mutation causes. (https://www.google.com/search?q=bir...3C7wQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=severe+birth+defects)

This leads to pictures of abnormal conditions, which you want to use to attach horror to mutation. This is the fallacy called "Poisoning the Well." But, whether or not those are due to mutation, (Did mutation cause these, or not?) you, as a theist, must lay those horrors on God's doorstep.
He did it, or he allowed it. What the theory of evolution explains is why those conditions are not passed on. They are selected out.

But evolutionists will never admit the truth to themselves.

I won't go to hell if I discard evolution. I won't lose friends. My family won't disown me.
On the other hand if religious people let it be known that they have stopped believing in God, they will very likely lose friends and family, maybe even their livelihoods. So, religious people must believe, or at least say they do. They are afraid to walk alone with God (or as some of us call it, reality) because they really don't have faith. They must have a mob about them, and magical rituals and incantations, and ritual jewelry. They are as intellectually and morally defective as any of those pictured in the link are physically defective. It is not their fault of course.

They won't even admit to the simple little mistake in classification with Darwin's finches - even if they are interbreeding right in front of their eyes.

Some of the finches interbreed. Some interbreed preferentially. Some are reproductively isolated. This is what would be expected by anyone who understands the theory.

No, evolution has no veracity left at all - they have defeated themselves by refusing to correct or admit to their own mistakes.

This is another example of psychological projection.

They can no longer be trusted with the little truths, let alone the big ones.

I think everyone is entitled to the truth, even if they will not use it wisely. There are no religious secrets. The emperor is naked, diseased and rotting for all to see.

By the way, we have strayed from the subject, which was about astronomical ignorance and its purported cause.

 

[The Cadet]

And if you asked those questions you would realize that it all leads back to an interbreeding pair - with no evolution at all.

What interbreeding pair led to the husky? Or was the husky just there, no further questions asked? This is the problem when you try to flip the tree of life on its head - you quickly run out of "kinds" to interbreed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What interbreeding pair led to the husky? Or was the husky just there, no further questions asked? This is the problem when you try to flip the tree of life on its head - you quickly run out of "kinds" to interbreed.

Unlike evolution's false tree in which one animal magically becomes two???? Instead of every hierarchy known that two become one????? This is why at every branch in the evolutionary tree the transitional is missing, because they ignore the reality of how life reproduces for a fantasy.

If you start with a perfect genome that degrades over time as errors accumulate - you have no problems. And you wonder why the human genome is now 98% junk DNA - that should give you your answer, but it won't, because you will blind yourself to the truth, willingly, to keep your false beliefs.

You mean you end up with an original pair of every animal, this is what you meant to say, yes? Unlike evolution's false belief in which one magically becomes two or more. So you object to the reality of observations that it takes two to create a new infraspecific taxa because you want to hold onto your fantasy that one does it? All I got to say to that is show me where one has ever become two without divine intervention? You can't, can you, but you will postulate it as truth anyways, even if you have not one shred of evidence to support it except the incorrect classification of fossils. But since those classifications don't match the reality of observations, they can be dismissed as the incorrect classifications that they are.

 

[The Cadet]

Unlike evolution's false tree in which one animal magically becomes two????

We have numerous examples of speciation. It happens extremely regularly, and even if we couldn't directly observe it, we'd still have ERV data, the fossil record, and even simple thought experiments to show how it happens.

But you're dodging my question. What breeds combined to form the Husky? And if there were no two breeds that produced the husky, where did they come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have numerous examples of speciation. It happens extremely regularly, and even if we couldn't directly observe it, we'd still have ERV data, the fossil record, and even simple thought experiments to show how it happens.

But you're dodging my question. What breeds combined to form the Husky? And if there were no two breeds that produced the husky, where did they come from?

You have no examples except the ones you fake and wrongly classify like Darwin's finches. Finches that are interbreeding right in front of your eyes - yet you got the nerve to try to pass them off as separate species instead of correct your mistakes in classification.

Only by ignoring your own scientific definition of species can you even remotely call them separate species.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

And if they are separate species - then why are not American Indians a separate species since they were reproductively isolated from the rest of humanity for 10's of thousands of years????

Don't want to discuss those two together do you.

I answered your question on the Husky already, you just didn't bother to read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Husky

 

[Astrophile]

First, how much organic molecules in the clouds?

From The Physics of the Interstellar Medium by J.E. Dyson & D.A. Williams (Institute of Physics, 1997), p. 31, the number density of carbon monoxide (CO) is about 10 millionths of the number density of molecular hydrogen. This implies N(CO) ~ 10,000 to ten million molecules/m³ in dense clouds. For a dense cloud with a mass of 500 solar masses, this implies a CO mass of about 2500 Earth masses (8 Jupiter masses, or 200,000 lunar masses).

G.A. Blake et al. (1987), Astrophysical Journal, 315, 621-645 - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ApJ...315..621B7 - find a column density for CH3OH in the Orion molecular cloud (about 500 solar masses) about 1/1000 of the column density for CO, and column densities for C3H2 and CH3CN of about 1 to 10 millionths of the CO column density. This would yield roughly 2.5 Earth masses of CH3OH, and 1/5 to 2 lunar masses of C3H2 and CH3CN.

Second, BEFORE the molecules are adsorbed and protected, what is the chance for an organic molecule to survive?

Dyson and Williams (p.36) say, 'Ultraviolet photodissociation occurs for most molecules unshielded by grains in a few hundred years.' Obviously interstellar organic compounds survive long enough after their formation to reach large enough abundances to be detected by radio telescopes.

There may be plants that already exist before the planet was destroyed by the star.

Where do you think that interstellar clouds come from? They are formed by compression of the diffuse interstellar medium; giant molecular clouds have masses of thousands to millions of solar masses, far larger than any planetary system. As I have already explained, dense molecular clouds can contain a lunar mass or an Earth mass of such molecules as CH3CN and CH3OH, far more than the total mass of plants on any known planet.

To make the point simple: the organic material embedded in comets must have been a larger group of molecules, rather than smaller group of molecules before joined the comet. Gravitational attraction works very slowly. Most organic material should be destroyed in space very quickly.

No, I think that you are wrong. From The Physics of the Interstellar Medium (pp. 39-42), it appears that H2 molecules are formed by catalysis on the surfaces of cold grains, and other molecules are synthesised by 'networks of ion-molecule reactions ... driven by the ionization produced by cosmic rays.' Once formed, the molecules can be adsorbed onto the surfaces of the cold interstellar grains.

Again, you must remember that interstellar clouds are opaque, so that molecules in their interiors are protected from the ultraviolet radiation that destroys molecules in their surface layers. In fact, the destruction of molecules near to the surface of the clouds protects the interiors of the clouds by absorbing the high-energy radiation.

I apologise for the long delay in answering your post. I hope that I have explained the physics of interstellar clouds clearly enough for you to understand at least partially how molecules are formed and how they survive in these clouds.

 

[Radrook]

evolution

an unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure
a result or product of this; thing evolved
a movement that is part of a series or pattern
a pattern produced, or seemingly produced, by such a series of movements: the evolutions of a fancy skater