Why ... (2)

[Cheeky Monkey]

Well this fits with my request, I am looking for more of a change to the body plan. More like whale evolution.

This is a good layman's view of whale evolution
http://www.roberts-publishers.com/media/TB_1.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

Well this fits with my request, I am looking for more of a change to the body plan. More like whale evolution.

The body plans of australopithecines and early homo species are just as interesting. They show the same transitional states that the skulls do. For example, take a look at the pelvis of Australopithecus afarensis:

A) is a chimp, B) A. afaraensis, C) Human female, D) Human male.

Obviously, Australopithecines were transitional in that they had a pevlis adapted for bipedalism like that seen in humans. Along with the shortened and widened pelvis, they also had inward angled femurs like humans. In contrast, they also had inflexible wrists with nodules that are usually found in knucklewalkers like chimps. They truly had a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, just as we would expect in a transitional, or at least what scientists would expect to see in a transitional.

The problem is that creationists have already decided that a fossil can not be transitional before even looking at these features. I would hope that you fall on the side of scientists (and the majority of christians worldwide) when it comes to looking at these fossils.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you replace the humpty dumpty term "kinds" with "taxa" you are correct and that's exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Regardless of your funny humpty dumpty remark, it doesn't matter whether or not we have an absolute definition when it says "after it kind". It is obvious that there were some kind of the same kind before it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oncedeceived,

I am still curious as to why separately created kinds that do not share common ancestry would necessarily fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Regardless of your funny humpty dumpty remark, it doesn't matter whether or not we have an absolute definition when it says "after it kind". It is obvious that there were some kind of the same kind before it.

It is obvious to scientists that life falls into a single kind, a kind that evolved from a universal common ancestor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is a good layman's view of whale evolution
http://www.roberts-publishers.com/media/TB_1.pdf

Thanks Cheeky but I know about the evolution of the whale, I meant something like that in the evidence in the recent evolutionary record.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks Cheeky but I know about the evolution of the whale, I meant something like that in the evidence in the recent evolutionary record.

Human evolution is a perfect example.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Regardless of your funny humpty dumpty remark, it doesn't matter whether or not we have an absolute definition when it says "after it kind". It is obvious that there were some kind of the same kind before it.

Just a point to perhaps make my "Humpty Dumpty word" comment make a bit more sense, it refers to a famous line in Through the Looking Glass

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ...
- Through the Looking Glass

IOW it's a word used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the time, usually without further elucidation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, when you look at the story, it starts with a universe already in progress, already with a resident god, looking for something to do.

Boredom, I would guess.

The universe was not in progress.

Interestingly, the universe-already-in-progress also has support from the scientific community, so you could claim the bible was right either way.

There is no evidence to support the universe-already-in-progress.

Prediction failed.

False. It is clear that the evidence we currently have supports a beginning to the universe.

Cherry picking the bible?

No.

Do you cut out or stand by the bits that would refer to a flat Earth, and Earth with corners, Sun that orbits an immovable Earth?

The Bible doesn't claim the earth is flat. The scripture you are referring to about the four corners of the earth is talking about the compass directions. This is shown in another part of Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:5-6 "Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…


Which is a fulfilled prophecy by the way.



From the east: Many Jews living in the Middle East moved to Israel by the early 1900s.
From the west: During mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel.
From the north: The former Soviet Union (Russia) is north of Israel. It refused to allow its Jewish residents to move to Israel. But, after years of pressure from other countries, Russia finally began to allow Jews to return to Israel during the 1980s. So far, hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews have moved to Israel.
From the south: Ethiopia, which is south of Israel, also refused to allow its Jews to return to Israel. But, in 1985, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow the Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.
Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to give up their Jews. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.
Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return "from the ends of the earth," and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, have moved to Israel.

This is why I don't debate the bible. It becomes a rabbit hole through a big book of multiple choice.

I understand your frustration. The Bible is the living word of God and it is also translated from the original language to others and sometimes the original word doesn't have a corresponding word in our language or the translator used one that can be taken in a different way. It is important to understand that.

Is this the weak anthropic principle? If there were no laws like those we observe we would not be here to observe them?

If the universe did not have the laws that govern it, we would not be here to observe them.

We are right back to the appearance of design is not evidence of design point.

It supports Creationism. You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it supports creationism.

The moon is a light? or a reflector of light?

Do you recall the incident with Bill Nye? Where people angrily stormed out when he said the moon was not a light?

Bill Nye Boo’d In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun (Really???)

Does it give us light? Does it light up the night sky? It doesn't matter that it doesn't produce the light itself. If you want to nit pick, fine.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepan...-for-saying-the-moon-reflects-the-sun-really/

As you did not include a way to test or falsify these predictions, there is no point in going further with them.

The predictions would be false if we find the universe always existed. IF the largest portion of the universe was visible and not made up of invisible undetectable "matter" it would prove it false.

And other than this post hoc rationalization, where has the bible assisted in these discoveries?

What does that matter?

Again, nothing testable or falsifiable.

False.

So, "God" is the force that explains the astronomical observations for the rotational speed of galaixes and gravitational lensing and such?

God is responsible for holding the universe together.

You are back to trivializing this god of yours, when you use it to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. "God is the force that enables us to have flush toilets..."

You can thank Him when you see him.

More god-of-the-gaps.

It is in no way that.

Have you read these books?

No.

I have yet to see your response to my repeated question: By what testable criteria do you determine if something is designed?

If it can be proven that it is fine tuned according to its existence and the life forms on earth. Which has been tested to be true.

Will you be going back to those posts of mine you skipped?

I don't know.

Have we not had this discussion about you shirking the burden of evidence?

I gave it, you just don't like it.

The onus is on you to establish the existence of, and significance of, your particular choice of gods.

No it isn't. There are numerous details that ToE has no evidence for, but scientists use supportive evidence to support there ideas.

However, for me I feel I can determine the significance of gods by the inability of posters like yourself to provide their evidence in the fashion of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Well my friend we are only human. Fortunately, there is a way to find out. When we die if I am lying in my grave and totally unaware and there is no after life, I will have no concern if I was wrong. However, if I am right, you will find yourself in God's company and you can make your case to Him. In the mean time, we can all discuss our positions in the best way we can or we can discontinue our conversation. The choice is yours. I believe you have a choice.

As long as the illusion ( or simulation) is consistent and testable, science can proceed. Water (as ice crystals) gives away its molecular structure even without knowledge of atoms.

It may be consistent and testable but if it is all illusion, you could never know.

The appeal to popularity fallacy?

Of course.

I make no claims that the existence of Fred can be established by any objective means. He is only there to fill the gaps. I can write a quick book about him if you like. Appeal to human emotion, prejudices, need for justice, etc, with some hot gypsies thrown in.

Don't waste your time.

How about your god? Is it detectable by any objective means

Our God is a personal God that has made His words known and they can be tested to see if they fit with our reality. In that way He can be detected. He is known by the universe. It is balanced in such a way that you can see His work if you choose to and you can deny it as well. That is the choice that God gave us. You choose to believe there is no God and look at the evidence of the wonder of the universe and think it just is. I look at the wonder of the universe and think how wonderful God is. But we both have the same evidence.

Only in that strawman version you carry around.

If you say so.

Do you not have free will? Can you choose to not believe in deities for a week? Or a different one?

I've already answered this.

Not until we make progress here.

No problem.

Perhaps you should stay out of the "free will" rabbit hole for now.

oookkkk

 

[Oncedeceived]

In this post you said "I have debated with the best of them. I have debated with people that held PhD's or were working on them. Believe me when I say that I am well versed in the mechanics of ToE and many other scientific studies. When I doubt anything I will go online or to the Library to gain the necessary information to be informed enough to make intelligent conversation on the subject."

Are you are making the claim that you can debate at a PhD level on the subject of evolution? If you are, one might expect you to be more explicit in what you expect to see.

Just sayin'.

No, I am not saying that at all. What I meant was I've been on the boards for a long time and discussing evolution. If I was totally ignorant and had never studied evolution I still would have a very good working knowledge from the scientists I have encountered throughout the years. Unlike what you and others like to believe, I respect the scientific endeavor and I am very interested in it. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are ignorant of the concepts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just a point to perhaps make my "Humpty Dumpty word" comment make a bit more sense, it refers to a famous line in Through the Looking Glass

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ...
- Through the Looking Glass

IOW it's a word used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the time, usually without further elucidation.

Ahhhhh, It does make more sense now. I thought you were just being rude. Sorry.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The body plans of australopithecines and early homo species are just as interesting. They show the same transitional states that the skulls do. For example, take a look at the pelvis of Australopithecus afarensis:

A) is a chimp, B) A. afaraensis, C) Human female, D) Human male.

Obviously, Australopithecines were transitional in that they had a pevlis adapted for bipedalism like that seen in humans. Along with the shortened and widened pelvis, they also had inward angled femurs like humans. In contrast, they also had inflexible wrists with nodules that are usually found in knucklewalkers like chimps. They truly had a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, just as we would expect in a transitional, or at least what scientists would expect to see in a transitional.

The problem is that creationists have already decided that a fossil can not be transitional before even looking at these features. I would hope that you fall on the side of scientists (and the majority of christians worldwide) when it comes to looking at these fossils.

I think that we have to look at all the evidence available, and look at all the angles. IF we stand in our own little corner of the world, we loose so much of what God wants us to see. So I feel sorry for those Creationists that do that. The more evidence I see in the world, the more I understand how God worked.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's what we've been saying all along. The evidence for evolution is in its nested hierarchies. Once a sub-population splits from the mother population (speciation), any changes in either population will not, can not, occur in the other. Even if the other population or another daughter sub-poplation thereof is constrained by the same environmental pressures, the response will be different. Therapods developed warm-bloodedness and needed insulation for the cooler times, and so developed feathers and down.Pelycosaurs developed warm-bloodedness and also needed insulation. Their mammalian descendents developed hair and fur.

Yes, but no one could see what I was saying all along.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, and always we've refined out theories, rather than replace them wholesale.

Thousands of years ago, we thought the Earth was flat (curvature: 0"/mile).

2000 years ago, we thought the Earth was a perfect sphere (curvature: 8"/mile.

400 years ago, we thought the Earth was an oblate spheroid (curvature: 7.9-8.1"/mile).

100 years ago, we thought the Earth was slightly pear-shaped (curvature: 7.9"/mile in the north, 8.1"/mile in the south).

This is how science changes: it refines. Each theory is replaced by a better one that explains all the old evidence and also the new evidence. That theories are replaced doesn't mean they're replaced willy-nilly. Our theory that the Earth is sphere(ish) won't tomorrow get replaced by a theory that the Earth is cuboid, and in 100 years time by a hexahedronal theory.

(Thanks to Isaac Asmiov, who stated all this better than I ever could in his The Relativity of Wrong: in essence, some things are wrong, and some things are wronger. The spheroid model is wrong, but not as wrong as the flat model. Evolution might be wrong, but it won't be as wrong as Creationism).

I can agree with all of that. Where I have to question the refinements of ToE is that there is so much evolution vs. creation animosity that it has taken on a life of its own. I see evolutionists coming out against creationists in articles about their findings which to me seems really unprofessional as well as making their motivations suspect. I see the same on creationists sites that leave up old or dated information that has already been falsified and I have to think they know it. I don't like dishonesty from anyone but I find it really distasteful from creationists sites. It angers me actually. Truth is truth and it should always be the first and foremost foundation of any area.

 

[Davian]

I can agree with all of that. Where I have to question the refinements of ToE is that there is so much evolution vs. creation animosity that it has taken on a life of its own. I see evolutionists coming out against creationists in articles about their findings which to me seems really unprofessional as well as making their motivations suspect. I see the same on creationists sites that leave up old or dated information that has already been falsified and I have to think they know it. I don't like dishonesty from anyone but I find it really distasteful from creationists sites. It angers me actually. Truth is truth and it should always be the first and foremost foundation of any area.

If that is so, why then do you need to lean on that worldview of yours?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well this fits with my request, I am looking for more of a change to the body plan. More like whale evolution.

So you want huge change in a short time? Why are you creating such arbitrarily high standards?

Large morphological evolution.

A wild banana - compare it to the domesticated version.

Wikipedia has a list of key events in the evolution of life on Earth. Scroll to the bottom for those that meet your criteria. Five million years ago, we see sloths and hippopotami. Four million years ago we get elephants, giraffes, zebras, lions, rhinos, and gazelles. 2.5 million years ago we get Smilodon.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that we have to look at all the evidence available, and look at all the angles.

Since when have supernatural deities ever been an angle? When a forensic scientist looks at a crime scene do they have to consider the angle that Leprechauns planted the evidence? Does the forensic scientist have to consider that God may have planted the suspect's DNA at the crime scene? If not, why do we have to consider that same angle here?

More to the point, what other angle predicts that we should see the emergence of modern human features in less derived apes over a 5 million year period? What other angle predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy? What other angle predicts that ERV's should fall into three independent yet consilient phylogenies for loci, LTR divergence, and overall sequence divergence? What other angle predicts that we should share more DNA with chimps than with orangutans?

There is a reason that evolution is accepted by biologists. Only evolution can explain why we see the things we see in biology, and no other observations. Evolution is like finding the suspect's fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers on and around a murder victim. You want to tell us to ignore all of that evidence because God could have just made it look that way. Sorry, but that makes no sense. It looks like evolution occurred because evolution occurred. It is that simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can agree with all of that. Where I have to question the refinements of ToE is that there is so much evolution vs. creation animosity that it has taken on a life of its own.

If you go to a scientific meeting you will not hear creationism mentioned once. There is only animosity in some places because creationists are seeking to ruin science education in the name of theologic purity.

I see evolutionists coming out against creationists in articles about their findings which to me seems really unprofessional as well as making their motivations suspect.

Can you show me a single peer reviewed research article where this is the case?

But even more so, why shouldn't scientists come out against those who seek to destroy science?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can agree with all of that. Where I have to question the refinements of ToE is that there is so much evolution vs. creation animosity that it has taken on a life of its own. I see evolutionists coming out against creationists in articles about their findings which to me seems really unprofessional as well as making their motivations suspect. I see the same on creationists sites that leave up old or dated information that has already been falsified and I have to think they know it. I don't like dishonesty from anyone but I find it really distasteful from creationists sites. It angers me actually. Truth is truth and it should always be the first and foremost foundation of any area.

What does that have to do with how scientists refining theories?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that is so, why then do you need to lean on that worldview of yours?

What do you mean?