Why I do not accept evolution part one

[coffee4u]

There are quite a lot of things that are not in the bible.

• the rings of Saturn -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• Sunspots -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• kangoroos and by extension all marsupials -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• atoms -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• subatomic particles -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• guns -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• anesthetics -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• cars, planes, bicycles, computer etc -- not in the bible so you don't like them

Do I need to go on?

The existence of certain things doe not depend on you liking it or not. And does not depend on being mentioned in the bible.

LOl, who said I didn't like them? Certainly not me.

I don't know where you come up with this.

 

[driewerf]

Most christians have no problem with physical reality.

I don't either, this chair I am sitting on is quite handy.

Let's see, over the years I have read and listened to material of son and father Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, John Pendleton, Venomfang X, Conservapedia and many others. I have seen positions denying or in flagrant contradiction with

• cosmology: the age of the Universe
• cosmogeny, the origin of the universe
• the General theory of relativity, including the denial of c as a constant
• astrophysics, including the denial of star formation
• nuclear physics, including the nuclear decay rates
• nuclear physics again, including the impossibility of nuclear fusion
• climatology, including the Milankovitch cycles and the denial of multiple glaciations
• climatology again, I have seen many creationists claim the "the Flood" caused an ice Age
• climatology again, including the phenomenon of desertification
• orogeny, I have seen many creationists claim that all mountains formed during the Flood
• geology, including the bastardisation of all patterns of erosion
• thermodynamics, especially the SLoT
• classical mechanics, including the mechanism behind tides
• anthropology, with the claim that Lucy's knee cap was found miles away from the rest of the skeleton
• anthropology again, with the claim that the paluxy trails include footprints of humans and dinosaurs
• anthroplogy again, with the claim that all humans fossils don't even fill a single coffin
• paleontology, with the claim that a fossil can't be any ancestor of extant species because you can't know whether it reproduced or not
• demographics (and archaeology); the population growth after "the Flood" defies everything that all historians, archaeologists and demographers have ever written

That is the extend to which creationists need to deny the physical reality

 

[driewerf]

LOl, who said I didn't like them? Certainly not me.

I don't know where you come up with this.

So oké, you like things that are not in the bible. Then what was the meaning of

We don't like it because it's not in the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

There are quite a lot of things that are not in the bible.

• the rings of Saturn -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• Sunspots -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• kangoroos and by extension all marsupials -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• atoms -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• subatomic particles -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• guns -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• anesthetics -- not in the bible so you don't like them
• cars, planes, bicycles, computer etc -- not in the bible so you don't like them

Do I need to go on?

The existence of certain things doe not depend on you liking it or not. And does not depend on being mentioned in the bible.

He replied to this in post 221, apparently claiming that this reasoning only applied to beliefs, not physical things which (for some reason) were different.

 

[driewerf]

He replied to this in post 221, apparently claiming that this reasoning only applied to beliefs, not physical things which (for some reason) were different.

Very well, thank you

And what counts as a belief then?

 

[DaveISBA]

The Cambrian explosion took millions and millions of years in a time of great environmental change and limited competition for new niches.

Aside from the problems of limited evidence lasting hundreds of millions of years, there's nothing I've seen presented to actually demonstrate that those changes are impossible for evolution to account for.

Stephen Jay Gould an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, p. 14):
"This extraordinary abundance of some fossils illustrates something important about the history of life. Evolution is a theory about change through time -- "descent with modification," in Darwin's words. Yet when fossils are most abundant during substantial stretches of time, well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone) that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."

What the observable paleontological evidence shows is that that those changes are impossible for evolution to account for because there is no evidence that the TOE, Darwin and others propose, ever occurred!

 

[Speedwell]

What the observable paleontological evidence shows is that that those changes are impossible for evolution to account for because there is no evidence that the TOE, Darwin and others propose, ever occurred!

And you think a mined quote proves it. OK, you win. Evolution never happened. What's your theory?

 

[Shemjaza]

Stephen Jay Gould an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, p. 14):
"This extraordinary abundance of some fossils illustrates something important about the history of life. Evolution is a theory about change through time -- "descent with modification," in Darwin's words. Yet when fossils are most abundant during substantial stretches of time, well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone) that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."

What the observable paleontological evidence shows is that that those changes are impossible for evolution to account for because there is no evidence that the TOE, Darwin and others propose, ever occurred!

Stephen Jay Gould had no doubts about the reality of evolution.

He expanded on it describing how in most cases life changed very slowly, but in extreme circumstances speciation and adaptation would increase in rate until a new stable equilibrium was found.

Punctured equilibrium is what this process was called. Contrary to what some dishonest Creationists have presented in the past, this neither disproves or replaces the theory of evolution, it presents how it can vary in rate and what pressures can trigger that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Stephen Jay Gould an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, p. 14):
"This extraordinary abundance of some fossils illustrates something important about the history of life. Evolution is a theory about change through time -- "descent with modification," in Darwin's words. Yet when fossils are most abundant during substantial stretches of time, well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone) that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."

What the observable paleontological evidence shows is that that those changes are impossible for evolution to account for because there is no evidence that the TOE, Darwin and others propose, ever occurred!

Standard misleading quote-mining - Anyone familiar with Gould knows he's famous for his work on punctuated equilibrium. You left out the immediately following paragraph where he resolves this apparent evolutionary paradox:

"Niles Eldredge and I have tried to resolve this paradox with our theory of punctuated equilibrium. We hold that most evolution is concentrated in events of speciation, the separation and splitting off of an isolated population from a persisting ancestral stock. These events of splitting are glacially slow when measured on the scale of a human life -- usually thousands of years. But slow in our terms can be instantaneous in geological perspective. A thousand years is one-tenth of one percent of a million years, and a million years is a good deal less than average for the duration of most fossil species. Thus, if species tend to arise in a few thousand years and then persist unchanged for more than a million, we will rarely find evidence for their momentary origin, and our fossil record will tap only the long periods of prosperity and stability. Since fossil deposits of overwhelming abundance record such periods of success for widespread species living in stasis, we can resolve the apparent paradox that when fossils are most common, evolution is most rarely observed."

 

[DaveISBA]

Stephen Jay Gould had no doubts about the reality of evolution.

He expanded on it describing how in most cases life changed very slowly, but in extreme circumstances speciation and adaptation would increase in rate until a new stable equilibrium was found.

He described no such thing but pointed out most species appear abruptly and fully formed!

Stephen Jay Gould (The Panda's Thumb): pgs 181-182 : The (history of most fossil species) includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. (Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth). They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." My emphasis!

 

[pitabread]

Because he is the same creator, the same potter who used the same clay and design features to create the animals, birds and man, why wouldn't they reflect this?

That's my question to you.

Assuming we are talking about all-powerful supernatural entity, it doesn't seem like they would necessarily be bound by such constraints.

Where are these constraints coming from?

What would you expect?

If things really were created independently, I would expect things to be very different.

If humans were created in a wholly novel fashion, I would expect them to be wholly novel compared to other biology. There is no reason for use to share so many similarities with other biological forms on Earth if we are independent creations.

Likewise, even if we allow that a supernatural entity could have mixed 'n matched biological components between different creations, I would expect nature to reflect this via blatant chimeras in nature that don't conform to any evolutionary patterns.

When we do look at nature, however, we see forms that conform to the constraints of biological evolution.

That seems odd if a creator was not bound by evolutionary constraints.

 

[DaveISBA]

Standard misleading quote-mining - Anyone familiar with Gould knows he's famous for his work on punctuated equilibrium. You left out the immediately following paragraph where he resolves this apparent evolutionary paradox:

"Niles Eldredge and I have tried to resolve this paradox with our theory of punctuated equilibrium. We hold that most evolution is concentrated in events of speciation, the separation and splitting off of an isolated population from a persisting ancestral stock. These events of splitting are glacially slow when measured on the scale of a human life -- usually thousands of years. But slow in our terms can be instantaneous in geological perspective. A thousand years is one-tenth of one percent of a million years, and a million years is a good deal less than average for the duration of most fossil species. Thus, if species tend to arise in a few thousand years and then persist unchanged for more than a million, we will rarely find evidence for their momentary origin, and our fossil record will tap only the long periods of prosperity and stability. Since fossil deposits of overwhelming abundance record such periods of success for widespread species living in stasis, we can resolve the apparent paradox that when fossils are most common, evolution is most rarely observed."

Yes and is why the proposal of "punctuated equilibrium"? To try to explain the absence of transitional forms and the observation of stasis, remaining recognizably the same throughout their history of existence, in most, some argue all species! PE itself leaves no evidence because supposedly it happens to rapidly...how convenient!
Steven M. Stanley, American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist (New Evolutionary Timetable) pp.77, 110 "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that (most evolution takes place rapidly)...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them in small, localized, transitory populations. ...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." My emphasis!

In proposing something that can't be observed, PE, they have left observable science and entered into the world of imagination!

 

[Shemjaza]

He described no such thing but pointed out most species appear abruptly and fully formed!

Stephen Jay Gould (The Panda's Thumb): pgs 181-182 : The (history of most fossil species) includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. (Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth). They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." My emphasis!

Have you read it? Have you ever seen the book?

 

[DaveISBA]

Have you read it? Have you ever seen the book?

Have you? Yes I have, rather I borrowed Stephen Jay Gould (The Panda's Thumb) from an online library and scanned thru much of it and concentrated on the bottom line...the actual paleontological observations and not the speculation!

 

[VirOptimus]

Have you? Yes I have, rather I borrowed Stephen Jay Gould (The Panda's Thumb) from a online library and scanned thru much of it and concentrated on the bottom line...the actual paleontological observations and not the speculation!

And your ”scans” conclusions just happen to align with your religious belief, remarkable!

Now, write an article for peer-review regarding your finds! If you cant, well, then your views doesnt matter.

 

[Speedwell]

Have you? Yes I have, rather I borrowed Stephen Jay Gould (The Panda's Thumb) from an online library and scanned thru much of it and concentrated on the bottom line...the actual paleontological observations and not the speculation!

OK, you win. Evolution never happened. What's your theory?

 

[DaveISBA]

OK, you win. Evolution never happened. What's your theory?

The observable evidence of paleontology, sudden, fully formed appearance then stasis certainly fits the Bible narrative!
Mark Pagel, Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665)
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."

Richard Dawkins, Famous evolutionist and zoologist, “THE BLIND WATCHMAKER”, p229-230: "the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”

 

[Speedwell]

The observable evidence of paleontology, sudden, fully formed appearance then stasis certainly fits the Bible narrative!
Mark Pagel, Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665)
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."

Richard Dawkins, Famous evolutionist and zoologist, “THE BLIND WATCHMAKER”, p229-230: "the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”

You can cut out the mined quotes now, I've already conceded. But you haven't answered my question: what's your theory? "The Bible narrative" isn't a theory.

You have disproven evolution, and all that leaves us with is a disproven theory. What are you going to replace it with?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In proposing something that can't be observed, PE, they have left observable science and entered into the world of imagination!

All science involves inference from observations. We have many contemporary examples of rapid evolution, and a few from the fossil record (e.g. fossil sticklebacks in North American lake deposits), and we have a simple model that explains why we don't see more examples of rapid evolution in the fossil record.

If you want to criticise the explanation, you need to show that it can't account for the observations and/or present a better explanation that also explains everything else the current model does. Your Nobel Prize awaits

 

[coffee4u]

That's my question to you.

Assuming we are talking about all-powerful supernatural entity, it doesn't seem like they would necessarily be bound by such constraints.

Where are these constraints coming from?



If things really were created independently, I would expect things to be very different.

If humans were created in a wholly novel fashion, I would expect them to be wholly novel compared to other biology. There is no reason for use to share so many similarities with other biological forms on Earth if we are independent creations.

Likewise, even if we allow that a supernatural entity could have mixed 'n matched biological components between different creations, I would expect nature to reflect this via blatant chimeras in nature that don't conform to any evolutionary patterns.

When we do look at nature, however, we see forms that conform to the constraints of biological evolution.

That seems odd if a creator was not bound by evolutionary constraints.

So basically God's creation doesn't fit your idea of what a creation made by one God should look like? Who said you get to decide what it should look like? Maybe take that up with God then. Probably because he wanted too? I'm sure he could have made them all look different if he had wanted to but why do that? The 'constraints' as you call it are whatever God wants them to be.

I am pretty sure those famous potters I mentioned make each piece separately yet a person knowledgable in pottery would still be able to pick out each piece and say who made it.

You see forms that you assume conform to evolutionary patterns because this is what you believe. Similarities are just similarities. That doesn't prove or disprove how they came to be there.

Humans are unique. God gave us a spirit and only man has a spirit. Animals have a soul but no spirit. You are looking at DNA but God is focused on the spiritual not appearances.