Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[David88vert]

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

As stated before, this is not probable in reality. Especially the vast number of changes needed. What we currently know about DNA does not support it.
But there is no reason why they should not keep researching theory - they just shouldn't push it as proven fact.

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

As stated previously, even evolutionary biologists don't consider it the same. We haven't been able to successfully breed animals into a new species that can continue to reproduce in nature. That is not saying that we never could, of course, but if it is so hard to do when we are trying on purpose, with a plan, how did it happen at random so many times?

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

That was my misperception. I apologize for my assumption.

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

We can agree to disagree. The vast majority of the ones that I have met or studied have carried their agenda first. I'm sure there are some good ones out there also though.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

Thanks. I do feel that I owe a response within a reasonable amount of time when someone takes the time to produce the effort to type out what they feel addressed to me.

[bu villain]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

[David88vert]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils. To many factors come into play, and too many assumptions are made. Current methods of dating based upon sedimentation layers are flawed by the assumption that sedimentation layers are not upheaved and changed in position. Radiocarbon dating of known items has produced incorrect results many times, and is based on too many assumptions. Currently, they try to place fossils into the model that they have already determined that they support, rather than seek the truth.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

[bu villain]

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils.

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

[David88vert]

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.



First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

[BABY J]

I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.



I love the way this discussion is being handled by ADULT conversation... I'm just a fly on the wall watching it unfold and learning at the same time. Thanx to all involved so far. Keep it going.

[David88vert]

Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.

Those are not genetic changes that will create a new species.

[bu villain]

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?

Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).

For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.

[David88vert]

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?

There are huge differences between chimps and humans. Even the split is just an assumption, that even your favored fossil record does not support the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics

BTW - Did you know that ape and chimps diets cannot support enough energy for us to have split from them 5 million years ago? I suggest you watch the BBC's "Did Cooking Make Us Human?". They showed that we would have had to split off much earlier - 230+ million years ago at minimum. Take a person, and feed them only fresh fruit. Even if they eat non-stop, they cannot get enough energy to sustain their current weight. Raw meat gives more energy, but we do not see apes and chimps following on that diet today. Then to really release energy, you have to breakit down at a celular level by cooking it - which only humans do.

I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).

Half-life. Pretty self explanatory. Did you know that our carbon content has increased over Europe just this past week? BTW - Do you realize that the Minoan eruption by itself screwed up the results of carbon dating? The BBC has a documentary on that available also. Good viewing.

Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.

With ALL technologies involving dating item from before recorded history, you are taking in assumption that it has consistency. It used to be thought that pertrification took millenia, now they are finding out that it can happen in only a couple of centuries through instant oxygen deprivation. Of course, they have to wait for that to be conclusive, so I wouldn't bet completely on that.

Personally, I try to look at all viewpoints, and keep an open mind. I am not telling you to believe in Creationism, just realize that their are a lot of possibilities and none of them is proveable currently. To me, current evolution theory is just completely mathematically improbable from many calculations - you have faith in it, and that can be your belief/religion. Nothing wrong with it.

As I have stated from the beginning - everyone has a choice to believe what they wish. I will add that no ones beliefs should be changed based upon what is typed on a forum.