Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[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.

[BABY J]

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

Not tomorrow - but someday it could. That's why it's called "evolution".


Imagine locusts over 100,000 years that develped alongside pesticides, built a resistance and can't be stopped via this medium.



Now imagine on the other side of the planet locusts that developed in areas where there is no pesticides available.

Would there be no genetic drift between the 2?

[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.

[bu villain]

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

Yes there are huge differences (a few percent in DNA) between chimps and humans because they split millions of years ago. Practically the whole article is talking about when the split occured so how does it contradict my statement? Please present evidence of fossil records not fitting with the split because this article doesn't mention fossils at all.

Back to the original issue, I am really confused on what you are looking for as far as divergent species. It seems like you want to see two different species with the same DNA and that doesn't make any sense. As I asked before, is there a certain percentage difference in DNA you are looking for? Please give clear guidelines for what you are looking for.

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'd definitely like to check out that documentary. Until I do, all I can say now is that modern ape and chimp diets may or may not be similar at all to our common ancestor (which is neither ape nor human). Chimps and other apes have evolved over the previous millions of years just as humans. Ape diets most likely changed greatly over that time.

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.

You seem to be confused with what the 'half' in half-life means. After one half-life there will be 50% of the original element remaining. After two half-lives there will be 25% of the original element remaining, not 0. It's exponential, not linear.

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.

So even though we have methods that work for recorded history they suddenly become invalid any earlier than that? So you must be open to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that it's conceivable that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years since we are not able to determine dating in any meaningful way before that, right?

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.

Show me something with more evidence than evolution and I'll gladly change my mind. Unfortunately I doubt many religious believers will say the same.

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.

I think that's unfortunate. You should believe what has the most evidence for it, not just what you would like to believe is true. I have no reason to want to believe in evolution. If we found a human skeleton from 100 million years ago tomorrow I would not mourn the loss of evolutionary theory. It's simply the most plausable answer given the vast amounts of data we have. There is still much work to be done too!

Why shouldn't beliefs be changed based upon a forum conversation? If a discussion between people is not the time to reevaluate your beliefs then when is? I personally wouldn't be engaged in this conversation if I didn't think I could learn something new from you and thus potentially change my mind on something. I'm not here just to try to show you how smart I am.