Best Evidence for Evolution.

[baloney]

Bob, spare us the bull!

And we wouldn't observe any of this change in the past through our present observation of nature, assuming there would be life on Earth to observe it which is what these changes would imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

For you other guys who are honest, see the criticism to this bull in then link I provided.

 

[ZorkNation]

whale evolution

whale evolution

Nope, whale like creatures that lived in the sea undoubtedly were there from the beginning.

Like this thread illustrates, there is supposedly always "tons of evidence", but somehow nobody can actually state any. A whale most assuredly doesn't look like it was once running around on the land. BTW if a "trick" is involved you should consider that you may be "tricking" yourself.

Whales have vestigial bones in the position of lower feet, not connected to joints. Some ancient fossils in the geologic location of ancient sea beds seem to have simliar bone structure to whales with more well defined lower legs. A plausible theory is, at one point even further back, there was a coastal land mammal that hunted for fish, and evaded predators by swimming better... any of its descendants who were even slightly better suited for swimming would have been more successful, causing a gradual component of species adaptation over long periods of time. At some point, one might guess, there was a mutation - a birth defect - of the nose placed above the forehead that turned out to be more useful to the animal, and subsequent descendants with a more full expression across the genome gradually improved on that. Individuals with smaller back legs were less easily snagged by sharks, and those with flatter forelimbs and fluked tails could paddle, and over millions of years, the theory goes, they speciated through isolation and took on different features and traits as pods pursued their favorite foods. Baleen must have been a mutation that left some whales only able to eat small prey... I am curious how gene structure differs between toothed and baleen whales.

At least, this is what I remember from the lab and aquarium here in the Monterey Bay, biology class etc. Is all "science" right? Definitely not. Is it all wrong? Definitely not. Evolution and creation are two different subjects, really... one is just the words in the book of life, and one is the act by which being became... so what if creation was longer ago, it still happened.

Was the process of life directed in every detail by God, or is creation a beautiful flowering process that leaves God free from such details to enjoy himself? After all, Darwin just cataloged changes and similarities in lizards and bird beaks, and these have been found to correspond with changes in DNA... so what?

Humans can never explain the actions, the perspective, or the reality of God, and have only scratched the surface of the space and time around us. "For a thousand years in your sight are just like yesterday when it is past, like a watch in the night." Psalms 90:4. All we can do is reflect the beauty of creation in our open minds. :cow:

 

[bob b]

Bob, spare us the bull!

And we wouldn't observe any of this change in the past through our present observation of nature, assuming there would be life on Earth to observe it which is what these changes would imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

For you other guys who are honest, see the criticism to this bull in then link I provided.

Actually, my proposal does not say that the speed of light is changing today. It simply goes along with what is assumed in the Big Bang, where its advocates say that during the rapid expansion the effective speed of light is millions of times its current speed, and that this does not violate Einstein's assumption because it is only the coordinates of spacethat expand: the objects themselves do not physically move (See Wikipedia article on Big Bang).

 

[bob b]

Whales have vestigial bones in the position of lower feet, not connected to joints. Some ancient fossils in the geologic location of ancient sea beds seem to have simliar bone structure to whales with more well defined lower legs. A plausible theory is, at one point even further back, there was a coastal land mammal that hunted for fish, and evaded predators by swimming better... any of its descendants who were even slightly better suited for swimming would have been more successful, causing a gradual component of species adaptation over long periods of time. At some point, one might guess, there was a mutation - a birth defect - of the nose placed above the forehead that turned out to be more useful to the animal, and subsequent descendants with a more full expression across the genome gradually improved on that. Individuals with smaller back legs were less easily snagged by sharks, and those with flatter forelimbs and fluked tails could paddle, and over millions of years, the theory goes, they speciated through isolation and took on different features and traits as pods pursued their favorite foods. Baleen must have been a mutation that left some whales only able to eat small prey... I am curious how gene structure differs between toothed and baleen whales.

At least, this is what I remember from the lab and aquarium here in the Monterey Bay, biology class etc. Is all "science" right? Definitely not. Is it all wrong? Definitely not. Evolution and creation are two different subjects, really... one is just the words in the book of life, and one is the act by which being became... so what if creation was longer ago, it still happened.

Was the process of life directed in every detail by God, or is creation a beautiful flowering process that leaves God free from such details to enjoy himself? After all, Darwin just cataloged changes and similarities in lizards and bird beaks, and these have been found to correspond with changes in DNA... so what?

Humans can never explain the actions, the perspective, or the reality of God, and have only scratched the surface of the space and time around us. "For a thousand years in your sight are just like yesterday when it is past, like a watch in the night." Psalms 90:4. All we can do is reflect the beauty of creation in our open minds. :cow:

It has been pointed out that the bones which some claim resemble tiny feet might have had a purpose having nothing to do with land locomotion. After all, people are working only with a fossil, not a creature that is complete with organs, muscles, etc.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is no good reason to deny God the glory of his wonderful design, which any master designer would logically construct so that it could rapidly adapt to changing conditions. And that is what the new field of evo-devo has already discovered.

But Natural Selection can not "plan ahead" as the Master Designer has obviously done.

NeoDarwinism is dead. God is alive and well and having a ball watching His enemies trying to outwit Him. :first:

 

[ZorkNation]

is this debate a set-up?

is this debate a set-up?

For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?

Isn't this entire debate topic a straw man?

Who says that RNA world flowered from a single event? Maybe it is some combination of elements that would have been very common once liquid water condensed in the "sea world" full of lava vents before the land cooled. Given some crystal substrate to serve as cell membranes before being able to put phosphatolipids together, maybe the initial spark occurred in many locations, diversely, quite naturally, and still occurs today.

Has anyone found evidence that is possible? The "theory" you ask to disprove imposes a constraint on a single spark that is not relevant to "the general theory of evolution" that describes the daily samsarra of R/DNA-based creatures. :guitar:

 

[ZorkNation]

Furthermore, the theory of RNA world does not depend on a hypothetical primitive protocell, since the fragment RNA and amino components would have mixed it up first without a cell. Cell barriers would have formed further down the line after the RNA fragments were able to assemble some kind of thin membrane around a proto-nucleus. You set up a false debate, bob b.

 

[bob b]

Isn't this entire debate topic a straw man?

Who says that RNA world flowered from a single event? Maybe it is some combination of elements that would have been very common once liquid water condensed in the "sea world" full of lava vents before the land cooled. Given some crystal substrate to serve as cell membranes before being able to put phosphatolipids together, maybe the initial spark occurred in many locations, diversely, quite naturally, and still occurs today.

Has anyone found evidence that is possible? The "theory" you ask to disprove imposes a constraint on a single spark that is not relevant to "the general theory of evolution" that describes the daily samsarra of R/DNA-based creatures. :guitar:

The reason for the single event is that it defies most people's belief (even scientists) that the DNA/RNA protein system used by lifeforms could have arisen independently multiple times by chance (not to mention even once). So if there were other independently derived lifeforms they apparently never survived.

Of course a single Master Designer also fits the pattern as well, but since almost all of the leading biologists do not believe in the God of the Bible, that possibility is never mentioned (except to mock it).

Give God the glory. :first:

 

[ZorkNation]

fallacy confounding scales of time

fallacy confounding scales of time

During the rapid expansion of the universe light had an effective speed millions of times faster than today (when the expansion has stopped). The speed of light is one of the variables involved in radioactive decay equations so it is logical to assume that the decay rates would also have been greatly speeded up.

The Earth was formed from material in space and hence would have radioactive daugther products that if the speeded up rates were not taken into account would yield erroneously long ages for the rocks.

Similarly, if the speed of light speedup during the early universe expansion interval were not taken into account then people might erroneously conclude that the universe was ancient since any light waves emitted today from a distant star would of course take thousands if not millions of years to reach us.

This all suffers from an inability to distinguish between a billion and a million years. A billion years is a lot longer. The setup you state may be true, but it would not lead to the same conclusions. The radioactive signature of the matter from which the earth was made from would not be affected by the timescale changes you talk about in the first expansion. There are billions of years of matter getting re-nuked through stars that you fail to take account of, which you dismiss through the simplistic connection "the earth was formed from material in space."

As an attempt to "disprove" radio-carbon dating, you connect "a lot of time" together in your head, connecting the billions of light years we see back to creation together as equivalent to the much smaller period of time in which life has evolved on the Earth... but this much smaller period of time is still a great deal long enough to account for evolution, using the calculus from "light waves emitted today" because that's the way things have been for the duration of life. :cheers:

 

[ZorkNation]

the new earth

the new earth

The reason for the single event is that it defies most people's belief (even scientists) that the DNA/RNA protein system used by lifeforms could have arisen independently multiple times by chance (not to mention even once). So if there were other independently derived lifeforms they apparently never survived.

Of course a single Master Designer also fits the pattern as well, but since almost all of the leading biologists do not believe in the God of the Bible, that possibility is never mentioned (except to mock it).

Give God the glory. :first:

I agree that sometimes "science supporters" appear just as narrow-minded as the anti-evolutionists.

In the RNA-world theory, you can't really say that they were lifeforms like we know them, and there is plenty of room to say that the same initial process occurred multiple places in rock formations in a single lightning strike... that would be concurrent genesis within the same location if you looked closely enough. Or that the same process occurred all over, and spread and flowered together, mixing up those rudimentary fragments so much, for so long, that no one can ever mathematically discern a single or multiple point of origin. So the question seems like a lure and a ruse by which to attack non-dependent theories.

In the broader scope of intergalactic time, such science supporters are really together with the unthinking parrots in religious camps, because we are all scared of the idea that life did evolve in multiple places. That would lead to an almost inevitable likelihood that life evolved a very, very long time ago on older worlds, that some of it survived, and that they figured out deep mysteries of physics, being, and light to allow travel. None of that would disprove god or God's ability to interfere with reality when necessary, in any way, even to be able to resurrect. If they are out there (or here already), some of them might serve the word, but maybe they came to realize it in some other way... Christ king of the earth, and in heaven, the father rules... on another earth, another son? No one knows the hour.

 

[ZorkNation]

who are we to say what the plan is?

who are we to say what the plan is?

But Natural Selection can not "plan ahead" as the Master Designer has obviously done.

God is alive and well and having a ball watching His enemies trying to outwit Him. :first:

Tell God I wish him well when you go over to dinner. You claim you know the details of his plan as irrationally as pure-scientists claim there must not be any plan. It isn't obvious at all what the plan is, or that God planned for humans to get big brains and hot tempers so we could build nuclear weapons and risk destroying our planet. I don't think anything is obvious, and I certainly can't say if God even has to have a plan for everything. Maybe he only plans out some things. Who am I to say?

:bang: ok, time for lunch. happy networking.

 

[ZorkNation]

whales subthread

whales subthread

It has been pointed out that the bones which some claim resemble tiny feet might have had a purpose having nothing to do with land locomotion. After all, people are working only with a fossil, not a creature that is complete with organs, muscles, etc.

Whales are mammals, and all fossils of mammals predating whales were land-based. Are you suggesting that fish independently evolved all the same mammallian characteristics and genetic features, just to become whales?

 

[The Barbarian]

It has been pointed out that the bones which some claim resemble tiny feet

Not so tiny. Bigger than yours. A lot bigger. And they have the same bones that yours do.

might have had a purpose having nothing to do with land locomotion.

Depends on the whale. Ambulocetus clearly used feet to walk as well as swim. Rhodocetus probably could still get around a little on beaches, basilosaurus was unable to walk at all.

After all, people are working only with a fossil, not a creature that is complete with organs, muscles, etc.

You can tell a great deal about the soft tissues by a skeletion. The tissues leave their marks and show us what they looked like, in many cases. This is another of those times where not knowing about the subject has been a stumbling block for you. Perhaps a non-threatening way for you to learn about it would be forensics, where scientists can reconstruct the facial features of a person from the skull alone.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is no good reason to deny God the glory of his wonderful design,

It is an implicit blasphemy to accuse God of designing like an inferior creature. He does not need to design. He is the Creator.

which any master designer would logically construct so that it could rapidly adapt to changing conditions. And that is what the new field of evo-devo has already discovered.

It was a good move to create the universe to produce living things that were imperfect replicators. As Genesis tells us, He created the world, and it produced living things.

But Natural Selection can not "plan ahead" as the Master Designer has obviously done.

If that were true, we wouldn't see the uncountable numbers of evolutionary dead ends that occured over time. This is another reason Christians do not insult God by calling Him a "designer."

NeoDarwinism is dead.

They've been trying to sell that one for about a hundred years. Can you guess why they've never had any luck?

God is alive and well and having a ball watching His enemies trying to outwit Him.

Certainly, He is. But creationism is a dying ideology; no doubt He has compassion on those who claim to worship and love Him but won't accept that He used nature to produce living things, and to produce the variety of life we see.

 

[bob b]

Not so tiny. Bigger than yours. A lot bigger. And they have the same bones that yours do.

All relative. I'm smaller than a whale.

Depends on the whale. Ambulocetus clearly used feet to walk as well as swim. Rhodocetus probably could still get around a little on beaches, basilosaurus was unable to walk at all.

Some "sequence". Mostly imagination.

You can tell a great deal about the soft tissues by a skeletion. The tissues leave their marks and show us what they looked like, in many cases. This is another of those times where not knowing about the subject has been a stumbling block for you. Perhaps a non-threatening way for you to learn about it would be forensics, where scientists can reconstruct the facial features of a person from the skull alone.

We have lots of examples of people to use as a guide. Reconstructing how extinct animals looked might be something else again I would say, particularly if only one sample is available.

It is an implicit blasphemy to accuse God of designing like an inferior creature. He does not need to design. He is the Creator.

Your opinion. My opinion is that you are the blasphemer by embracing what is essentially Nature Worship.

It was a good move to create the universe to produce living things that were imperfect replicators. As Genesis tells us, He created the world, and it produced living things.

Shame. God is the One who deserves the glory, not Mother Nature (one form of paganism).

 

[baloney]

You just don't get it do you, Bob. The speed of light is how we know all about the big bang. If you said it was different in the past, it would change the universe so much that we wouldn't exist to be discussing it.

You are beating a dead dog here!

 

[baloney]

Not to mention what you stated in post #294 that the universe is no longer expanding. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[bob b]

Not to mention what you stated in post #294 that the universe is no longer expanding. Who are you trying to kid?

How could we tell if it was still expanding? Run the numbers and you might see what I mean.

 

[noguru]

How could we tell if it was still expanding? Run the numbers and you might see what I mean.

Why don't you show us your calculations so we can check them?

 

[baloney]

Because light from distant galaxies is red shifted. Not only is it expanding but the expansion is accelerating.

 

[bob b]

Because light from distant galaxies is red shifted. Not only is it expanding but the expansion is accelerating.

The redshift has occurred because the universe has expanded, thus increasing the wavelength of any lightwaves in transit. The rate of expansion is not relevant, only the amount of the expansion. Thus the universe could have expanded faster than assumed and the light we are receiving today would be redshifted by exactly the same amount. So we cannot tell if the expansion is still continuing. I believe it is not.

And since the Bible indicates that creation was over after six Earth days, it seems to support my position that the expansion is no longer occurring.

 

[Hank]

The redshift has occurred because the universe has expanded, thus increasing the wavelength of any lightwaves in transit. The rate of expansion is not relevant, only the amount of the expansion. Thus the universe could have expanded faster than assumed and the light we are receiving today would be redshifted by exactly the same amount. So we cannot tell if the expansion is still continuing. I believe it is not.

And since the Bible indicates that creation was over after six Earth days, it seems to support my position that the expansion is no longer occurring.

So if we see a star exploding that shows to be more than 6000 light years away from us, or however old you think the universe is, was it created during the 6 days and then blown up right after that or when did it explode?