Evolution is the theory that organisms change over time. That's what medicine relies on. But look, change is change. If bacteria can become antibiotics resistant, why shouldn't one species of bird be able to become two species of bird?
toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Evolution is the theory that organisms change over time. That's what medicine relies on. But look, change is change. If bacteria can become antibiotics resistant, why shouldn't one species of bird be able to become two species of bird?
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, it's like saying movement in the ground causes mountain ranges to form because we can measure the slow creeping of the earth's crust upward and extrapolate from there.
Just like we can see the overall picture that movement of the earth's crust over a stationary hot spot formed the Hawaiian islands. And we can measure the slow creep today using satellites.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's like watching rain form rivulets in your yard and then saying they can't possibly come together to form something as large as the Amazon. The same mechanisms cover the movement of water, just as the same mechanisms govern evolution at all points.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
rainee said:
That would postulate a rather incompetent designer. We do not only share functional components, we share errors as in broken genes as well. Humans have a broken gene that is used for the synthesis of vitamin C in species that have a fully functional version of that gene.
Why would a creator who made things in their present condition include such broken parts? And why would he include those broken parts in a way that is coherent with evolutionary predictions?
By the latter I mean that when it comes to the vitamin C gene, humans have a vitamin C pseuodgene that shares the same mutations as the broken vitamin C genes found in primates and other species further down our ancestral lineage.
This video explains it better than me:
Studies of the development of embryos reveal that certain ancestral features appear and disappear again over the course of embryological development. A well known example is snakes, at a certain point in their embryological development they have buds that usually develop into legs in other species, but those features are removed again at later stages of the embryo. Humans and other land mammals express gill-like structures in early development that turn into other structures later on. In fish these structures develop into gills, in humans it develops into the pharynx (part of our throat).
That argument would only work if all we shared were functional parts, but we share "errors" as well.
They are related in the sense that they have a common ancestor.
Maybe Alate_One or any other trained biologist can tell you more about the common ancestor of dogs and cats, I do not know the details about their common ancestor.
The geological column is a fact. There is a reason we can use our knowledge of our geological column to find oil, fossilized fuel can only exist at certain layers.
Not at all my point.Ever considered that they are representations of REAL fossils?
The drawings just make it easier to see them. Go to a museum sometime. :loser:
They drew a picture to illustrate what they believed to be true, but there is no picture of what was really there.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Uhh how is that exactly? The first picture was a drawing of the Burgess shale creatures, showing what was present in that particular fossil deposit. The other shows a handful of similar mammal-like reptiles.
How is that in any way falsification? Are you saying that fossils are not actually records of "what was really there"?
We already know that not everything was fossilized. Science has made that clear. So, it is not a record of everything that was there, only what was fossilized.
PyramidHead
Active member
All of those animals in the image did exist and were fossilized
Completely irrelevant to my point.
PyramidHead
Active member
What was your point? You didn't really say anything other than 'not everything was fossilized' which doesn't really go anywhere.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Cats, dogs, bears, seals, hyenas etc. are all classed in the order carnivora, which means they share a common ancestor (as do all mammals and all vertebrates etc.)
The ancestor of the carnivorans is thought to be a member of a group called Miacids.
Here is a fossil representative of the group. (Note that this is probably not "the" ancestor of all carnivorans)
taikoo
New member
I understand that; i just dont understand how anyone thinks it is reasonable.
Its like if we had no words that Reagan actually said, or Kennedy; just remembered the spirit of it, and tried to reconstruct it years later.
nobody wrote that stuff down as it was spoken by Jesus!
Alate_One
Well-known member
And? That doesn't mean what DID fossilize didn't exist, there's no implication of falsification.
If you're trying to say the only reason things like whales, dolphins, fish and other things are not in the picture is because they "just didn't fossilize". You're going to have to give an explanation as to why you think that is. The conditions were obviously quite good for fossilization since we find many soft bodied creatures as well as hard bodied ones. Why wouldn't the skeletons of vertebrates fossilize easily under such conditions?
There is no reason to assume they were there when not a single bone or tooth from them has been found.
Alate_One
Well-known member
We live in a world today where everything is written down and recorded for us. In the first century, they had no such devices but that doesn't mean they were doomed to forget everything.
The ancient Jewish culture actually had techniques for passing down information in an oral form (read about the oral torah). Most rabbis taught in a way that was memorable often with rhymes or plays on words (presumably Jesus would have done this). And the students of rabbis would specifically set out to memorize the sayings of their teachers. This would be somewhat analogous the way you probably still remember the TV commercial jingles from your childhood as well as simple children's songs and poems you learned in school.
So don't just throw up your hands and say "how could anyone possibly remember" without considering the culture of the time and how they would cope much differently than we do with the same problems.
The words attributed to Jesus in the NT may not be verbatim. I don't see that as being a huge problem though. See AO's post also.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
rainee said:
You live in a fantasy land. That would be the most random corruption ever. It just affected a rather small selection of species and those species just happened to EXACTLY match the predictions made by the theory of evolution? Do you even comprehend how small of a chance it is that such an occurrence is a coincidence?
Pseudogenes are caused by mutations, not corruption...
Do you even attempt to understand the counter arguments? Do you look it up and do the research? Why should I bother writing long explanations if you do not even bother to do the research? Do you know what Hox genes and switch genes are? The development of the embryo is controlled by body plan genes (Hox), genes are turned on and off by other genes to control the development. Embryological remnants shows previous paths, snakes comes from lizards with legs, but they have a mutation in some gene that stops development of legs and removes them later on in the process. Our gill-like structures do not develop into gills anymore, mutations makes sure that they develop into the pharynx instead.
I'm no expert in biology, but you demonstrate such a dreadful understanding I do not even understand why you think you possess the knowledge to make any decent criticism of evolution...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex3
Just because it wasn't fossilized does not necessitate that it didn't exist alongside that which did.
I never said otherwise.
You are the one saying they weren't there based solely on the fact there aren't any fossils.
Is there reason to assume they were not?
Alate_One
Well-known member
You said:
You were implying that the picture doesn't show "what was really there". Obviously it is showing what fossilized which was obviously "really there", while that isn't complete, it doesn't make the picture *wrong*.
Its pretty obvious the conditions were perfect for the formation of fossils, why aren't they there? Bones and teeth tend to fossilize rather easily. The Burgess shale has fossils of worms. Yet there is not one bone or tooth of a mammal of any sort, modern fish, sea turtle etc.
What reason is there to assume animals such as whales and fish were there if they left absolutely no evidence behind? Should we assume there were 747s flying through the sky too? All this because you think that scripture tells you everything must be alive at one time.
So in the Cambrian, mammals, fish and birds magically didn't fossilize and in the Permian again, magically mammals and birds didn't fossilize. Creatures appear and disappear in the fossil record. You must account for that appearance and disappearance. No creationist has done so in a satisfactory fashion.
No. I said they desire the same things as everyone else. To wit, the pursuit of money and/or power and/or fame. The scope of money/power/fame was never mentioned. But since your logic mechanism seems to be busted, let me fix your statement based on what I said and see if you can follow it to the conclusion: "Wait, wait . . . you think *scientists and everyone else* is rich, powerful and famous?"
- Status