Evolution discussion

[MVP]

Questioning scientific theories is welcomed.

I look at the Earth map, same species living on different continents, same fossils found along the shores of once joined continents and to me continental drift is a fact. Not sure you can even call it theory.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

And since then Darwin's work was updated based on modern findings and knowledge and nobody is basing evolution theory on 1859 publishing alone. Whitney's claim about Calaveras skull was corrected as well and instead of being 1.8-5.3 mil old it was shown to be 1000 years old.
Lets stay current

Please show me a link that demonstrates how Whitney was "corrected."

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Maybe I'll read up on it later.

See the Horizon Project's research on cataclysmic change. Gist is that continents shift dramatically and rapidly in regular cycles.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Need dinner....or need to evolve.

 

[MVP]

So I assume you also believe that the nuclear reactor I posted (a modern discovery) is a naturally occurring phenomenon?
.

Thats how scientists describe it and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor

 

[MVP]

Please show me a link that demonstrates how Whitney was "corrected."

https://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_calaveras_skull

https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/calaveras.html

From Article:

In 1901, Rev. Mr. Dyer, who had been a missionary at Angels Camp in the 1870s, said that Scribner confessed to planting the skull in Mattison's mine. George Stickle, postmaster and Scribner associate, told Holmes that it had come from a burial place in Salt Spring Valley west of Angels.

This long-running hoax carries on even though carbon dates in 1992 suggested that the cranium was perhaps 1,000 years old, backing up Holmes' conclusion made more than a century ago

There you go, triumph of technology.^

 

[carolinajazz]

Current evolutionary theory is no where near the same as it was when it was proposed in the 1860s.

....but all the questions, problems, and cockamamie ideas/theories associated with it...still exist!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

....but all the questions, problems, and cockamamie ideas/theories associated with it...still exist!

I'm sure you think this will happen any day now.

 

[MVP]

....but all the questions, problems, and cockamamie ideas/theories associated with it...still exist!

What problems? It is a scientific theory which explains origins of life. From all your creationists arguments here I have yet to see any believable explanation how you guys see "intelligent design or creation" of life on Earth. Don't show me Bible or Quran - I can't accept it any more then Loch Ness Monster story, unicorns or fairies.

 

[carolinajazz]

What is wrong with you creationists?

....let's get one thing clear! Some posting here believe in a "Creator" while others are "creationist"....and there's a big difference! Creationist believe that God created the earth and everything on it within a literal 7 day 24 hour period of time, which is NOT what the Bible teaches! Those of us who believe in a Creator and the Genesis account as it actually reads, understand that the earth, universe, solar systems, etc. etc. etc. were created and formed many billions of years ago, and way before God created animals and the first pair of humans on this earth! As to the actual length of the 6 creative days mentioned in Genesis, no one knows how long they were, if each one was the same length and some of the various details associated with what God was creating during that time period. The word "day" in Hebrew or even in English and other languages, for that matter, is NOT limited to a 24 hour period. I detailed this in a previous post but will reiterate it for you again if need be! Obviously, the use of the word '"day" in the Genesis account could not have been a 24 hour period, as it has already been proven or shown that the earth and things on it, and things that have been gone for millions of years.....has been clearly documented. If a paleontologist digs up a dinosaur bone and says "it's 50 million years old" THAT does not disagree with the Genesis account of creation! No one was alive recording time when dinosaurs roamed the earth! They were created on the "5th" creative day or possibly the beginning of the 6th day. The Genesis account mentions "great sea monsters" and these could have reference to dinosaurs! These were creative "work" days when God was accomplishing many things and since even our "work" days can be short or long, same with the Creator! We generally work an 8 hr day in this country but sometimes we work 12 hours.....sometimes we knock off at noon.......and go fishing! Is this making any sense to you? Does it sound reasonable?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

....let's get one thing clear!

One thing? Nothing you've ever posted on this board as ever been anywhere near clear. You saying one thing clear is like UGLI saying one thing serious, or Beantown saying one thing smart or me saying one thing funny or you also saying one thing not racist.

 

[carolinajazz]

We talking living beings. You think humans now are more primitive then 50.000 years ago for example?

....frankly, yes! Here's why. As advanced as many think humans are or have become in developing things, eventing things, discovering things, the fact remains that we are merely using number systems and alphabets that people actually INVENTED thousands of years ago! The most complex languages are not modern ones but ancient or ones from earlier civilizations! The construction of the "Pyramids" is mind boggling and to this very day cannot be explained by modern engineers even with there sophisticated equipment! The book of Genesis gives detailed chronology and indicates that humans lived 500, 600, even 900 years of age before scumming to death, whereas our lifespan has changed little from the 70 to 80 years that special mightiness might allow for, this, despite all the new scientific and medical discoveries that humans love to brag about and take credit for! True, some modern day inventions seem ingenious but are really copies of what others have done before or that had to be learned by the detailed study of things in the past!

 

[carolinajazz]

One thing? Nothing you've ever posted on this board as ever been anywhere near clear. You saying one thing clear is like UGLI saying one thing serious, or Beantown saying one thing smart or me saying one thing funny or you also saying one thing not racist.

....now THAT is some serious hyperbole!

 

[carolinajazz]

I'm sure you think this will happen any day now.

....no, but I'm sure many evolutionists think that given "enough time" it's entirely possible!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

....now THAT is some serious hyperbole!

Would 4/5ths be more to your liking?

 

[MVP]

.. The book of Genesis gives detailed chronology and indicates that humans lived 500, 600, even 900 years of age before scumming to death, !

Sure and vampires are immortal and zombies still can walk while being dead. I asked for something believable and you give me this nonsense

 

[MVP]

....let's get one thing clear! Some posting here believe in a "Creator" while others are "creationist"....and there's a big difference! Creationist believe that God created the earth and everything on it within a literal 7 day 24 hour period of time, which is NOT what the Bible teaches! Those of us who believe in a Creator and the Genesis account as it actually reads, understand that the earth, universe, solar systems, etc. etc. etc. were created and formed many billions of years ago, and way before God created animals and the first pair of humans on this earth! As to the actual length of the 6 creative days mentioned in Genesis, no one knows how long they were, if each one was the same length and some of the various details associated with what God was creating during that time period. The word "day" in Hebrew or even in English and other languages, for that matter, is NOT limited to a 24 hour period. I detailed this in a previous post but will reiterate it for you again if need be! Obviously, the use of the word '"day" in the Genesis account could not have been a 24 hour period, as it has already been proven or shown that the earth and things on it, and things that have been gone for millions of years.....has been clearly documented. If a paleontologist digs up a dinosaur bone and says "it's 50 million years old" THAT does not disagree with the Genesis account of creation! No one was alive recording time when dinosaurs roamed the earth! They were created on the "5th" creative day or possibly the beginning of the 6th day. The Genesis account mentions "great sea monsters" and these could have reference to dinosaurs! These were creative "work" days when God was accomplishing many things and since even our "work" days can be short or long, same with the Creator! We generally work an 8 hr day in this country but sometimes we work 12 hours.....sometimes we knock off at noon.......and go fishing! Is this making any sense to you? Does it sound reasonable?

Nothing what you just posted makes any sense. Sorry pal. I wanted explanation how you imagine origins of life on Earth. You are giving me religious legends - same as people who do not want to learn and accept simple way out - "it was Gods will". Not good enough!
To believe book of Genesis is same as to believe Zeus sending lightnings from Olympus or Prometheus stealing fire from gods to give it to humans. You sure can if you like, but I refuse.

 

[One Brow]

Okay, let me explain this a different way.

Your comparison isn't meaningful. You can't compare "natural" (undirected) selection to "you pick out the ones that best fit your criteria" (directed) selection.

Evolutionary Design=Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design = Directed Selection

The issue is that you are confusing "directed" with "intelligent". Natural selection is not random selection, it's selection directed by the environment. There is some probability involved, because many traits only increase/decrease your fitness relatively, as opposed to absolutely.

If we apply it to real world study

Selective Breeding=ID

Agreed. Also, because selective breeding does not involve probability, it operates on a much faster scale.

It ain't a diversion. Mt. Rushmore has always been a representation of the biological systems we are really talking about. The eyes on Mount Rushmore lack one important feature that biological eyes have. Usefulness.

Both monuments had eyes. Since we know one was not designed, the presence of eyes does not indicate design.

Oh right. Fish have two eyes. But the first known creature to have eyes had 5 eyes. Why did 3 eyes disappear once it mutated its way into the fish? I would guess 5 eyes would make any fish more fit.

Eyes have developed differently in different lineages. The earliest seem to have been individual cells that could sense "bright" and "dark". So, I'm not sure to what you refer.

Actually, the Christian dogma behind The Designer is that there must be "flaws" in the design from the start or some way for "flaws" to enter the system along the way in order for humans to experience difficulties and eventual death.

Depends on the Christian. Many think there were no flaws until 6000 years ago.

I assume the original DNA code for humans was more pure so insulin resistence (<---the thing that causes "aging") took more time, so our early ancestors had longer life spans.

There are many factors in aging, and insulin resistance is not even chief among them. Otherwise, every old person would be a Type II diabetic.

The processing environment is a different story...haha...but computer programs are fully deterministic so B is fully determined by A.

How can B be fully determined by A if B is different in the presence of X vs. Y?

The amount of information may increase but the amount of new information doesn't. There are more pages in the 2 copy book but you can't learn anything more from reading the second copy of the story than you did from reading the first copy of the story.

Remember we are talking about the ability of undirected contingencies (chance) to create new information.

Again, you are claiming that 0110011001100110 has the same amount of information as 0110. Below, you say this is not true.

OB: I fully acknowledge that the division algorithm is a designed process. However, my point was that you can't claim that something is not produced by a process simply because it is not produced in any particular step. This is just as true of useful information as it is of division.​

I don't believe I ever made that claim, so your point is moot.

Dembski made that claim, you quoted it. He said that since no individual step of the chance -> selection -> chance cycle created CSI, the overall process could not, either.

We were talking about "Whenever chance and necessity work together..." they can't create new useful information.

Yes, then. The notion that, because something is not created by an individual step, that means it can't be created by a process, is wrong.

Again, there may be more information but not new information.

How do you distinguish "new information" from "information you did not have previously, but have now"?

********

PW: I don't think it was useful...
OB: It served, and still serves to some degree, the same purpose as Mt. Rushmore.​

Yes, it served as something to look at with our real eyes. Too bad that point was just as useless as the mountain eyes.

So, we agree that being used for a purpose is not a sign of design? Excellent.

ID scientists ain't claiming that the direction of change is from complex to simple.

What you are talking about is entropy of a system.

Languages often get more complex as they evolve.

Human's made an alphabet (symbols of sounds) and created words (more complex sounds) and then strung those words together to make sentences and so forth. Then over time the language changed a little bit here and there but it was still recognized as language...and was useful for the transfer of information between humans.

Language, and writing, preceded the alphabet. Outside of that, your point is in complete agreement with the notion of languages evolving.

This is why you can't apply "micro-evolution" to Darwin's common ancestry theory, because it is just change in creatures that already exist. It doesn't account for how those creatures came into existence.

They come into existence by being born/hatched/etc. from their parent(s).

I'm saying depending on the environment the usefulness of the appendix changes. This is what us God-believers call adaptability.

Which changes it's vestigial nature how?

No, I think "vestigal" organs don't serve your fish to human claim, just your ape-like ancestor claim.

None of them, or are you specifically talking about the appendix?

But if it supports your ape-like ancestor assumptive starting point it also supports the Bible's Adam starting point. So you unwittingly support the "creationists" you despise.

Can any evidence, ever, not be consistent with creationism? Because if creationism agrees with everything, it can be confirmed by nothing.

 

[One Brow]

I ain't making a mistake. The uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries all had to appear simultaneously to be useful for sexual reproduction. If you take any one of those parts away, there is no sexual reproduction. (This is what Behe was trying to tell you)

If they evolved separately then what made them more "fit" for survival?

Evolution does not teach that they evolved separately.

If our asexual ancestor just mutated a fully formed egg sac one day they would still be no closer to the ability to sexually reproduce...and thus no more "fit" for survival than they already were just making copies of themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

[One Brow]

Seriously where are you getting your data? What missing link you talking? There is no missing links - homo sapiens evolution from apes is well documented and understood.

Small correction: not "from apes", but "as apes". We are still apes.