Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[danielwoods]

I don't know how many fossils you've looked at, nor how many complete fossil skeletons you've seen, but as far as the fossil record is concerned, all that is necessary to throw all fossils and the assumptions that those fossils have generated, is to find one single skeleton from undisturbed ground that doesn't fit in the level and layer to the established age of that layer. In other words, find a rabbit skeleton among dinosaur fossils and the whole idea of an ancient earth gets thrown out the window.

Now, that doesn't soud too hard, does it? Just one modern skeleton mixed amongst ancient fossils and Darwin and the whole idea of evolution comes crashing down. And believe me, there are many people looking for any such evidence.

Until someone finds a modern skeleton amongst fossils, I'll section off my belief in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny or a 6000 year old earth to fantasy tales. They're just cute kiddy stories that at an appropriate age should be tossed out.

 

In other words your theory is correct until someone can demonstrate to you that it is not. 

 

The situation is still the same. Your interpretation can't be demonstrated using simply facts. 

 

Ultimately what is happening is you have faith in your interpretation to such an extent, that you deny that it's faith. At which point you think it's fair to ridicule anyone who doesn't hold to this faith because you believe it is based on facts alone. 

[danielwoods]

Ok, then let me put it this way. If we start at the top rim of the Grand Canyon,

moving downward, past each of many horizontal, layered rock strata, will we

EVER discover the fossil of a lifeform more advanced, more complex, more

suited to its ancient environment, than what is to be found in all the layers

situated above that discovery?

If, at a certain level in all of that revealed age-old rock strata, we discover

remains of animals having backbones, will there likely be a sedimentary

rock layer ABOVE. (and thus more recent in time) without Chordata?

As for fossils found in diverse places being unrelated to one another,

suppose that I locate a rock layer in that same Grand Canyon, and

discover that it typically preserves a certain kind of trilobite -- If I

then trace the same stratum around the canyon, traveling a hundred

miles away from my initial discovery, and there, in that distant

location, discover again the exact same kind of trilobites, must I

conclude that they are unrelated to the first found bunch, because

the second collection of the dead critters was found 100 miles away?

I do not suppose you advanced very far in your Geology grad studies.

UD

 

If we assume that your interpretations are correct, then you have a point. However, my point is that the facts alone do not lead to that interpretation. In order to get to your interpretation and extrapolation, one has to add certain assumptions that are themselves untestable, and not demonstrable… In essence, not factual. 

[thesometimesaint]

In other words your theory is correct until someone can demonstrate to you that it is not. 

 

The situation is still the same. Your interpretation can't be demonstrated using simply facts. 

 

Ultimately what is happening is you have faith in your interpretation to such an extent, that you deny that it's faith. At which point you think it's fair to ridicule anyone who doesn't hold to this faith because you believe it is based on facts alone. 

 

That is exactly what a scientific theory is, an explanation of a series of facts that can be, but have not yet been, falsified. Your job now is to find the physical evidence of your claim to have falsified evolution.

 

Here are the facts about a small set of fossilized bird remains.

SEE https://images.searc...a&hsimp=yhs-001

The theory behind those remains falsifies your claim that those remains are unrelated scattered bones.

 

Your claim is Reductio ad Absurdum.

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

Galileo The Theist

Edited February 20, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Uncle Dale]

If we assume that your interpretations are correct, then you have a point. However, my point is that the facts alone do not lead to that interpretation. In order to get to your interpretation and extrapolation, one has to add certain assumptions that are themselves untestable, and not demonstrable… In essence, not factual. 

 

Oh, I suppose that one of those "assumptions" is that the earth was not "organized"

at some distant point in the past, with rock strata already in place.

 

If there are indeed "worlds many and Adams many," then perhaps some of those

godly organizers form worlds with fossils already in the rocks.

 

My major assumption, in viewing a massive example of erosion-exposed layers

of sedimentary rock, is that they were laid down, one after another, almost always

at the bottom of a sea (though some wind-blown sandstone may be an exception)

and in the sequence we now see.

 

I also assume that the exposed layers were not all opened up within forty

days and forty nights, due to a world-wide flood, and that the Colorado

River has been cutting down though that great elevated plateau for

millions, upon millions of years.

 

If these sorts of assumptions are wrong -- then, of course, biological evolution

would have to be re-investigated and re-articulated.

 

Then again, if these assumptions are wrong, then a great deal of what we

nowadays rely upon as established scientific axioms, would also have to

be thrown into the rubbish bin.

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, I suppose that one of those "assumptions" is that the earth was not "organized"

at some distant point in the past, with rock strata already in place.

 

If there are indeed "worlds many and Adams many," then perhaps some of those

godly organizers form worlds with fossils already in the rocks.

 

My major assumption, in viewing a massive example of erosion-exposed layers

of sedimentary rock, is that they were laid down, one after another, almost always

at the bottom of a sea (though some wind-blown sandstone may be an exception)

and in the sequence we now see.

 

I also assume that the exposed layers were not all opened up within forty

days and forty nights, due to a world-wide flood, and that the Colorado

River has been cutting down though that great elevated plateau for

millions, upon millions of years.

 

If these sorts of assumptions are wrong -- then, of course, biological evolution

would have to be re-investigated and re-articulated.

 

Then again, if these assumptions are wrong, then a great deal of what we

nowadays rely upon as established scientific axioms, would also have to

be thrown into the rubbish bin.

 

UD

 

Here is where the Anti-science crowd gets really dangerous.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/parents-trying-to-reverse-kids-autism-by-flushing-out-vaccines-with-bogus-miracle-bleach-enemas/

[Uncle Dale]

Here is where the Anti-science crowd gets really dangerous.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/parents-trying-to-reverse-kids-autism-by-flushing-out-vaccines-with-bogus-miracle-bleach-enemas/

 

Wow! A cure for everything!

 

Cancel my annual donation to the Johns Hopkins fund for

crippled children -- draw up a transfer of the family ranch --

and give everything I own to these Genesis II hierophants

and snake-oil geniuses!! Hal-aye-lu-yeah!

 

UD

Actually, snake oil might possess better curative properties

than battery acid injected into the behind of a helpless babe.

[danielwoods]

 

Then again, if these assumptions are wrong, then a great deal of what we

nowadays rely upon as established scientific axioms, would also have to

be thrown into the rubbish bin.

 

UD

 

Indeed, those assumptions, whether right or wrong, have no bearing on what modern day science does today. 

 

Which only further demonstrates my point. They are not facts. 

[danielwoods]

That is exactly what a scientific theory is, an explanation of a series of facts that can be, but have not yet been, falsified. Your job now is to find the physical evidence of your claim to have falsified evolution.

 

Here are the facts about a small set of fossilized bird remains.

SEE https://images.searc...a&hsimp=yhs-001

The theory behind those remains falsifies your claim that those remains are unrelated scattered bones.

 

Your claim is Reductio ad Absurdum.

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

Galileo The Theist

 

The theory behind those remains falsifies my claim how exactly? 

[bcuzbcuz]

Here is where the Anti-science crowd gets really dangerous.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/parents-trying-to-reverse-kids-autism-by-flushing-out-vaccines-with-bogus-miracle-bleach-enemas/

Sick, sick, sick, and I don't mean the kids. Snake oil pushers like that are pyscopaths without conscience and people who fall for it, because they know zilch about cause and effect, and scientific method, offer their children on the altar of ignorance. Sick.

[Uncle Dale]

Indeed, those assumptions, whether right or wrong, have no bearing on what modern day science does today. 

 

Which only further demonstrates my point. They are not facts. 

 

OK -- let's try out an example, just for fun.

 

The experts tell me that the speed of light in a vacuum is 

a known constant, varying only in the very slightest in its

encounters with virtual particles and actual particles.

 

If I assume that this known speed of light was the same

yesterday as today (and the same 8000 years ago as

it was 4.5 billion years ago), -- then, would my assumption

(based upon what I've been told) have any bearing upon

how my use of the scientific method is "done" (or "does")

today, as I search for new information?

 

I once asked a creationist how it was that the light from

the stars suddenly appeared visible on planet earth at 

a particular point in the "six days of creation" he professed.

 

"Simple," was his reply, "God created the entirety of those

billions of light beams, all in an instant. Prior to the creation

of the earth and the heavens, there were no beams of light

traveling across space, to our planet."

 

Again, that was his "assumption." Would our relying upon that

supposed explanation have any bearing on how we employed

the scientific method, for making new discoveries, today? Or --

would our automatic rejection of such an explanation have any

bearing upon what is nowadays taught as Science?

 

UD

Edited February 20, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[danielwoods]

Again, that was his "assumption." Would our relying upon that

supposed explanation have any bearing on how we employed

the scientific method, for making new discoveries, today? Or --

would our automatic rejection of such an explanation have any

bearing upon what is nowadays taught as Science?

 

UD

 

How could it? The only difference is time. How does assumptions about time affect what we do today? 

 

If I believe the Universe is 20 Billion years old, or if I believe the Universe is 10K years old. How did that effect anyone in todays scientific world? 

[bcuzbcuz]

Indeed, those assumptions, whether right or wrong, have no bearing on what modern day science does today. 

 

Which only further demonstrates my point. They are not facts.

You must live in a very confusing world, a world without facts. It sounds like when you get up on the wrong side of the bed, you REALLY mean on the wrong side. the sun setsin the morning before it rises, light comes from darkness, sight is blindness, knowledge is ignorance. There are no facts. Wow. Stop reading this immerdiately before the words eat holes in your brain.

[pogi]

If God is omnipotent why would he need to use evolution to create which is extremely random and could have a myriad of outcomes?

 

God is omnipotent in that he can do anything that can be done.  There is one little problem that the theory of evolution, based on the idea of "random" mutation cannot explain.  If it was completely random, how do you explain the phenomenon of the convergence of "thousands of genes" between two unrelated organisms as seen here:

 

"The team’s results demonstrate that the evolution of overall gene expression underlying convergent complex traits may be predictable. This finding is unexpected and could indicate unusually strong constraints: The probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small, noted Oakley. Yet the team’s novel bioinformatic approaches indicate the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes."

 

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014453/let-there-be-light

 

One would not expect to see the convergent expression of "thousands of genes" with random mutation, rather, one would expect to see divergence of genes.  Something is happening here that cannot be explained by "random" mutation.  Does this suggest that evolution may be guided and not random at all?  I'll let you be the judge of that.

Edited February 20, 2015 by pogi

[danielwoods]

You must live in a very confusing world, a world without facts. It sounds like when you get up on the wrong side of the bed, you REALLY mean on the wrong side. the sun setsin the morning before it rises, light comes from darkness, sight is blindness, knowledge is ignorance. There are no facts. Wow. Stop reading this immerdiately before the words eat holes in your brain.

 

I never said there were no facts. My reply to you in post #76 wasn't refuted, but that's ok, I guess if you can't refute it then make something up?

[Uncle Dale]

How could it? The only difference is time. How does assumptions about time affect what we do today? 

 

If I believe the Universe is 20 Billion years old, or if I believe the Universe is 10K years old. How did that effect anyone in todays scientific world? 

 

What you personally believe about such things will have

no discernible effect upon how the scientific method is 

utilized today. But what you teach your relatives and 

neighbors may eventually impact the place Science

occupies in our modern lives.

 

And, if you are an influential professor at Bob Jones University,

or some such institution, what you teach there can have an

impact upon hundreds, or thousands, of young minds -- upon

students who may promote and spread your beliefs.

 

Worse yet, you or a person you influence, may one day

end up occupying an important political or legislative position,

and his/her adherence to your beliefs may impact entire

nations.

 

Probably you, yourself, will not rise to such a position of

influence -- but a fellow traveler counterpart will influence

the Boko Haram insurgents in west Africa, the Daesh of 

Syria, and the Taliban of Pakistan. And those are just a

couple of 2015 examples, from off the top of my head.

 

UD

[ERayR]

 

God is omnipotent in that he can do anything that can be done.  There is one little problem that the theory of evolution, based on the idea of "random" mutation cannot explain.  If it was completely random, how do you explain the phenomenon of the convergence of "thousands of genes" between two unrelated organisms as seen here:

 

"The team’s results demonstrate that the evolution of overall gene expression underlying convergent complex traits may be predictable. This finding is unexpected and could indicate unusually strong constraints: The probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small, noted Oakley. Yet the team’s novel bioinformatic approaches indicate the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes."

 

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014453/let-there-be-light

 

One would not expect to see the convergent expression of "thousands of genes" with random mutation, rather, one would expect to see divergence of genes.  Something is happening here that cannot be explained by "random" mutation.  Does this suggest that evolution may be guided and not random at all?  I'll let you be the judge of that.

 

 

It indicates to me that evolution through random mutation breaks down at the macro level.

[ERayR]

I never said there were no facts. My reply to you in post #76 wasn't refuted, but that's ok, I guess if you can't refute it then make something up?

 

It is not that there are no facts but but the way they are interpreted can vary greatly.

[pogi]

It indicates to me that evolution through random mutation breaks down at the macro level.

 

It could indeed support the creationist viewpoint as it flies in the face of the theory of evolution, but it does not preclude the idea of a guided creation through evolution either.  Either way, it speaks to me of a divine creator who did not create us in his image through random mutation.  The convergent genes expressed themselves through a similar phenotype of bioluminescence, which is indeed a macro level convergence.  So, either God created them individually using similar genotype and phenotype or he guided their creation through convergent evolution.  One thing is certain,  "random mutation" cannot explain this phenomenon. 

[Uncle Dale]

It is not that there are no facts but but the way they are interpreted can vary greatly.

Take the "fact" of there being footprints left by a now extinct

reptile, preserved in the hardened mud of an ancient era

and more recently uncovered by the waters of a southern

stream. Nobody questions the "fact" that the prints match

up very well with equally ancient preserved dinosaur bones.

So far, so good. No major disagreements have arisen.

But then an astute (?) advocate of young earth creationism

points out other oddities in the creek bed -- intermixed with

the dinosaur footprints. And on Sunday morning he assures

an excited audience, down at the Foursquare, Two Seeds

in the Spirit, Second Church of the Rapture and Calvin,

that he has photographed the veritable footprints of Cain's

wife, left as a Divine testimony of the 1611 King James

Bible and of the Olive Branch 666 Lodge of Free and Accepted

Knights of the Fiery Cross...

"Facts" remain the same, but our worthy creationist has

provided us with a better "interpretation" than those evil

minded paleontologists and minions of Darwin spew...

Oh well....

UD

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[pogi]

So far, so good. No major disagreements have arisen.

 

As we have been discussing on another thread, "linguistic statements of fact are only interpretations of perception", you cannot escape human perception to "see" if it actually corresponds to some reality.  So really so called "facts" are only unverifiable words. 

[SmileyMcGee]

In my personal research on the topic of evolution I have found no evidence of Darwins theory other than his vivid imagination. There is simply no evidence of one species evolving into another, ie. macro evolution. We see micro evolution, that is evolution within a species or probably more appropatly adaptation. The fosill record shows no evidence of one species evolving into another such as a half reptile half bird. For years scientists were searching for the so called missing link between Neandertal and Cro-Magnon. Well come to find out Neandertal DNA is alive and well in modern humans. Simply because species share DNA to me does not support evolution but only suggests perhaps a common sorce materal. I read somewhere we share 50% of our DNA with a bannanna. Does that make me a fruit? I don't think so. Modern science has revealed DNA can be minupilated and life can be created. Given that the master of the universe probably has more knowledge than modern man I am quite comfortable with creationism as my paradigm. We now have a new idea reffered to as intelegent design that is used so scientists don't have to acknowledge God as creator. The Glory of God is Intellegence.

It appears your "research" consisted of listening to the likes of Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Kent Hovind, which would explain why you clearly don't understand evolution and have created so many straw men. A half bird, half reptile ("croco-duck") is not consistent with the theory of evolution. There is ample material, freely available online that you can study right now that will correctly explain the evolutionary process.

Edited February 21, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Stargazer]

Sick, sick, sick, and I don't mean the kids. Snake oil pushers like that are pyscopaths without conscience and people who fall for it, because they know zilch about cause and effect, and scientific method, offer their children on the altar of ignorance. Sick.

 

People have been acting on false information for millennia.  It's not a recent phenomenon.  Was it sick way back when the knowledge didn't exist?  Or is it only sick now because certain people choose ignorance? 

[Uncle Dale]

...

A half bird, half reptile ("croco-duck") is not consistent with the theory of evolution.

...

 

 

I think that the "we ain't descended from no monkeys" crowd

would accept at least one such half-this / half-that monster:

 

 

 

And, as one of them once said "Your explanation of

whales makes about as much sense as bears turning

into dolphins..." (Give the polar bear another million

years of descendants, and check back to see)

 

UD

[Teancum]

In my personal research on the topic of evolution I have found no evidence of Darwins theory other than his vivid imagination. There is simply no evidence of one species evolving into another, ie. macro evolution. We see micro evolution, that is evolution within a species or probably more appropatly adaptation. The fosill record shows no evidence of one species evolving into another such as a half reptile half bird. For years scientists were searching for the so called missing link between Neandertal and Cro-Magnon. Well come to find out Neandertal DNA is alive and well in modern humans. Simply because species share DNA to me does not support evolution but only suggests perhaps a common sorce materal. I read somewhere we share 50% of our DNA with a bannanna. Does that make me a fruit? I don't think so. Modern science has revealed DNA can be minupilated and life can be created. Given that the master of the universe probably has more knowledge than modern man I am quite comfortable with creationism as my paradigm. We now have a new idea reffered to as intelegent design that is used so scientists don't have to acknowledge God as creator. The Glory of God is Intellegence.

Please share the top three books you have read on this topic and their authors,

Edited February 21, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Facts are funny things. Please cite a fact that demonstrates that fish evolved into a land creature?

Read the book that is the topic of this thread. Edited February 21, 2015 by Teancum