RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Nessa]

Birds that no longer flying eg the New Zealand Kiwi bird who doesn't fly any more but and has the body temperature of an animal not a bird. You can see with a few million years its evolving into a mammal.

The kiwi no longer flies? Can you show me proof it once flew? Thanks.

[RickD]

Birds that no longer flying eg the New Zealand Kiwi bird who doesn't fly any more but and has the body temperature of an animal not a bird. You can see with a few million years its evolving into a mammal.

The kiwi no longer flies? Can you show me proof it once flew? Thanks.

It must have flown. How else would it get to New Zealand, swim?

[Nessa]

Well, actually mr smart a.s.s, I researched it and it says its inconclusive how they actually got here

[RickD]

Well, actually mr smart a.s.s, I researched it and it says its inconclusive how they actually got here

Maybe they came over on boats with those Australian prisoners, way back when.

Did you ever think of that, Mrs. Smartyknickers?

[abelcainsbrother]

The thing that sticks out to me about the theory of evolution that I think alot
of people overlook is that scientists have put forth evidence life evolves.Yet if we take the time to go through the evidence for evolution we see that their own evidence shows and proves life does not evolve.It makes no difference whether it is viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,etc we see that not only do these things not evolve it really proves the bible true about kinds producing after their kind.

The only thing their evidence proves and confirms is normal variation amongst the kinds. And it also shows that environmental pressures has absolutely no effect,we still get normal variation even when environmental pressures are taken into account so natural selection is a myth. This is why viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,salamanders remain salamanders with only normal variation in reproduction.

Look at all of the different dog breeds and we see different shapes and sizes -variation in reproduction but they are all still dogs. This is the same thing the evidence put forth for evolution shows,the exact same thing. It causes me to think that people just choose to believe the preaching about how life evolves and don't take a look at what the evidence for evolution demonstrates.

[Audie]

Birds that no longer flying eg the New Zealand Kiwi bird who doesn't fly any more but and has the body temperature of an animal not a bird. You can see with a few million years its evolving into a mammal.

The kiwi no longer flies? Can you show me proof it once flew? Thanks.

As a "zinger' that does kinda rank with "can you show me proof that Jesus was ever 13 yrs old", dont you think so? But maybe it is a real question, not intended as a zinger.

One might, of course, note that they do have wings, and wonder why
infinite wisdom would call for the bones and muscles to be present, but useless.

If one has an "Evolution or the Bible" mindset, it might be well to wonder if it is really a black / white absolute like that, and if one has such an attitude, why it is thought to be necessary to reject one to understand the other.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. In fact, I recommend it. Skeptical of politicians, or a lot of other things.

Militantly rejecting of something that is only dimly understood is another matter. Without reading it, I can be sure abe there provided an example
of something I am far from the first to observe: that it is not possible simultaneously be a creationist and well informed on science, while maintaining intellectual honesty.

A prime example would be the American paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise, who
certainly would be aware of the evidence in a way that few of us are.

He knows there is no evidence whatever that there ever was a flood, or
a 6 day creation event, all organisms appearing suddenly in their current form. Rather, all currently known evidence shows the opposite. Anyone who has done some study knows that.

His way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance is just to say evidence counts for nothing:

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

How he might he feel if on trial for his life, the foreman of the jury comes back and says "all the evidence in the universe says he is innocent, but it seems to us that he is guilty anyway" is not something he will likely ever find out.

But what would you think such a verdict seems to indicate?

[Philip]

From a scientific view, young earth creationism would seem an easy pigeon to shoot in a barrel. But Audie tends to focus on that, as if it is the only possibility or belief amongst Christians. No GLOBAL flood, perhaps. But there is no way a substantial regional flood would definitely be OBVIOUS. Argue evolution until the cows come home - explain how ANYTHING could be here to evolve, or the razor's edge and phenomenal number of exceptionally key metrics ALL necessary for even a cell to exist, much less to evolve. Explain the minuscule window between very early lifeforms and what exploded fully realized at the Cambrian. Audie, you don't have enough arrows or quivers to shoot down the many things you can't explain, but act as if they are an exhaustive rebuttal of the Bible. Your default position is always yet unknown understandings of metaphysics that would have preceded evolution, and THEN you've got absolutely no mechanism to create what is necessary to form life, as the improbabilities are so many zeros it makes one's head swim - but apparently not yours - nor for countless others determined to dismiss God. And any one of the many mechanisms and functions of all those NECESSARY things are each, in themselves, massively complex and unlikely. And THEN, they all have to interact perfectly with other totally necessary things. So you have unlikely immense probability upon over 140 others totally necessary parameters to explain away. And you've got to explain how they came to interact with such astonishing synchronicity. Uncaused and theoretical metaphysics IS your best bet - not credible - but at least you have something to write in the many blanks on your universe explanatory test!

[Audie]

From a scientific view, young earth creationism would seem an easy pigeon to shoot in a barrel. But Audie tends to focus on that, as if it is the only possibility or belief amongst Christians

Give me a flippin' break, Phil. How did you get that, out of this?

If one has an "Evolution or the Bible" mindset, it might be well to wonder if it is really a black / white absolute like that, and if one has such an attitude, why it is thought to be necessary to reject one to understand the other

But again: Being a Christian does not mean "brain parked at door".
Understanding geology and evolution need be no barrier to be faith, qutie the opposite, for lo, to reject those is to pursue a false faith.

so sayeth audie, so shall it be.

No GLOBAL flood, perhaps. But there is no way a substantial regional flood would definitely be OBVIOUS

Depends. Change it to "now way it necessarily would be obvious (tho geologists betimes find things not obvious to the untrained eye)

And depending on what is meant by substantial.


.

Argue evolution until the cows come home - explain how ANYTHING could be here to evolve, or the razor's edge and phenomenal number of exceptionally key metrics ALL necessary for even a cell to exist, much less to evolve.

Coming home of cows wise, you've overpresented that pov a thousand times.

And it is still a moldy s-man, for,lo, ToE is not about the origin of the universe or or life, no more than aeronautical engineering is about the origin of air.

Explain the minuscule window between very early lifeforms and what exploded fully realized at the Cambrian. Audie, you don't have enough arrows or quivers to shoot down the many things you can't explain, but act as if they are an exhaustive rebuttal of the Bible.[/quote

Who (not me) is trying to rebutinize the bible? A literal reading of 6 day poof, and global flood, is hooey. So is a literal reading of "Jesus is a lamb".

] Your default position is always yet unknown understandings of metaphysics that would have preceded evolution, and THEN you've got absolutely no mechanism to create what is necessary to form life

You are misreading and misrepresenting, but that is ok, you dont know, and are kinda figuring the best you can.

Do you use the same objection to math? Like, we cant study math and understand if we dont got the metapphysics-metaphysics?

With a universe in place, as it is, many things happen, just spinning out the
consequences of what is there in motion. Life appears to me to be one of those things. Cant prove how it happened, maybe some day can show how it
could have happened.

, as the improbabilities are so many zeros it makes one's head swim - but apparently not yours -

The head spin is that of persons who choose to accept the figurin' of that particular person, to the exclusion of the ideas of anyone else, likely as not better qualified to speak of such.

I dont spin so easily. The stats argument certainly has not been proved.

nor for countless others determined to dismiss God

.


Again, you misread and misrepresent. I dosnt believe there is a god, I dont "dismiss" it. If you are not a 6 day poofter, then a fundy might say of you that you "dismiss" or "dont believe the bible" because you see something else.

I see it as that IF there is a god, it has the full capacity to have made-as it seems to me evident that it did-a university so constituted that some few things can come to be without said god having to tweak and prod and move molecules about. Clouds form ok on their own; likewise crystal caves, watersheds, and a great variety and abundance of quite complex organic molecules.

It is not remotely a case of "determined to dismiss" on my part, tho I sure see if from Christians who (see Dr. K Wiess) are DETERMINED (see you "all caps" style" to dismiss deep time and evolution, by whatever means they dream up.

And any one of the many mechanisms and functions of all those NECESSARY things are each, in themselves, massively complex and unlikely. And THEN, they all have to interact perfectly with other totally necessary things. So you have unlikely immense probability upon over 140 others totally necessary parameters to explain away.

And you've got to explain how they came to interact with such astonishing synchronicity. Uncaused and theoretical metaphysics IS your best bet - not credible - but at least you have something to write in the many blanks on your universe explanatory test!

"Uncaused / theoretical metaphysics"?
If the subject is the theory of evolution, all of that is completely irrelevant.

You could possibly write to better effect if you skipped the snark and hyperbole. As well as the rather dismissive and somewhat insulting reference to "explain away". We can discuss on a better level than that.

I kinda thought I had a point in what I wrote, and you didnt address any of it.

[RickD]

All we need is a kite and a sewer quote, and Audie's post would be complete.

[Audie]

All we need is a kite and a sewer quote, and Audie's post would be complete.

It does kind of seem as if it would not be necessary to explain over and over and over again that ToE is not about metaphysics or the origin of the universe.

Let me know if that message ever gets thru.

[crochet1949]

If there is no explanation of the Origins OF -- how can there Be development Of.

Take a Person -- a baby -- we Know it came about from egg / sperm combo. The baby developed in the woman's uterus. It gets born -- the parents are Not surprised as to 'where did this baby come From'. Now -- IF a baby were left on someone's front porch -- they wouldn't simply take the baby into their house and begin raising it. They Would want to know Where the baby came From. Because there is - at Least a mother Somewhere. And obviously there was a Father or there wouldn't Be a baby to leave on a front porch. So -- the parents can watch their baby develop into a toddler, teenager, adult.

So -- we Know there is an earth with animals and people -- we can Observe That. And life Does happen one generation at a time. We also know That.

There are Lots of people who do ancestor searches because they are Curious as to Who their ancestors are.

Another subject -- birds that have wings but don't fly. Turkeys, chickens, peacocks, etc. They are born - one generation at a time, Also. People are the 'key' to any changes / to bring out features of the animal. "Birds of a feather Do flock together' / mate and reproduce little ones of their kind that grow up to be mature birds that continue to reproduce after Their Kind. They are Not going to change Gradually into something Else. Because they produce One Generation at a time.

[abelcainsbrother]

The ToE is about assuming life evolves based on scientists proving and demonstrating in the lab,etc that there is variation in reproduction,so that we are right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on variation in reproduction in which he was trying to convince everybody life evolves based on variation in reproduction and have made absolutely no progress in science to demonstrate life evolves.

The only difference is Charles Darwin assumed life evolves and tried to convince people life evolves based on variation in reproduction where today scientists have proven in the lab there is variation in reproduction while trying to demonstrate life evolves but have only demonstrated what Darwin already knew but still assume life evolves just like he did based on variation in reproduction.

[dougangel]

Um, maybe you could studyvsome biology before you try to take a stand on what makes sense?

Birds run hotter than mammals, btw.

I do know that. That was my point. It seems to be evolving out of bird chararistics into a mammal over time. there are quite a few animals like this that seem to be in transision stage.
Honorary mammals
Kiwi’s habits and physical characteristics make them unbird-like in many ways. Sometimes they are referred to as an honorary mammal.
They build burrows like a badger, and sleep standing up.
The kiwi’s body temperature is lower than most birds, which range from 39ºC – 42ºC. The kiwi is more like a mammal, with a temperature between 37ºC and 38ºC.
The kiwi’s powerful muscular legs are heavy and marrow-filled, like a mammal, with skin as tough as shoe-leather. They make up a third of the bird’s weight. The skeletons of most birds are light and filled with air sacs to enable flight.
The eye sockets of most birds are separated by a plate, but in kiwi they are divided by large nasal cavities – just like most mammals.
While most birds depend on sight, the kiwi relies on a highly developed sense of smell and touch.
The kiwi’s sense of hearing is also well developed. Its ear openings are large and visible, and it will **** its head to direct its ear toward soft or distant noises.
Unlike most birds, which have one ovary, a female kiwi has two – like a mammal. If she produces more than one egg in a clutch, ovulation occurs in alternate ovaries.
The chick emerges from its enormous egg as a mini adult, fully feathered and able to feed itself – which is very unusual for a bird.
And finally, a kiwi’s plumage is shaggy and hair-like, and it has cat-like whiskers on its face and around the base of its beak. These super-sensitive way-finding whiskers are likely to have evolved to help the bird feel its way through the dark.

[dougangel]

The kiwi no longer flies? Can you show me proof it once flew? Thanks.

The newest palaeognath phylogeny: according to Mitchell et al. (2014), tinamous are close to moa (again), but now kiwi have a sister-group relationship with elephant birds.
The newest news on palaeognath phylogeny concerns Mitchell et al.’s (2014) paper in Science. They successfully retrieved mitochondrial DNA from the elephant bird taxa Aepyornis hildebrandti and Mullerornis agilis, which is a big deal in itself. But while elephant birds look something like moa or ostriches, the DNA shows “unequivocally” that they’re closest to kiwis, a surprising result that not only seems discordant with anatomy and ecology but also with distribution. In fact, it seems to absolutely contradict the idea that ratites were ancestrally flightless and owe their distribution to continental breakup, and can only sensibly be explained by over-water dispersal (Mitchell et al. 2014).

The point has already been made elsewhere online that an entire kiwi could just about fit inside the egg of Aepyornis; both taxa now seem to be close relatives. Image by Kyle Davis and Paul Scofield, Canterbury Museum.
The shape of palaeognath phylogeny now suggests that flight capability was widespread, even ubiquitous, across the clade, with large size and flightlessness evolving independently, apparently early on in the Cenozoic and in the wake of the KPg extinction event. Mitchell et al. (2014) in fact even suggest that big-bodied palaeognath groups evolved large size because they were among the first animals with this evolutionary potential within their respective ecosystems: those groups that arrived later on in the same places were then 'denied' the opportunity to also evolve large size in the same way. So, kiwi and tinamous are small because moa and rheas, respectively, ‘got their first’. Intriguing stuff.

[Philip]

OK, Audie, then quite arguing evolution as if it makes some statement about God's existence or the truth of the Bible. And also quit using YEC interpretations of Scripture to dismiss the Bible scientifically - you've made a gazillion - yes, SNARKY - statements to that effect. Evolution proves not one thing that is important to a theism reality. Not one. So quick to dismiss creationism, but not terribly worried about the huge, inexplicable gaping holes between when NOTHING physically existed - not even the space for anything to expand into, and and instant explosion of a marvelous and astounding physical reality, immediately - but not RANDOMLY - but immediately obeying established laws of great specificity as well as the fact that these many complex things functioned together in amazing harmony. So that is your first huge gap. So, you have a stunning array and number of immensely improbable individual conditions, and THEN interactively so, before ANY cell could have even survived. So, that is your second, mind-boggling hurdle. Third, the conditions are right, but something had to make non-life become the first cell. And you should know that a simple cell is a massively complex thing that cannot EVOLVE. As ALL of its necessary components must be in place all at once, for that cell to be able to function as a living organism. Fourth huge hurdle - is how did that first simple cell survive - really, what are the odds. Immensely improbable, that's what. For healthy offspring of modern animals, with optimum conditions, the survival rate for many well developed and healthy offspring is VERY low.

What I would advise Audie is to quit throwing out cheap dismissals of the huge and insurmountable issues above, and either address them with facts and proof of how these things were possible, or stop being so dismissive of a Creation that we can scarcely understand its incredible complexity and functionality. Really, these things are beyond our comprehension. And lest we forget the biggest hurdle of all of this - Audie's Godless universe, of all of these astoundingly complex things of extraordinary design, had to first "pop" into existence and THEN self assemble themselves, blindly, randomly, unguided. It takes off the scale faith to believe these many things are possible without an eternal presence of beyond human understanding and of power untold. So when ANYONE is so easily dismissive, they need to do more than talk unsupported theories that basically are the equivalent of "scientific metaphysics." So you are wasting your time debating evolution with Audie or anyone else - as it proves not one thing about God, even IF it were true or provable.