RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[RickD]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

"Verifiable" is not a good word to use. There is tho, a very large body of data that is very consistent
in showing birds ( and crocodiles) are living examples from the Archosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is kind of an unfortunate term, lumping as it does unrelated reptiles on the basis of size,
as per many svience of decades ago.

If you actually never heard that feathered dinosaurs are a thing, it is going to be hard to get you up
tobspeed on this topic.

Audie,

I used "verifiable" because it's part of the definition of a scientific fact.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

And neo believes the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact.

Neo can speak for himself, but I do not think he is insane. This is so mixed up, I do wonder if you sre into some leg-pulling.

What in the world are you talking about?

[Audie]

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

"Verifiable" is not a good word to use. There is tho, a very large body of data that is very consistent
in showing birds ( and crocodiles) are living examples from the Archosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is kind of an unfortunate term, lumping as it does unrelated reptiles on the basis of size,
as per many svience of decades ago.

If you actually never heard that feathered dinosaurs are a thing, it is going to be hard to get you up
tobspeed on this topic.

Audie,

I used "verifiable" because it's part of the definition of a scientific fact.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

And neo believes the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact.

Neo can speak for himself, but I do not think he is insane. This is so mixed up, I do wonder if you sre into some leg-pulling.

What in the world are you talking about?

A question better directed to yourself.

[neo-x]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

The only way to do that, if you really think about it is to study mutations and fossil record. Otherwise no human has time enough to see a change happen. When we say testable and verifiable, it is the nature of the method that is in question and the observation, for that makes anything testable and verifiable, to begin with.

If DNA shows enough variation among different species, which you can actually chart out to be exact, there must be a fossil that corresponds with it. That is why infact there were two types of dinosaurs, one which had hips structure similar to birds today and others which have much like the hips of reptiles. Both features are present. Plus we have feathers on dinosaurs.

Similarly, whale evolution is strikingly amazing...
This case study here may help you if you choose to read it:
http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ ... 814&id=814
It's a good starting point.

Plus you can read a chapter on that in Jerry Coyne's book, why evolution is true as well, it's even more so in layman terms.

Plus you can read tons of material on whale evolution alone. Let me know which sources you touch and why? thanks.

[neo-x]

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?

Obviously, otherwise why accept it?

Ok. I'm waiting to hear how it's testable and verifiable. You can refer me to a link that has it in layman's terms if you prefer.

I doubt all of it will be layman. But to be concise all the predictions of ToE have been true since it was posed as a model. And all the mechanisms of evolution are testable and verifiable. Do you have a specific evidence in your mind, any specific test which might satisfy you, or which you may accept? I doubt you will read a paper and agree to it since if that was the case there are a plethora of books and papers already out there which I am sure you must have heard about.

For instance, whale evolution is one model you should research into since there is are transitional forms which show the transformations. Birds and reptile from dinosaurs is another. Fossil record with evolution predictions is another. Dna is another.

I hope you don't think that there is one paper which says that one cell just turned to man. That is of course not true, since there is a complete series of transformations. You have to step back and take everything into account. And seeing it together is the key.

I would actually encourage you to start with Darwin's and Wallace's "The origin of species", if only for reference. Later books can correct what they might have had gotten wrong.

Birds from dinosaurs being verifiable would be a start. Might be easier than modern humans from single-celled life.

Ah, but you see, this is just a misconception or the embryo of one, there is no such thing as easier evolution. The evolution of plant is not really easier than say humans. because modern humans never came from single celled creatures. Just the way you are your parents' son, you don't write father and mother names as Adam and Eve, do you? I'm sure that is not on you ID documents. The same way is with humans and single cells as well. Single cell gave birth to mutli and then so on and so forth, eons of generations of changes that resulted in humans.

fakeEdit: It's wrong to assume that we come from the primordial soup as if we did. No, those chemicals gave rise to smallest structures which gradually, and by that I mean very slowly, grew diversely.

[hughfarey]

1) The Bible says that everything was made after its kind.
2) You say that cheetahs and lynxes are "normal variations" of the cat kind.
3) Since cheetahs and lynxes are completely different genera, then "normal variation" must include speciation.
QED. That's proof.

You're speculating again,now I agree with your point 1 but not 2

You don't agree with point 2? But that means you don't agree with yourself, as it''s exactly what you said! These are your words: "Like cats for example we see lions, tigers, cougars, leapards, cheetahs, panthers, lynx, etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving." You clearly said that cheetahs and lynxes demonstrate "normal variation" amongst cats. They are quite different species, so from your own words "normal variation" must include speciation. But now you disagree with yourself! Or is it just that you really have no idea what you believe? Really abelcainsbrother, you’re losing your grip on rationality here.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

Without getting bogged down in semantics, a hypothesis is testable if it implies predictions which can be verified, rather than necessarily being directly verified itself. The hypothesis that dinosaurs evolved into birds predicts that the fossil record should show:
1) Successive fossils showing (fully formed, well adapted) organisms, which apparently inhabited intermediate ecological niches between ground-dwelling and tree-dwelling, and had some characteristics common to both dinosaurs and birds but not to other organisms.
2) There must be no modern birds at the beginning of this succession.
3) That the DNA of present day reptiles and birds should be sufficiently different to imply (following my previous ideas in earlier posts) a most recent common ancestor at about the time when the succession referred to above begins.
Among others, I've no doubt.

Confirmation of these does not, of course, verify the hypothesis, it merely strengthens it. But if any of these predictions can be shown to be wrong, then the hypothesis must be rejected. As we all know, scientific verification is usually based on failing to disprove the contradiction rather than proving the contention.

[Kurieuo]

Of course there would be no "modern" birds, we're talking about pre-modern times. Birds have a signifantly different ribcage structure and lung system to dinos, and then there is Protoavis. Not all agree with "birds are dinosaurs", even if it is a popular evolutionary scenario various studies contradict such.

I'd say that the likes of Protoavis, and discoveries like birds being found at part of dinosaur diet, creates a very awkward fit and better points to progressive creation.

[hughfarey]

Of course there would be no "modern" birds, we're talking about pre-modern times.

If birds were created "of their kind" at more or less the same time as dinosaurs, we would expect to see their fossil remains fairly contemporaneously. If we found them, the evolutionary hypothesis would be significantly weakened. If we don't, then the hypothesis of simultaneous creation is weakened.

Birds have a significantly different ribcage structure and lung system to dinos, and then there is Protoavis. Not all agree with "birds are dinosaurs", even if it is a popular evolutionary scenario various studies contradict such.

Quite so. Exactly which group of reptiles were the ancestors of modern birds is a bit of a puzzle, but doubt abelcainsbrother can distinguish one from another anyway, so I used his term - dinosaurs - rather indiscriminately.

I'd say that the likes of Protoavis, and discoveries like birds being found at part of dinosaur diet, creates a very awkward fit and better points to progressive creation.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I acknowledge insufficient evidence so far.

[Kurieuo]

Sorry, I have a habit of just seeing a part of a post and replying.

[Nicki]

So, not one serious objection to the ToE.

For Abe, see a transitional fossil - sinornithosaurus millenii

Question for ID's:
1.Why do human embryos develop a coat of hair at about six months and then shed it?
2. Why do we develop a yolk sac at a 4-week embryo stage when we don't need it?
3. Why do we have a fully functional vitamin c building gene in our DNA but it is cut off at the last step, making it incomplete. It is like you make a fully functional car and then not put in the ignition key switch.

Evolution can easily answer these questions. How does ID explain this?

Thanks,sinornithosaurus was simply one of many kinds of life that lived in the former world.You really think it is a transitional fossil? How about trilobites,wooly mammoths,etc? They are all fully formed creatures and based on fossils we cannot just pick one and claim it is a transitional fossils,especially considering how many fossils we have that show fully formed creatures that once lived until they died,based on this we should assume sinornithosarus was fully formed and just a certian kind of dinosaur like a T-Rex.

I think evolutionists would regard most life-forms and fossils as transitional. According to evolution modern humans could be a transitional form between earlier hominids and something else, even though we're definitely fully formed (most of us anyway). The idea is that evolution takes a very long time - it's not necessarily something that can be observed within recorded human history, for example. I'm not on either side here - just trying to clarify.

[Audie]

So, not one serious objection to the ToE.

For Abe, see a transitional fossil - sinornithosaurus millenii

Question for ID's:
1.Why do human embryos develop a coat of hair at about six months and then shed it?
2. Why do we develop a yolk sac at a 4-week embryo stage when we don't need it?
3. Why do we have a fully functional vitamin c building gene in our DNA but it is cut off at the last step, making it incomplete. It is like you make a fully functional car and then not put in the ignition key switch.

Evolution can easily answer these questions. How does ID explain this?

Thanks,sinornithosaurus was simply one of many kinds of life that lived in the former world.You really think it is a transitional fossil? How about trilobites,wooly mammoths,etc? They are all fully formed creatures and based on fossils we cannot just pick one and claim it is a transitional fossils,especially considering how many fossils we have that show fully formed creatures that once lived until they died,based on this we should assume sinornithosarus was fully formed and just a certian kind of dinosaur like a T-Rex.

I think evolutionists would regard most life-forms and fossils as transitional. According to evolution modern humans could be a transitional form between earlier hominids and something else, even though we're definitely fully formed (most of us anyway). The idea is that evolution takes a very long time - it's not necessarily something that can be observed within recorded human history, for example. I'm not on either side here - just trying to clarify.

Notbthst those who use this enigmatic "fully formed" thing as some sort ofvsrgument will
take my word or understandvwhatvIbam saying, but..

Of course all organisms are fully formed. Nothing about ToE in the remotest sense suggedts
otherwise.

I've asked for clarification of what people using the argument ard thinking, to no response.
Possibly as they've no idea what they mean.

As forcall being transitional, Ibam curious how you see that.

Id say that our horseshoe crab, scorpions and cockroaches have been around for 400 million
years so and are not showing any inclination to transition to pollywogs of grapefruit trees.

Living species tho are not the same as those of the past. Invisible biochemical changes
evolve. I suppose all living things may be in a state of transit as they make minor adjustments
to conditions. Transitional is not just about changing from a fish to an amphibian,.

Horses give a good example, with an excellently detailed fossil record of a creature that
we find progressively changing in quite dramatic ways over many millions of years.

But it is still basically a horse. But not the little 3 toe horse of days gone by but anyone can look at the foot bones of a modern horse and see the remains-vestigial, yes-of side toes.

Horses may get more horsey, but they arent going to get wings or become csrnivores.

In another sequence we see a lineage of fish leading step by step to amphibians.

Anyway..gotta go, but there's some thoughts.

[Audie]

Of course there would be no "modern" birds, we're talking about pre-modern times. Birds have a signifantly different ribcage structure and lung system to dinos, and then there is Protoavis. Not all agree with "birds are dinosaurs", even if it is a popular evolutionary scenario various studies contradict such.

I'd say that the likes of Protoavis, and discoveries like birds being found at part of dinosaur diet, creates a very awkward fit and better points to progressive creation.

How is that an awkward fit? Plz be specific.

[Kurieuo]

What I've said here doesn't necessarily imply tinkering, which really isn't how I'd describe my view but something Audie actually coined. When fleshed out I wouldn't call it tinkering, even if I just went with her on it and played it out a little.

That said, I'm talking of a set of laws to describe the effects of consciousness upon the physical and vice-versa, a world which otherwise seems mechanical. Many scientists will continue puzzling over QM when within a purely mechanical framework, but if there are another set of laws alongside or weaved with the physical, that is consciousness also part of the order, then observer impacting upon outcomes of physical arrangements (eg double slit) aren't that puzzling like you previously described.

Think of what it also does for the biggest criticism against evolution, which is one of order and arrangement, an apparent telos to living beings and way things are arranged. At the universe level, the anthropic principle is a real term coined, not by Theists, but generally accepted that things seem arranged for us. Then there is the Gaia Hypothesis.

If embedded in the fabric of the world is a self regulating consciousness of sorts, then it seems more possible the physical world will self organise, Nature with a capital 'N' really does select. It's not as far out sounding as one might initially think, it in fact seems to be where science hints us towards. Minimally, it shouldn't and can't be ruled out.

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily think that it isn't possible. However, I do think it's unlikely and more so that there is no conscience driving it to be the way it is. We probably call it that because we try to look for patterns. It's a very common trait of all life actually.

Following on what Phil and me talked about, when I read the Bible, the focus is so entirely on humans and humans alone that it boggles me when I look up at the sky and think what going out there and why?

The scriptures remotely don't care or focus on evolution or creationism for that matter. The sole focus remains of what Christ did. And then when I see people dragging that same scripture to justify some new theory etc I kind of cringe.

I kind of understand that it's hard to accept that we may not be special at all the way it has always been taught and preached. However, to me the miracle, if I may call it that, lies with in the random. I mean look around and see there is no life for as far as we can look just outside of our little planet.

I think you hold to the view that God sustains all creation/universe at every given moment. I didn't mean to misrepresent, its just that I probably saw you or a conversation where you may have had used the word tinkering, hence I used it. Apologies.

If the yellow stone caldera blows up or a comet hits us or Andromeda collides with the Milky way, what will happen? Certainly nothing like the scriptures have ever said or probably predict. It's that far apart. And therefore I don't really think we need to drag the creator in almost everything we do. To me it's a note back to our own importance and perhaps that's why we ascribe everything with a goal and purpose.

The only way it makes sense to me, is when things go random, where NS works in a way which is really blind chance. That is the only way the universe makes sense. If not then things are really awkward at least that is what I think.

Here is an interesting video, that covers the "universe coming from nothing (i.e., vacuum)" as Krauss argues, but then he takes it much further. I'm not sure if you'll like it, but thought-provoking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ

PS. Don't be mislead by the title, it isn't the Kalam.

[Kurieuo]

Of course there would be no "modern" birds, we're talking about pre-modern times. Birds have a signifantly different ribcage structure and lung system to dinos, and then there is Protoavis. Not all agree with "birds are dinosaurs", even if it is a popular evolutionary scenario various studies contradict such.

I'd say that the likes of Protoavis, and discoveries like birds being found at part of dinosaur diet, creates a very awkward fit and better points to progressive creation.

How is that an awkward fit? Plz be specific.

I don't care to argue. Hugh understood, that's enough for me.
Google "Protoavis" and "dinosaurs ate birds China" if you're interested.

[hughfarey]

I think evolutionists would regard most life-forms and fossils as transitional. According to evolution modern humans could be a transitional form between earlier hominids and something else, even though we're definitely fully formed (most of us anyway). The idea is that evolution takes a very long time - it's not necessarily something that can be observed within recorded human history, for example. I'm not on either side here - just trying to clarify.

I don't know about "most" Nicki, as a great many species become extinct without leaving descendants, and, so far, all the species alive today are the end-points of evolution to date. Your general point is valid, though; every single one of the species through which homo sapiens descended from the Last Universal Common Ancestor can thought of as 'transitional', and the same applies to every other species alive today. That's a great many species! And you're quite right that if any of the species alive to day generates any new species in the future, then that will make them transitional too.

Horses may get more horsey, but they aren't going to get wings or become carnivores.

Probably not, but if you'd said that about 15 million years ago, regarding a bunch of even-toed ungulates looking not unlike the contemporaneous horsey-ancestor, you'd have been quite surprised when they suddenly plunged into the sea and ended up as whales. *Dreams* Even now, little ponies with very long manes are jumping off cliffs in China, escaping predators and learning how to manipulate their neck vertebrae to help them direct their glides, while their less hirsute cousins are being turned into soup. Equus pegasus is on its way...

[abelcainsbrother]

If you read through this page you will see evolutionists using assumption,speculation and imagination to feel in their lack of evidence. They are admitting to you what I have been saying and that is there is absolutely no evidence that demonstrates life evolves,so they tell you just read the preaching to understand how life evolves,in other words,just believe our speculation,assumption and evolution imagination and believe it,because this is true,it has all been peer reviewed so resistance is futile. They know it has never been demonstrated and admit you can't see it,but just have faith in what we explain. Science does not do proof,though.