Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

  1. #1
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Greetings,

    The thesis of this debate will be:

    "Evolution is the most plausible, consistently reliable, predictive and scientifically valid theory to explain biodiversity."

    Attacking the thesis: total relism
    Defending the thesis: Tankbuster

    Commentary thread located here.


    Note that this debate is not merely about the merits and/or shortfallings of the theory of evolution; the way the motion was worded is to specifically encourage an alternative theory to be proposed. We will obviously be debating whether or not the theory of evolution is plausible, reliable, predictive and the rest of it, but ultimately my esteemed opponent total relism will also have to put forward arguments for why an alternative theory works better.

    We both realise that this terrain comes with lots of philosophical bagage on both sides and offers plenty of traps which would lead to boring and unproductive debates.
    That's why I proposed some rules of etiquette (beyond the obvious of elementary decency and the following of the TOS) for this debate, and after some back-and-forth we settled on the following:

    1) Statements of facts need to be backed up by actual facts.
    Assertions are cheap, so both sides need to agree that when an assertion is made, one provides evidence for that assertion.

    2) No endless quote-festing and study-dropping.
    There's literally endless amounts of information on this subject available online, so we should agree that we're not going to copy entire pages of information straight from someone's website. Otherwise we might as well be throwing books at each other.
    Referring to studies and experiments is obviously fine, but the results of the studies need to actually be explained rather than simply copy-pasted. I.e. instead of saying "Study X and study Y support position Z." say "Study X tested ... and got these results... and that supports my position in this way."

    3) No appeals to authority.
    "Person X says this so it's true" does not count as an argument.
    That being said, studies and experiments are again fine, and are obviously not mere appeals to authority (by being peer-reviewed etcetera). As total relism put it, "arguments should be taken by their merit".

    4) Neither side has the answer to every single possible question on the subject of biodiversity, so saying "I don't know exactly how this happened" every now and again is not necessarily a crime. However, when one side is faced with facts that openly and clearly contradict their theories, then the "I don't know how to resolve this contradiction" does not work.

    5) The debate is about evolution as it relates to biodiversity, so we will not specifically be debating either the Big Bang or abiogenesis. Both are, though worthwhile subjects, not what we are debating.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    We had a little disagreement on this point. For purposes of clarification, what I meant by this point is:

    [...] I don't think it's [theories about abiogenesis and the Big Bang] relevant. "The theory of evolution" is a biological theory (as even the wikipedia page clearly shows). It functions completely independent from the Big Bang theory.

    Which is to say, the Big Bang theory could be false (as in the universe could have been made by a God) and yet evolution still could have occurred. Vice versa, evolution could be false and life could have been made not by evolution but by aliens, yet the Big Bang could still have happened.
    Alternatively, the theory of abiogenesis could be false while evolution could still be true: for instance aliens could have planted the first cell on Earth (disproving abiogenesis) but then evolution could still have taken over. And again vice versa, abiogenesis could be true while evolution could be false, for instance the very first cell could have arisen naturally, but then a God or an alien species could have taken that cell and melded it to larger organisms (disproving evolution).

    When we look at the three concepts of the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution, we see that all possible combinations of their truth values could occur. All of them could be true, or all of them could be false, or any one of them could be true and the rest of them false, or any two of them could be true and the rest false. They could function any possible way.

    Ergo, they are independent, and there's no reason why the truth value of one influences the other. I could grant you that the Big Bang was false and the first cell was placed here by God, but then I could still prove that evolution is the better theory just by using the evidence available.


    Total relism then agreed that we would not be specifically debating either the Big Bang or abiogenesis, however he will probably make quick statements (probably at the beginning of the debate) about both subjects, which I don't have a problem with. I have opinions on both subjects of my own, but I probably won't share them at all. As I said in the short explanation, I do not think either is essential for the theory of evolution to work.


    6) Using holy books as evidence for or against either side is out of the question, which is to say: using a holy book and saying that that proves in and out of itself that either side is true or false, is not allowed.

    Hope you guys enjoy it!
    Last edited by Tankbuster; February 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  2. #2
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Before we begin laying out arguments for a specific theory and determining which explanation explains things best, it seems to me like we need to talk about what an explanation actually is. It seems to me that many people - especially laymen in scientific fields - have the wrong expectations around what it means to explain something.
    If you're well-versed in scientific methodologies, you can safely skip this part (even though I think you'll miss some good talking points).

    First of all, when it comes to explanations, many seem to think in terms of "ultimate explanations". In truth, you can never have that: whatever the subject is, you're always explaining one thing in terms of other things. You never arrive at anything which is itself not in need of an explanation.
    That said, all we can ask of an explanation is that it is a model of reality which retrodicts past events and allows us to make predictions.
    You see, we're all walking around in a world which is filled to the brink with all manner of information; but we want some expectation about how this came about and (possibly even more important) what's going to happen next. The way we get a grip on this massive amount of information is through good explanations.

    Now, there's several criteria which are used by philosophers to figure out which explanation is superior, but the most commonly used are:
    1) testability (good explanations constantly give opportunities to prove them false, and by surviving they prove themselves strong)
    2) scope (also called comprehensiveness: better explanations tend to explain more things)
    3) precision
    4) simplicity (better explanations make use of fewer claims, specifically less unproven claims)
    5) mechanism (better explanations tend to give information about underlying mechanisms)
    6) unification (better explanations unify seemingly disparate phenomena)
    7) predictive novelty (better explanations don't just retrodict what we already know - in other words confirm predictions which we already know to be true - but also give us brand new predictions which we can go out and test
    8) past explanatory success

    My preferred way of thinking about these criteria is to think about a software program. Ultimately, we're all trying to make a "model of reality" which allows us to function, understand past events and predict the future behaviour of reality.
    Without good explanations, this would be a very difficult undertaking because you'd have to describe the behaviour of every single thing you see, since you don't have broad theories which explain large chunks of data. For instance, you'd have to describe the movements of all the planets in the solar system independently, you'd have to describe that when you drop a pen, it drops down at a certain speed and a certain acceleration. The same happens when you drop headphones, or a cup, etcetera... the world would be highly chaotic indeed, and describing it would require many trillions lines of code.
    However, the moment you get some good explanations (like a theory of gravity) the amount of information your description of reality requires starts to collapse: you no longer need to describe the speed and acceleration of every individual object which might fall down: you can simply incorporate the formulas of gravity into your model and voilà, you don't need all those seperate descriptions anymore.

    You might simply think of your model of reality as a computer program with a code (written in information bits) which describe reality. Better explanations are those which make your model of reality use less information bits.

    For instance, one example of a good explanation is that of chemistry. If you don't have a theory of chemistry, the world is simply a combination of a billion and one different objects which are ostensibly all different and have different characteristics.
    The moment you get some chemistry, that instantly collapses: you still have all those billion and one different objects, but you realise that they are just a billion and one different combinations of the same underlying atoms (and there's only about 100 of them). And with relatively few formulas and some underlying physics, you can even predict the behaviour of any given atomic compound without even testing it. Once again, a good explanation allows us to go from a gazillion individual descriptions to a relatively small set of rules which contain the same information.
    Now, one important note: to say chemistry is an explanation of great simplicity and elegance, has nothing to do with subjective judgements about whether or not the concept of - say - a hydrogen bridge is complicated or not. It's certainly subjectively easier to just describe the characteristics of all billion and one objects in the world, but it's undeniable that a theory of chemistry with a bit of physics will predict all those characteristics with much less information bits.

    Another advantage of keeping in mind the information content of a theory is that it allows us to easily see through bad explanations. For instance, when Newton introduced his theory of gravity, he was able to explain both the behaviour of objects falling down, and the planetary orbits: two things which had seperate explanations before Newton. But Newton was able to encompass both explanations with just a couple of simple formulas; a perfect example of a good theory (see 'scope' and 'unification').
    Now suppose someone said to Newton: "You know, I think all these formulas are far too complicated. I think I can explain the planetary orbits and the falling of objects through a more simple theory which I will call woo-woo." and when asked what this woo-woo was, he replied "Woo-woo is that entity which makes the planets move the way they do and makes things fall the way they do."
    What you can immediately notice here is that we're being cheated! This person hasn't actually explained anything, he's just given us a word. Anyone can throw out a word and say that a word is simple. But our model of reality hasn't been simplified one bit: we still have to describe every planetary orbit in our model, it's just been given the name "woo-woo". That doesn't help us at all: in fact it raises more questions than it answers, and it fails every explanationist criteria that has been outlined.

    In this debate, I'll explore where exactly evolution lies on the spectrum from good explanations to bad ones, and where total relism's particular brand of creationism lies. The two main points which I will pay attention to is:
    - how many assumptions need to be made in order for both explanations to yield predictions and retrodict what we already know
    - what the quality of predictions is either theory offers
    - which theory offers the most explanations for biological phenomena, in other words, which theory is better at reducing the amount of information we need in a description of various species of biodiversity
    Last edited by Tankbuster; February 13, 2011 at 08:06 AM.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  3. #3
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Alright, so now that that's done with, we can finally start talking about the meat of the debate: what the evidence for evolution is. I've decided to only bring two pieces of evidence to the table; two very fundamental points where evolution proves itself to be -by far- the superior theory for biodiversity.

    First of all, a definition to outline exactly what evolution is:
    Evolution at its basis is simply population mechanics. It works along the very simple mechanism: descent with inherent genetic modification. The implications of this process being that multiple lineages emerge and diverge from a branching series of common ancestors.

    My first piece of evidence will be the tree of life itself.

    1) Phylogenetics

    Evolution produces great variety via -usually subtle- changes in physical or chemical proportion. But every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were, and obviously one cannot outgrow their ancestry. So evolution –at every level- is just a matter of incremental, superficial differences being compiled atop successive layers of fundamental similarities. These layers of similarity represent taxonomic clades.
    For centuries now (long before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection), taxonomists and biologists have in fact been comparing various living creatures and noting the similarities in their morphology. Based on this, scientists like Linnaeus were able to chart these, even though he had no explanation for the apparent similarities which he saw everywhere he looked and at whatever level he looked.
    Since then, combined with our knowledge of paleontology, we've been able to set up the current tree of life.
    This tree has since been confirmed along several lines of evidence: embryological, genetics, via endoviruses, homologues of vestigial organs, etcetera... Everywhere we look, we see that -as Darwin put it- we cannot escape the stamp of our 'lowly origin'. Whether it's the coat of fur or the fish-tail we grow as an embryo, the vestigial organs we possess which link us to other forms of life, the genetic data we possess in common with our closest relatives (the great apes) and the lesser amount we have in common with other living creatures, or the large amount of fossil evidence for various hundreds of species of apes now extinct (none of which are expected from the creationist point of view, but all of which can adequately be explained by descent with genetic modification), all of it has pointed to the same tree of life.

    Now, by and large, creationists accept all this: they accept that some genetic modification has occurred (which they usually attribute to the Fall or other supernatural types of intervention), they accept that many of the species we see today are the result of diversifications of previously existing species, but they also maintain that the tree of life is at some point flawed. This is because they maintain that God made a special set of "kinds" of animals. The diversification we now see is the result of genetic diversification (usually accelerated) of these various kinds.

    Now then, if creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms, (if not all eukaryotes) or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. Where, in other words, we see these magical "kinds" and can distinguish them.

    To date, I do not know of any creationist who has ever constructed an alternate tree of life which shows where these mystical divisions lie, and why they lie exactly there.
    So my first piece of evidence is that there is in fact a tree of life which can be independently determined to exist from multiple independent fields of study and which has to date been able to incorporate every new piece of evidence which has come to the table (and has even served to predict many new pieces), and it's a challenge at the same time to any alternative theory: explain why and where the tree of life is wrong, and propose a better one which explains the evidence better.

    The second piece of evidence relates to this.

    2) Except for the known evolutionairy mechanisms, no other mechanism or alternative theory has ever been proven or been able to explain various aspects of biodiversity with any kind of explanatory power or elegance

    This is another very fundamental point. If evolution and its innate idea of descent with inherent genetic modification is not true, then my opponent will need to lay out some other set of mechanisms which are able to explain observed data with the same elegance as evolutionairy theory.
    As it stands, creationists cannot do this. They accept that processes like natural selection and sexual selection exist, they accept that these processes are the only mechanisms through which we have ever seen new genetic traits arise, and they accept that we need these processes to explain every-day phenomena (like micro-evolution which they accept).

    As it stands, evolution explains a plethora of things (see my introductory post for what is meant by an explanation). It explains why there are a myriad of extinct species to be found in the fossil record and it explains many of the characteristics they possess, it explains why certain clades of animals only exist on certain islands and not on others, it explains the existence of vestigial organs, it explains why humans have fingernails and a coccyx and wisdom teeth, it explains why giraffes have a long laryngeal nerve, it explains why we have goose-bumps, it explains why all birds have feathers even though some of them can't fly, it explains why no mammal has feathers even though some of them can fly, it explains why emus have claws, why chickens have scaly feet, why dogs have dew claws, or why the mongoose has its eye enclosed in bone, but civets do not, etcetera etcetera...

    Creationists can’t explain any of these things except by referring to upwards and proclaiming "That's how God saw fit to make it" (which, see again my introductory post, is not an explanation in any sense at all). But evolution specifically and clearly explains millions of novelties which no other idea ever conjured by men could ever account for.

    But you are of course free to try.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  4. #4

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    First i want to say thank you to tank he really has been awesome in our pm's hes been completely honest fair and it really is good to see he does not match my bias against most evolutionist at all,i believe he has studied both sides questioned evolution and know what he believes and he believes he has the truth, cant ask for more than that, that people make up there own mind and dont just believe because they want to, but actually be convinced because of the evidence of what they believe.
    I will not be responding to his original post that will be for next post, tank kept his very short so i will try and do the same.
    I also will not be attacking evolution on this post just presenting my side, also tb did not really follow rule number one as i think he plans to as it is braght up as we go so i will do as well.

    It is important to talk on the effects of our worldviews have on this debate. Everyone has a worldview and bias,its our basic beliefs and understanding of the universe.
    When i observe a magician cut a person in half, i conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what i thought i saw.
    I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my world view prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion. If your neighbor says he saw a ufo last night your worldview will imeditly kick in and help you process and inteprit the evidence, as your neigbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothiseis based on your worldview. Maybe she saw a spaceship top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking agin, maybe it was just venus [because i do not believe in ufos].
    If you do believe in ufos and aliens than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.
    This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion, for example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact.
    Know based on the belief system of the researcher one says look it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, Unitarianism, slowly over millions of years.
    One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years.
    Than another researcher says wow look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need creation is true.
    The evidence is the same the conclusion is different Based on their worldview.


    I also want to define science, science is things we can test, observe, and demonstrate, and knowledge gained from this.
    religion is beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.


    Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man or complex structures evolving or the big bang or origin of life fish turning into amphibians.
    Nor can we test noahs flood god creating etc. These are both religious worldviews, and this is not science vs religion its religion vs religion.
    One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe, it created itself.
    The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.


    First i am a biblical creationist that is 6 day creation global flood thousands of years universe all basic kinds [usually about the family level] of animals and plants created separately original perfect creation know going downhill towards decay.
    Creation says first created perfect and high level of complexity know going downhill evolution says the opposite originally basic life single celled organism evolved to greater complexity.


    some creation predictions
    predict that the world and living things would appear designed


    evolutionist and atheist dawkins says
    "Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.



    famous evolutionist Francis crick said

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5
    Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


    So it seems to me the most ovius answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation.

    there are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.



    If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimetre across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
    Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.


    biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information.
    each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt? and that all fits on the pin of a needle.

    The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were ,how many and when.
    Some functions of cellular machines
    DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands

    • Intracellular elevators
    • Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
    • Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
    • Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
    • Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
    • A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks


    A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
    Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.



    all point i believe to the ovius conclusion and easiest explanation creation.


    Information
    evolution has to be able to add new information to the genome of organisms if you are to evolve a bacteria or single celled organism to a human fish bird etc.
    originally there was no information in the dna code to construct wings brains blood feathers etc. So were did all this originate?
    In our dna we have coded information that is needed for life and to construct our bodies all organisms bodies, mutations is the only way for this to come about according to evolutionist but this has never been observed the origin of new novel functional genes.
    Information always comes from intelligence if evolution cannot explain its origin than it is dead in the water.
    They give examples of natural selection bacteria resistance bacteria ddt Resistance not one has been observed to do what evolutionist must believe it has many times over[which is to add information to the genome]. I believe it has been falsified already. No mutations contradict creation because they are heading in the wrong direction for evolution but fit perfectly with creation

    There is no evidence for evolution direct observable evidence at all in any field upward complexity evolution.
    So creation says any change that happens will be downhill or variation and this is all we see loss of information or variation of already existing information.
    my only links to quick article describing how variation happens through natural section
    read under natural selection and adaptation
    http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...rsus-evolution


    ‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
    Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.


    dna is “letters and instructions manual” on how to assemble organisms
    genes spell out the information required to build proteins
    p42 oct 2010 scientific American
    jonathan k pritchard professor of human genetics at the university of Chicago
    A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.24
    There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.25
    “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.26
    Werner Gitt
    After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.


    “DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff—hardware—but as information, or software
    Davies, P., How we could create life—The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell, The Guardian, 11 December 2002, www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk.




    “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
    L.spetner not by chance 1997
    http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Sha.../dp/1880582244



    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.

    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.





    So information fits perfect within the creation model being a non material thing with original outside intelligence needed to create it which in turn is needed for all life.
    How does atheistic evolution explain information arising from matter?




    noahs flood

    If a global flood happened what would we expect to see?
    Wouldn't we aspects to see trillions of dead plant and animals buried laid down rapidly by water all over the earth?
    Rock layers spread continent wide? thousands of feet of water deposited sedimentation? examples of large scale rapid erosion? Sea creatures buried on top of mountain ranges all over earth?
    Billions of fish and deep sea creatures buried rapidly together with land animals?
    This is just what we see, found in rock layers all over the earth.



    young earth

    I have a problem with the belief the earth is billions of years old as well ill give just a few reasons why but there are about a hundred of these types of evidences that contradict long ages.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    erosion of continents, if they were as old as evolutions believe they would have eroded 250 times over by know,n America would be eroded into the oceans in only 9.6 million years.


    Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.





    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



    Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”



    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




    Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years


    The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded.




    As one evolutionist said
    if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668






    Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).12 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).



    • G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625. Back


    So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!


    But every piece of supposed ancient carbon has radiocarbon, supposed to be millions and even billions of years old.
    This has been reported in the secular radiocarbon journals over 70 times.
    P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.



    These finding have also been done and found by creation scientist many times




    • A. A. Snelling, “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal 14.2 (2002): 99–122.


    • A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144.


    • J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147.


    • Ref. 11.


    • J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.




    It has even benn found in diamonds



    R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287



    J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

    • D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.





    comets

    comets disintegrate rapidly so that they can have a maximum ages long term comets of 200,000 years at most all evolutionist and creations agree on that.
    So why if these are suppose to be billions of year old universe do we still have them? they assume imagine hope for a oart cloud or kupitor belt but none are observed to supply more comets.



    salt in oceans

    Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
    This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
    Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.
    Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


    M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779




    The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.




    F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
    S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33



    Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.


    Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.


    W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580



    Also additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/




    dino blood vessels cells hemoglobin and proteins, there decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

    There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long


    1. Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
    2. http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009




    collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




    It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
    Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.





    Also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores
    Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
    http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland




    Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
    "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.





    multilayer fossils [commonly tress]tress prove 100% rock layers were laid down rapidly, there are trees sometimes 90 feet in length fossilizes between layers supposedly separated by millions of years.
    No erosion between layers,if those rock layers were separated by millions of years there would be evidence of erosion between the layers, instead there is only rapid or no erosion constant with deposition during Noah flood.




    fossil record
    creationist would predict variation within the basic bodies types but all the major phyla and basic bodies types to be separate. we would predict sudden abrupt appearances of organism not slowly evolving.
    I did disagree somewhat with tb in our pms about use of experts, its true if they say something it does not mean its true.

    But when multiple experts that would favor one outcome admit to another i think that certainly says something.
    So i m going to use just for know the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.







    After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
    "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89




    "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.
    "There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.



    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.




    "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.



    ‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’


    T
    he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,





    All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
    Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.




    ". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979





    2001 staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following: “ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[80]




    in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
    raop David education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289








    many more quotes from evolutionist can be used also, but it goes to show the fossil record points to creation not evolution.



    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.






    here is the creation alternative to darwins tree of life
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
    Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution —the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.
    Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.











    Last edited by total relism; February 14, 2011 at 10:56 AM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    my response to tank first post[post number 3].
    since he posted first i will respond first


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Alright, so now that that's done with, we can finally start talking about the meat of the debate: what the evidence for evolution is. I've decided to only bring two pieces of evidence to the table; two very fundamental points where evolution proves itself to be -by far- the superior theory for biodiversity.
    First of all, a definition to outline exactly what evolution is:
    Evolution at its basis is simply population mechanics. It works along the very simple mechanism: descent with inherent genetic modification. The implications of this process being that multiple lineages emerge and diverge from a branching series of common ancestors.

    so to be clear you are saying obviously that all life arose from a single [or few] common ancestors. Not simple change over time, or change in gene frequency your are saying all life arose from probably one or a few common ancestors correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    My first piece of evidence will be the tree of life itself.

    1) Phylogenetics

    Evolution produces great variety via -usually subtle- changes in physical or chemical proportion. But every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were, and obviously one cannot outgrow their ancestry. So evolution –at every level- is just a matter of incremental, superficial differences being compiled atop successive layers of fundamental similarities. These layers of similarity represent taxonomic clades.

    This seems to me a different definition, a dog and wolf had a common ancestor the original dog kind, they have know diversified and adapted to their environments.
    But this in no way contradicts creation we say all the potential all the variation was already there in the genome of the original created dog kind. That no new information was created it was not because of gaining new genes that caused the variation but loss of information more specialized animals.
    This is what dog breeding is all about we speed up natural selection in a way, we select genes we want and breed out other genes creating all the variety we have today. But all the potential as in the original dog kind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    For centuries now (long before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection), taxonomists and biologists have in fact been comparing various living creatures and noting the similarities in their morphology. Based on this, scientists like Linnaeus were able to chart these, even though he had no explanation for the apparent similarities which he saw everywhere he looked and at whatever level he looked.

    Im sorry but this is false, carl linnaeus was a biblical creationist who went out to classify animals, because he was looking for the biblical "kinds" which he even said was probably at the family or genus level most of the time.
    His explanations we great the bible talks of kinds reproducing after themselves that is how he was able to classify as he did, there are distinct animal types or "kinds' he went out to find them. I dont see this as a pre darwin problem at all. In fact if evolution were true why is there such distinct differences? why are we even able to categorize animals? why have major phyla kept there same appearance throughout the fossil record?
    by the way natural selection was thought of by a creationist before darwin. edward blith i belive was his name biblical creationist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Since then, combined with our knowledge of paleontology, we've been able to set up the current tree of life.
    This tree has since been confirmed along several lines of evidence: embryological, genetics, via endoviruses, homologues of vestigial organs, etcetera... Everywhere we look, we see that -as Darwin put it- we cannot escape the stamp of our 'lowly origin'. Whether it's the coat of fur or the fish-tail we grow as an embryo, the vestigial organs we possess which link us to other forms of life, the genetic data we possess in common with our closest relatives (the great apes) and the lesser amount we have in common with other living creatures, or the large amount of fossil evidence for various hundreds of species of apes now extinct (none of which are expected from the creationist point of view, but all of which can adequately be explained by descent with genetic modification), all of it has pointed to the same tree of life.

    here i will compare creation orchard vs evolution common decent as it relates to fossils
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Orchard vs. Tree





    he said paleontology supports his tree, i strongly disagree. The fossil record supports the creation orchard of distinct body types major phyla different categories arising with no hint of common decent and staying relatively the same and separate from others throughout the fossil record.
    leading evolutionist and anti creationist

    the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. [S. J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86(5):13, (May 1977), p. 14.]



    so the tips and the branches,this is just what the creation orchard predicts little variation between major kinds.
    That major kinds would stay the same and be categorized into the major categorize we have today.


    anti creationist and famous evolutionist
    "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


    "When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100


    again Gould


    "Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

    "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

    I could go on and on with evolutionist all saying the same thing but its against the rules, but the pattern in the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
    How does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion? it fits so perfectly with the "trunk" of the creation orchard hugh numbers of animal appearing all at once with no hint of common ancestry. this destroyes the bottom part of the darwins tree of life and fits perfect with creation orchard.



    The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.


    in Cambrian layers there are thousands of fossil species with no hint of any ancestor.


    "The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."—*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56.

    "All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.




    molecular biology
    the tree of life does not fit molecular biology they only tell you about the ones that fit, there are are many problems and inconstancy with the tree, many things that should be shred by common ancestors that are not.
    Tank are you saying that the molecular clock supports the tree of life somehow?

    depends what part of genome is tested how its calibrated etc for human mitochondrial eve could date anywhere from 65 years to 160,000
    Simon Y W ho and greger larson “molecular clock s when times are -a-changing trends in genticks 22 [2006] 79-83


    after finding out that the molecular clock never matched evolution on any of there studies, also finding bacteria according to molecular clock diverged from another kind of bacteria 5.5 billion years ago 1 billion years older than earth they said this.
    “despite their allure, we must sadly conclude that all divergence estimates discuses here are without merit. Our advice to the reader is whenever you see a time estimate in the evolutionary ligature, demand uncertainty
    dan graur and william martin “reading the entrails of chickens molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision” trends in genticks 20 2004 80-86


    “in this article we document the manner in which a calibration point that is both inaccurate and inexact and in many instances inapplicable and irrelevant has been used to produce an exhaustive evolutionary time line that is enticing but totally imaginary”
    dan graur and william martin “reading the entrails of chickens molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision” trends in genticks 20 2004 80-86




    evolutionist admits in debate molecular clock
    “is a flawed model”
    Dr Mark Farmer,
    Professor of Cellular Biology,
    University of Georgia
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...ins-p-317.html



    homologousand vestigial structures
    he said homogeneous and vestigial structures, first off non of these are evidence for evolution and both fit creation.
    Similarities better fit a common designer, showing one creator not many

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
    Romans 1 .20

    Also we all must be similar biochemically or we could not digest food.



    Does similarities prove common ancestor or common designer?
    if similarity proves common ans ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the Honda prelude and the Honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes

    chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would be amused to have similar ingredients more so than tomato soup.

    common designer or ancestor

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans—the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds (see diagram below). This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.
    Development of human and frog digits

    Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.
    Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). [From T.W. Sadler, editor, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th ed. (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1995), p. 154–157.]
    Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide. [From M.J. Tyler, Australian Frogs: A Natural History (Sydney, Australia: Reed New Holland, 1999), p. 80.]




    He said we grow a fish tale in the embro stage, the problem with this is it was dis proven in the late 1800s ernst hankel made some drawings up i cant believe this was braght up.
    may i ask who taught you that tank? still in textbooks? the only reason this lie hangs around is to support abortion.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ernst hankel in jena germany 1860 it had been 10 years and there was no evidence for evolution so ernst hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like a dog. because he said embryos go through ancestral stages
    He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution
    "At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112


    "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes."—*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14

    "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."—*Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119

    according to this theory babies are not human at even 7 months there going through fish stage than amphibian etc but 34% survive after 5 1/2 months how come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined 25 thousand they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human

    "The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University





    "The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.



    human tail- what is thought to be a tail later becomes lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body .than it will be later.
    Another reason the spine is longer at first than the body is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals


    he mentioned vestigial organs but i did not see any presented,so i will respond when braght up but first i will point out that a vestigial structure is a loss of information and is no evidence for evolution. Evolution has to explain the origin of the structure.
    A original perfect creation know falling apart is not inconstant with a vestibular structure either. You could never prove a vestigial structure anyways only our ignorance of it.


    chimp human genes similarity
    he pointed to similar gene content and less of our non ancestor or more distant ancestors.
    bias in previous chimp human comparisons and problems with this supposing proving common ancestor not common designator
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf


    2010 chimp y chromosome and human comparison are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
    many large sections had 10% similarity some human sections had no chimp counterpart
    gene content 53% different
    human y chromosome contains 33% more genes categories -which are entirely different classes of genes compared to chimps
    they guesses 70% overall similarity – which did not take into account size difference or structure arrangement differences,
    50% of human genes missing from chimp
    “the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”

    nature 463 [7280]536-539 hughs etal 2010

    so they showed we are as similar to chickens as chimps.


    David Page, who led the chimp Y chromosome sequencing project, said the two chromosomes are, “… horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”8
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    they were additionally surprised to find that there were many fewer genes in chimp and many more genes in man, with “only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.” That is, they found huge differences in the number and type of genes on the two Y chromosomes

    we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé. Interestingly, a significant paper appeared in 2007 calling the 99% rule “a myth” and claiming that we have known for decades that humans and chimps were much more different.9
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010


    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers

    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010

    we share 60% genes with bananas

    so this should go to show that we have a common designer not common ansester.

    besides all similarities prove is were similar not we evolved from common ancestor.

    not only that
    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 gretest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php


    Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings
    according to kysosyme we are closets related to a chicken
    richard e dickerson wanted to know when we branched off the family tree buy comparing lysozyme and lactibaubim found that we are direct decedents of chickens more closely related than anything
    the octopus eye has a eye that is most similar to us. fish have totally different. are we descendants of octopus?
    specific gravity of blood when test were done it was found snakes and frogs were more closely related to people than people are to apes and monkeys
    rat disease the plague only affects people and norway rats does this prove we descended from rats
    calcium/ phosshrus ration we are directly related to turtles and elephants - monkeys came from goose cytochrome c man more related to turtles than turtles to rattlesnakes people closer to bread mold than sunflowers are
    what about structures that are the same that evolved in totally different animals like the eye wing etc.. there are many eyes like flies compound eyes but cold not have evolved from each other


    he said creation cannot explain many monkey died in the past, first im not sure how many did live than the categorizing of these fragment fossils needs to be questions as many are probably same species or kind just variation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post

    Now, by and large, creationists accept all this: they accept that some genetic modification has occurred (which they usually attribute to the Fall or other supernatural types of intervention), they accept that many of the species we see today are the result of diversifications of previously existing species, but they also maintain that the tree of life is at some point flawed. This is because they maintain that God made a special set of "kinds" of animals. The diversification we now see is the result of genetic diversification (usually accelerated) of these various kinds.

    Now then, if creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms, (if not all eukaryotes) or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. Where, in other words, we see these magical "kinds" and can distinguish them.

    To date, I do not know of any creationist who has ever constructed an alternate tree of life which shows where these mystical divisions lie, and why they lie exactly there.

    the creation orchard above


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    So my first piece of evidence is that there is in fact a tree of life which can be independently determined to exist from multiple independent fields of study and which has to date been able to incorporate every new piece of evidence which has come to the table (and has even served to predict many new pieces), and it's a challenge at the same time to any alternative theory: explain why and where the tree of life is wrong, and propose a better one which explains the evidence better.
    i believe i did so above




    “ We have no evidence that the tree of life is a reality”
    eric bapteste evolutionary biologist
    New scientist Darwin was wrong cutting down tree of life
    201 2692 24 january 2009



    Darwin tree of life
    new scientist admits darwins tree “lies in taters torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence”
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0905.pdf



    ‘There’s so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable.’
    Pennisi, E., Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science 284:1305–1307, 1999.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    The second piece of evidence relates to this.

    2) Except for the known evolutionairy mechanisms, no other mechanism or alternative theory has ever been proven or been able to explain various aspects of biodiversity with any kind of explanatory power or elegance

    This is another very fundamental point. If evolution and its innate idea of descent with inherent genetic modification is not true, then my opponent will need to lay out some other set of mechanisms which are able to explain observed data with the same elegance as evolutionairy theory.
    As it stands, creationists cannot do this. They accept that processes like natural selection and sexual selection exist, they accept that these processes are the only mechanisms through which we have ever seen new genetic traits arise, and they accept that we need these processes to explain every-day phenomena (like micro-evolution which they accept).
    what do you mean by new genetic trait? new information? or variation? new function?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    As it stands, evolution explains a plethora of things (see my introductory post for what is meant by an explanation). It explains why there are a myriad of extinct species to be found in the fossil record and it explains many of the characteristics they possess,
    creation certainly has a explanation for trillions of dead things buried by water which is what the fossil record [up till the ice age is] a global flood gen 7 2nd peter 3.6


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    it explains why certain clades of animals only exist on certain islands and not on others
    here you are referring to variation within the kind creation also predicts this. There are many problems actually with evolutionary geographical distribution though it mostly just affects plate tectonics




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    , it explains the existence of vestigial organs, it explains why humans have fingernails and a coccyx and wisdom teeth,
    how does evolution exspalin vestigial leftovers should these be dropped or evolve a new function?
    also again loss of information and not against original perfect creation
    fingernails sorry this is a copy and paste

    Fingernails are unique to humans and other primates. They not only protect the top of our fingertips, but also help keep the skin at the tips of our fingers in place, making it easier for us to hold and manipulate objects
    How much strength? ‘The energy needed to cut through [our nails], is as much as what’s needed for horse’s hoofs’, says Ennos. ‘It’s quite amazing.’3
    Fingernails have the strength of hooves, New Scientist 181(2433):19, 2004.

    coccyx- without it your pelvic organs would collapse you could not have a bowl movement or walk or sit up right
    a doctor in Pennsylvania was sued in early 90s because he told a patient there tailbone was vestibular then they had alot of different problems after that


    wisdom teath
    ‘Evidence derived from paleontology, anthropology, and experiment indicates very convincingly that a reduction in jaw size has occurred due to civilization. The main associated factor appears to be the virtual absence of inter proximal attrition, but initial tooth size may have some effect. Jaw size and dental attrition are related and they have both decreased with modern diet. Jaws were thought to be reduced in size in the course of evolution but close examination reveals that within the species Homo sapiens, this may not have occurred. What was thought to be a good example of evolution in progress has been shown to be better explained otherwise.’
    Sofaer, J., Bailit, H. and MacLean, C., 1971. A developmental basis for differential tooth reduction during hominoid evolution. Evolution, 25:509–517.


    "Consequently, the teeth can provide major evidence for or against a theory of morphology change. In this case the research indicates that the problems experienced with wisdom teeth in modern society are not due to mutations selected by the environment but largely to changes in diet, namely to softer, less abrasive processed foods which do not give the teeth the workout which they require to ensure proper relationship in the mouth".
    Dr Bergman is a graduate of Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 800 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. He has also taught at the Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in the department of experimental pathology, and he also taught 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 7 years at Bowing Green State University.Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold OH for over 25 years. He has 9 degrees



    perhaps as many as 35 per cent of people have no wisdom teeth at all, suggesting that we may be on an evolutionary trajectory to losing them altogether.’ Even if this were true, it provides no support for evolution because evolution requires new structures to arise naturalistically. Rather, loss of teeth is just another example of degeneration, which fits perfectly within the biblical worldview of Creation and Fall.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    it explains why giraffes have a long laryngeal nerve, it explains why we have goose-bumps, it explains why all birds have feathers even though some of them can't fly, it explains why no mammal has feathers even though some of them can fly, it explains why emus have claws, why chickens have scaly feet, why dogs have dew claws, or why the mongoose has its eye enclosed in bone, but civets do not, etcetera etcetera...
    giraffes
    maybe because there tall? you will have to explain this why this is bad.
    goosbumps
    muscles help squeeze oil on the skin the hairs help stop oil glands being clogged they generate heat,which more can be generated by shivering the whole process sis called pioerection they provide extra sensitivity when touched and also help the cooling process by keeping precipitation in a even layer rather than dripping off. among other functions.

    flightless birds
    is loss of information just like all these no problem for creation
    also there are many possible functions or wings on birds that cannot fly like balance,coiling warmth in cold water protection etc.

    who says mamels need feathers to fly?
    i see no problems at all with the rest of the list either.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Creationists can’t explain any of these things except by referring to upwards and proclaiming "That's how God saw fit to make it" (which, see again my introductory post, is not an explanation in any sense at all). But evolution specifically and clearly explains millions of novelties which no other idea ever conjured by men could ever account for.


    But you are of course free to try.
    look above also, evolution has not explain one novelty at all not even one gene. so he has shown no scientific evidence at all for evolution


    question for tb

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage,They say we are the result of hydrogen gas,than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.
    So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident our brain to understand another accident the world?
    Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught me a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth.
    We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly, how do we know our eyes ears brain memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know, we could be in some matrix world.
    Or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]
    Science would be impossible unless our memories was giving accurate info and our senses our eyes ears etc also laws of logic are needed. How does matter produce a organism with memory?
    regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions astronomy depends on this almost entirely.
    The universe is understandable we assume the universe is logical orderly and it obeys mathematical laws that is how we can make predictions.
    Freedom to chose and consider various options free will.
    In fact evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them.
    The only reason i believe in creation is because the chemicals in my brain make me.


    science need us to be able to know our seances are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality?
    evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.










    Evolutionist must start with biblical creation assumptions to try and argue against biblical creation.


    But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature i would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible, so were able to repete lab experiments etc.
    That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ear,s are accurately giving us the correct information information to be able to do science in the first place etc
    Why should i believe that one accident our brains can properly understand another accident the big bang? how can matter acted on by mutation only for a survival advantage produce laws of logic? this is illogical matter cannot do this matter cannot produce non material things this is against science and against logic.
    If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

    Last edited by total relism; February 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM.

  6. #6
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Before I continue this debate, I want to draw attention to the quotes (and there's several dozens of them, even though we had agreed not to start endlessly quote-festing) and specifically I want to draw attention to just how honest you've been (or rather, the websites you copied them from have been).

    Here's some examples of quotes you used to show that "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution":

    Example 1:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

    Here's how that quote actually looks in context:

    "The chances that the remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they disintegrate are extremely small, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossil of a particular species, out of the thousands of millions that have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracle even to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of his life performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species, and even for groups that are most readily preserved and found as fossils they can never expect to find more than a fraction.

    "In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

    "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."


    Example 2:

    And this goes for all your Gould and Eldrige quotes, by the way:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “T
    he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

    Here's the full context of that paragraph:

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

    "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

    Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

    Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

    For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]


    And here's Gould saying what he actually thinks about the fossil record:

    [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.


    Example 3:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is your Mark Ridley quote mine.

    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

    You pretend to show that Ridley thinks the fossil record is unimpressive. Actually what he's saying is that there are stronger pieces of evidence:

    "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

    "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

    "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)


    Example 4:

    This is your Patterson quote mine:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
    "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89

    Here's what Patterson actually said about fossils:

    "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

    Here's Patterson complaining about how his statement has been intentionally misinterpreted by creationists:

    "That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

    I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt."


    Example 5:

    Another Gould quote mine:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

    This line has been omitted:

    "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

    And following is:

    "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

    "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

    "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.


    Example 6:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote from Darwin himself:

    Except you've only quoted the question, not the answer that he gives:

    But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

    In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

    So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.


    I could go on (oh trust me, I could take just about every one of those quotes and show how they were fabricated and quote-mined), but I will be content as soon as you admit that in quoting these gentlemen and pretending that "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution"" while from putting their quotations in context and looking at what they actually think about the fossil record it turns out that they believe no such thing, YOU LIED.
    Or alternatively, if it wasn't you who LIED but you were unknowingly misrepresenting them, it was the websites you copied those quotes from who LIED.

    Will you admit that the quote-mining of evolutionairy biologists and saying that they support your point when they do not, is LYING?

    It might reconvince us of your honesty, because right now a large part of your post is filled with outright LIES.

    Clear?
    Last edited by Tankbuster; February 15, 2011 at 08:38 AM.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  7. #7

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    response to his quotes[post number 6] it just seems real long because i undid the quote tags so its easier to see who is taking out of context.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Before I continue this debate, I want to draw attention to the quotes (and there's several dozens of them, even though we had agreed not to start endlessly quote-festing) and specifically I want to draw attention to just how honest you've been (or rather, the websites you copied them from have been).

    first ill say thanks for the reply from tb, i will respond to the quotes supposedly being taken out of context.
    But i want to point out i used quotes as a way to back up what i say instead of just making statements without backing them up, so do i break rule 1 or rule 3? or 4? or whatever it was.
    Sorry to tank for the amount of quotes, i shall use no more than 1 in the future on any one topic.
    Also sorry for the long post i really tried to keep it short as i could, its just in your original post and second you gave off like 1o or so supposed vestigial structures among other things and it takes longer to reply than to just run off different vestigial structures[or supposed]


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Here's some examples of quotes you used to show that "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution":

    Example 1:

    "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

    Here's how that quote actually looks in context:

    "The chances that the remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they disintegrate are extremely small, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossil of a particular species, out of the thousands of millions that have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracle even to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of his life performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species, and even for groups that are most readily preserved and found as fossils they can never expect to find more than a fraction.

    first this is based on his faith only, notice there is no evidence for what hes saying its all because he believes in evolution, it would indeed be a miracle if fossils form the way evolutionist say it doesent happen thats why, you need rapid burial catastrophic conditions global flood? also this has to do with only the number of fossils.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    "In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

    notice here he says abundant evidence for species or genus or sometimes even family that have been gradually transformed, creationist agree that the tip of the branches as Gould said.
    Than he says they can be used as infrance for the higher levels or the kinds phyla which is write were creationist say most kinds diverge. this is just what i have been saying within the kind variation not in between separate families, this fits the creation orchard perfectly not the tree of life common decent.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."
    notice again just as he said above most species genera and families and all levels above families "kinds" appear sudden with no transition.
    Than he retreats to a blind faith position of saying know many paleontologist have faith and dont need any scientific evidence for their blind faith. Thats fine with me they can have all the faith they want in unobserved fossil "missing links" dont ask me to believe in things that never were. So what tank has shown is i should have used entire quote, but that would have taken more space this was not taken out of context at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Example 2:

    And this goes for all your Gould and Eldrige quotes, by the way:

    “T
    he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

    Here's the full context of that paragraph:

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

    notice he said darwin was wedded to gradualism,and that he denied the fossil record because his theory did not fit.
    Just what i have been saying, Gould believed in punctuated equilibrium? or something to that effect that evolution happen in leaps and bounds largely because the fossil record rejects slow gradual. Which is what is taught today gould theory is rejected by most all evolutionist.
    So tank i assumed you believe in the same slow gradual evolution is this true?



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

    Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

    amen Gould he just said same thing as Simpson above and what ive been saying,he called what Simpson above said a escape just what i said it was, belief in the unseen blind faith contributory to evolution predictions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

    For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]
    again what ive been saying unobserved and here comes the hopeful monster theory



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And here's Gould saying what he actually thinks about the fossil record:

    [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution

    first he admits there not common,than says they are not aspect ed to be because he believes [well did] in the hopeful monster theory, rejected by most all evolutionist today and then.
    tank do you believe in his theory?
    Also this is still not taking his quote out of context at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

    notice they fail to say which missing links they are, a half dozen human fragments of bone are enough to say all life evolved from one common ans ester? you have got to be kidding me. not to mention i guarantee those "missing links" if any are still considered valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
    6 unnamed human missing links are facts of evolution? only a evolutionist can admit the fossil record does not support evolution than say 6 missing human missing links [probably teeth and jaw scraps and probably no longer valid] somehow makes creation bankrupt,and evolution a better theory.

    The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.
    psalm 14.1
    this is not used as evidence in any way, so i am not breaking the rules here

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.[/SPOILER]

    notice his theory above rejected by most all evolutionist, his theory fits what creationist say stasis and sudden appearance which as he said before is just what the record show.
    then he claims there are missing links at larger groups know wow the opposite of his theory and but above his missing links were all just human species change remember? so were is this great evidence.
    He admits the fossil record is against gradual evolution as i said before so this is not taken out of context at all. I was not debating agist hopeful monster i was against gradual evolution. Hopeful monster is basically creation orchard anyways.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Example 3:

    This is your Mark Ridley quote mine.

    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

    You pretend to show that Ridley thinks the fossil record is unimpressive. Actually what he's saying is that there are stronger pieces of evidence:

    "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

    "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

    "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

    notice his evidence has nothing to do with the fossil record which is why i use evolutionist quote on the fossil record.
    They know it does not support at all. Also his arguments 4 evolution are just a straw man attack on creation, he says vestigial structures just like tank, nothing against perfect creation know falling apart as well as never being able to prove one, and he or tank provides not one anyways. That has not been shown false by later research.
    he makes the amazing claim creation cannot account for design
    so this is not taken out of context at all. btw i never said it disproved evolution it just shows there great faith to believe in spite of obviously contradictory evidence thats all.[and that it fits creation]
    also notice all the excuses evolutionist have to come up with why the evidence does not fit, the simplest easiest less modified theory is by far creation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Example 4:
    This is your Patterson quote mine:

    After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
    "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89

    Here's what Patterson actually said about fossils:

    "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."



    "The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
    More recent research has reclassified these animals into ten different genera and at least three families, of which many are not supposed to have anything to do with the horse series
    Froehlich, D.J., Quo vadis eohippus? The systematics and taxonomy of the early Eocene equids (Perissodactyla), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 134:141–256, February 2002


    Ichthyostega - this was just a fully formed creture kinda like the platypus no transitional forms fully formed similar to a newt or amphibian.

    ‘Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.’
    Shreeve, J., 1990. Argument over a woman. Discover, vol. 11(8), p. 58


    Archeopteryx
    i have hugh amounts of info on Archeopteryx if you want i will post next

    so he may have thought there were a few missing links but why if he thought the record supported gradualism did he come up with a alternative theory to try and explain it away?



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Here's Patterson complaining about how his statement has been intentionally misinterpreted by creationists:

    "That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

    I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt."
    so he was lying to other evolutionist ? or evolutionist only want to know there theory fails with each? other?
    Why should a creationist not use what he said? unless he was indeed lying to other evolutionist at this meting, weird.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Example 5:

    Another Gould quote mine:

    "Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

    This line has been omitted:

    "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

    so you are a hopeful monster supporter? rejected by almost all evolutionist real fairy tale stuff if you ask me.
    This is not taken out of context at all as it applies to modern gradual evolution, also this is just what it sounds to be a theoretical rescuing devise. The fossil dont match evolution so lets say evolution happens fast big jumps than we can say look no missing links no problem, problem big problem no evidence all faith in the unseen, blind religious faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And following is:

    "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

    "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

    "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

    see he says just what i say he says this is not at all taken out of context gradual evolution has failed when it comes to the fossil record.
    also aliitle of his theory[no evidence at all] rejected by most all evolutionist today and even back than as well



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Example 6:

    Quote from Darwin himself:

    Except you've only quoted the question, not the answer that he gives:

    But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

    In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

    So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.
    again this is trying to explain away the evidence of why there is none, no one asked for a perfect intermediate but numbers of fossils showing transation in some stage from one major group to another.
    also notice how gould says and others say we should find missing links, not perfect in between but transitions from one major form to another.
    You cannot evolve all life on earth today without leaving millions of transitional fossils not perfect intermediates transitional fossils..


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    I could go on (oh trust me, I could take just about every one of those quotes and show how they were fabricated and quote-mined), but I will be content as soon as you admit that in quoting these gentlemen and pretending that "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution"" while from putting their quotations in context and looking at what they actually think about the fossil record it turns out that they believe no such thing, YOU LIED.
    Or alternatively, if it wasn't you who LIED but you were unknowingly misrepresenting them, it was the websites you copied those quotes from who LIED.

    Will you admit that the quote-mining of evolutionary biologists and saying that they support your point when they do not, is LYING?

    It might reconvince us of your honesty, because right now a large part of your post is filled with outright LIES.

    Clear?
    go on with all other quotes if you would like i got nothing else to do, i took none of these out of context in fact you helped me show more clearly what the problem for evolution is [as well as there faith], ill give you 50% right on one qoute Paterson, but does not change his view towards gradual evolution or the fossils themselves.
    and yes these are the experts on the subject, did i not also quote ernst mayer? and others? lets talk about those.
    Last edited by total relism; February 15, 2011 at 01:29 PM.

  8. #8
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    I'm sorry, but you're completely missing the point.

    This is what you said your quotes illustrated:

    "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution"

    However, if you asked any of the people who you've quoted the straight question "Does the fossil record support evolution and common ancestry?" they would all say yes. I know this, you know this (and if you don't you should actually read their books), and the people who made those quotes know this.

    So to say that these are evolutionists who admit that "the fossil record does not support evolution" when they do not think that at all, is dishonesty. I really can't put that any simpler. You're saying that they admit this, yet that's not what they're doing at all.

    That's not right.
    So I can't believe I'm actually going to have to do this, but here goes:

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism
    first this is based on his faith only, notice there is no evidence for what hes saying its all because he believes in evolution, it would indeed be a miracle if fossils form the way evolutionist say it doesent happen thats why, you need rapid burial catastrophic conditions global flood? also this has to do with only the number of fossils.
    Oh come on man, don't disappoint me.

    In the context I provided it clearly says, about the 'complete transitions':
    "Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences."

    So, is he admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution?
    Surely you have to agree with me that he doesn't think that at all in light of the quote above.

    So you definitely misrepresented him here. He was not admitting to what you said he was admitting. At all.

    notice he said darwin was wedded to gradualism,and that he denied the fossil record because his theory did not fit.
    Just what i have been saying, Gould believed in punctuated equilibrium? or something to that effect that evolution happen in leaps and bounds largely because the fossil record rejects slow gradual. Which is what is taught today gould theory is rejected by most all evolutionist.
    So tank i assumed you believe in the same slow gradual evolution is this true?
    Errrrrrrrm no, not at all. Gould did not reject gradual changes at all, he rejected the idea that evolution could only occur with gradual changes. That's quite a big difference.

    And I don't what evolutionists you've been listening to, but the mechanisms proposed by Eldridge and Gould are firmly part of modern evolutionairy theory. It's fairly uncontroversial stuff.

    Once again, you cannot quote Gould arguing for an evolutionairy model slightly different from the one which was present in his time, and then claim that he is "admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution". He is simply not saying that at all.

    This goes for all your Gould and Eldridge quotes.

    Sidenote:
    again what ive been saying unobserved and here comes the hopeful monster theory
    No sorry, not at all.

    "Hopeful monster" is something completely different from punctuated equilibrium. The latter is fairly uncontroversial, the former is accepted by nobody, not even by Gould and Eldridge.

    Little paragraph on wikipedia sums it up better than I do (and anyway, this is a sidenote and not relevant).

    6 unnamed human missing links are facts of evolution? only a evolutionist can admit the fossil record does not support evolution than say 6 missing human missing links [probably teeth and jaw scraps and probably no longer valid] somehow makes creation bankrupt,and evolution a better theory.
    Doesn't matter (even though your allegations are false).
    You said these gentlemen were "admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution".

    They're not. It's not my problem that you think their reasons for not agreeing with that statement are bad; it's your problem that you've tried to pretend that these people are admitting something which they're not.
    notice his evidence has nothing to do with the fossil record which is why i use evolutionist quote on the fossil record.
    They know it does not support at all.


    They know that it doesn't support it at all? And how do you know that they know that? Mind-reading or something?

    Seriously man, if you're expecting anyone to buy into the idea that the only reason Ridley is talking about genetic evidence and other types of evidence is because he knows that the fossil evidence is bad (and not because he thinks genetic evidence is better, as errrrrm, he says in the friggin' article), that's your call, but you cannot use these quotes as "admissions that fossil record does not support evolution".

    You tried it though, and you misrepresented them. And now you're getting slapped around trying to mind-read Ridley to make it seem otherwise.
    This is why you don't use isolated quotes from people who don't agree with your position at all.
    again this is trying to explain away the evidence of why there is none, no one asked for a perfect intermediate but numbers of fossils showing transation in some stage from one major group to another.
    That quote is from Darwin in the friggin' 1800's for crying out loud. Paleontology was in its infancy then.
    You know what, I'm going to grant you this one. This is indeed an admission of an evolutionist admitting that the fossil record doesn't support evolution. It's just an admission made 150 years ago when almost no fossils had friggin' been found
    and yes these are the experts on the subject, did i not also quote ernst mayer? and others? lets talk about those.
    If you honestly thought I was going to rip apart every single quote you posted, then sorry to disappoint you. I'm not interested in these quotes to begin with: but since they were such a large part of your argument and you blatantly misrepresented each and every single one of them by saying that they were "admissions that the fossil record does not support evolution", I really couldn't help myself.

    Now then, on to the meat. As I've already said in the commentary thread, I'm not going to take on every single point at once, instead I think we should start zeroing in on specific points here. There's enough meat in our opening posts to go on for several pages, so my proposal would be to start picking areas of dispute and getting in deep.

    If you're cool with that, of course.

    If you are, then I think we might first talk a little about the age of the Earth, since that's kind of a fundamental point which needs to be established if we're even going to talk about evolution: obviously evolution needs millions of years to work.

    So I'd say: give me your single best (or two best, if you can't help yourself) pieces of evidence which you think prove that the Earth is 6000 years old (or whatever you think it is).
    My piece of evidence is obviously the fact that every single radioactive isotope we have which has a high enough half-life time to be applicable, dates several groups of meteorites imbedded in the crust of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years:

    This graph is taken from Dalrymple (1991)
    So give me your best piece of evidence and explain how it can be that multiple dating methods using different radiometric dating methods using materials with different half-lifes yield the same result and do so consistently.

    Also, I want to tackle your statement that we've never observed mutations which adds "information" to a genome. But for that I'll first need a definition of what exactly you mean by "information" because that's a horribly vague word. Think carefully about it though, because I'm going to keep you to the definition you choose.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Tankbuster; February 17, 2011 at 02:15 PM.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  9. #9

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    first all say thank you again to tank, just pretend i say it every time first from know on


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    I'm sorry, but you're completely missing the point.

    This is what you said your quotes illustrated:

    "the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution"

    However, if you asked any of the people who you've quoted the straight question "Does the fossil record support evolution and common ancestry?" they would all say yes. I know this, you know this (and if you don't you should actually read their books), and the people who made those quotes know this.

    So to say that these are evolutionists who admit that "the fossil record does not support evolution" when they do not think that at all, is dishonesty. I really can't put that any simpler. You're saying that they admit this, yet that's not what they're doing at all.

    I disagree they would say it supports gradual evolution. If you asked them do they believe in evolution than i think yes they would , though i think raup was not could be wrong or he stopped believing in evolution.
    Since gould was used the most its important to differentiate between fossil supporting gradual evolution or common evolution and punctuated equilibrium as well as eldridge.
    I would never say these guys are creationist just that what they say the record shows is what creationist would aspect the record to show.
    That the fossil record does not support gradual evolution




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Oh come on man, don't disappoint me.

    In the context I provided it clearly says, about the 'complete transitions':
    "Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences."

    So, is he admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution?
    Surely you have to agree with me that he doesn't think that at all in light of the quote above.

    So you definitely misrepresented him here. He was not admitting to what you said he was admitting. At all.
    please read again, this is the first gg Simpson quote read the entire qoute and it is ovius that he is referring to sequences at the genus species and up to family level as i pointed out in my first response.
    Perfectly consistent with creation orchard. No evidence for evolution between families.
    I think this is were we probably are having a big mix up, the evolution common decent needs links between the major phyla between the different families etc. so are there links between species and genus and within family sure all creationist agree with this also [well with many].
    Think of the amazing line we could make with the living dog breeds today much better than nay in fossil record evolutionist offer.

    here is the qoute in question

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Here's how that quote actually looks in context:

    "The chances that the remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they disintegrate are extremely small, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossil of a particular species, out of the thousands of millions that have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracle even to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of his life performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species, and even for groups that are most readily preserved and found as fossils they can never expect to find more than a fraction.

    "In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

    "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Errrrrrrrm no, not at all. Gould did not reject gradual changes at all, he rejected the idea that evolution could only occur with gradual changes. That's quite a big difference.
    well maybe true but he obviously thought most all change happened through big jumps


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And I don't what evolutionists you've been listening to, but the mechanisms proposed by Eldridge and Gould are firmly part of modern evolutionairy theory. It's fairly uncontroversial stuff.

    Once again, you cannot quote Gould arguing for an evolutionairy model slightly different from the one which was present in his time, and then claim that he is "admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution". He is simply not saying that at all.

    This goes for all your Gould and Eldridge quotes.

    Sidenote:

    No sorry, not at all.

    "Hopeful monster" is something completely different from punctuated equilibrium. The latter is fairly uncontroversial, the former is accepted by nobody, not even by Gould and Eldridge.

    Little paragraph on wikipedia sums it up better than I do (and anyway, this is a sidenote and not relevant).

    are you saying Goulds ideas are still in textbooks? really? i never here his position represented in any of the debates i watch the media, scientific American, online evolution articles, and random material books i read of theres [not much time but i do try to keep up].
    I read a quick wiki article your source heres what Richard dawkins said about it.

    "it does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity"
    It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory,"

    1. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1996). The Blind Watchmaker, p. 250.
    2. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1996). The Blind Watchmaker, p. 251.


    than i just want to show you a wiki article your source again i just read

    Niles Eldredge published a 1971 paper in the journal Evolution suggesting that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's preferred mechanism might suggest a possible solution

    Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's paper, stating that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists"

    Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctua...m#cite_note-32

    so here is our most trusted left wing source wiki saying the same things as i said they said, gradual evolution fails the fossil record as i have been saying all along.
    So i dont think the quotes have been taken out of context at all nor would these guys agree with what u are saying they say. notice enrst meyer there as well another one of the biggest most famous evolutionist.
    Also notice gould theories tree,looks a hell of alot like the creation orchard no?
    I know talk origins disagrees but if you are looking for truth that is not a very good source as i will show later assuming you will use it again for other more important things.


    No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.
    "There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978

    does not sound of gradual evolution supporter to me



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Doesn't matter (even though your allegations are false).
    You said these gentlemen were "admitting that the fossil record does not support evolution".

    They're not. It's not my problem that you think their reasons for not agreeing with that statement are bad; it's your problem that you've tried to pretend that these people are admitting something which they're not.

    first how do you know my allegations are false on some unnamed fossils? you can say i have no evidence for the claim true, they also offer no evidence 6 unnamed fossils, i was going on evolutionist missing link history, no fossil really makes it more than 30 years before to much contridctory evidence shows up and they discard it for the next new "proof" of evolution.
    They admit it does not match gradual evolution change between families phyla the larger levels that need more transition. Yes they belive evolution in the fossil record between species sometimes genus so do creationist, you have missed the point on were the creation orchard and evolution tree split and differentiate [sorry i thought it was ovius].



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post


    They know that it doesn't support it at all? And how do you know that they know that? Mind-reading or something?

    Seriously man, if you're expecting anyone to buy into the idea that the only reason Ridley is talking about genetic evidence and other types of evidence is because he knows that the fossil evidence is bad (and not because he thinks genetic evidence is better, as errrrrm, he says in the friggin' article), that's your call, but you cannot use these quotes as "admissions that fossil record does not support evolution".

    You tried it though, and you misrepresented them. And now you're getting slapped around trying to mind-read Ridley to make it seem otherwise.
    This is why you don't use isolated quotes from people who don't agree with your position at all.

    thats why i use them they do not support my position but agree with the evidence.

    here is his qoute

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

    "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

    "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)




    he admits that evidence is not used from the fossil record to support evolution,than tells his other reasons why he supports evolution outside of the fossil record. If he thought fossils supported evolution he would have mentioned them as well obviously and not made his comment.
    So i have not misrepresented any of these quotes. I dont appreciate you chalenging a few quotes than saying all my qoutes are bad as you have said if you want lets go through them all.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    That quote is from Darwin in the friggin' 1800's for crying out loud. Paleontology was in its infancy then.
    You know what, I'm going to grant you this one. This is indeed an admission of an evolutionist admitting that the fossil record doesn't support evolution. It's just an admission made 150 years ago when almost no fossils had friggin' been found
    you accused me of taking it out of context so i responded, they actually had quit a few fossils back than.
    Since Darwin anything good out of the fossil record for evolution?




    in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
    raop daivd education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289






    We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit





    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    If you honestly thought I was going to rip apart every single quote you posted, then sorry to disappoint you. I'm not interested in these quotes to begin with: but since they were such a large part of your argument and you blatantly misrepresented each and every single one of them by saying that they were "admissions that the fossil record does not support evolution", I really couldn't help myself.


    i have yet to see this ripping apart, and yes they admit that slow gradual evolution is not found in the fossil record, that were the creation orchard and creation predictions are and evolution predictions are evolution has no evidence were it diverges from creation prediction.


    So i have not misrepresented any of these quotes. I dont appreciate you challenging a few quotes than saying all my qoutes are bad as you have said if you want lets go through them all.
    Also why have you not challenged my other qoutes from same people?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Now then, on to the meat. As I've already said in the commentary thread, I'm not going to take on every single point at once, instead I think we should start zeroing in on specific points here. There's enough meat in our opening posts to go on for several pages, so my proposal would be to start picking areas of dispute and getting in deep.

    If you're cool with that, of course.

    If you are, then I think we might first talk a little about the age of the Earth, since that's kind of a fundamental point which needs to be established if we're even going to talk about evolution: obviously evolution needs millions of years to work.

    So I'd say: give me your single best (or two best, if you can't help yourself) pieces of evidence which you think prove that the Earth is 6000 years old (or whatever you think it is).
    My piece of evidence is obviously the fact that every single radioactive isotope we have which has a high enough half-life time to be applicable, dates several groups of meteorites imbedded in the crust of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years:

    This graph is taken from Dalrymple (1991)
    So give me your best piece of evidence and explain how it can be that multiple dating methods using different radiometric dating methods using materials with different half-lifes yield the same result and do so consistently.
    first off i dont think any evidence proves the age of the earth because all go under Unitarianism dating assumptions, whether they give a old age or young age they all go under the same assumptions.
    My main goal would be to show how inconstant these assumptions are, oviusly uniformtarism asumtions contrdict themself and reveal difrent ages, so therfore they cannot be true so no dating method is proof of anything.
    This is not part of science because no one was there to test observe and demonstrate all the assumptions these go under.
    I think the evidence as a whole show the weight of evidences is favored to thousands of years and not millions or billions.
    So i think this is a unfair thing to ask me to present just 2 when you are ovisuly trying to use multiple radiometric dating methods.
    If i could only pick 2 than i guess erosion of continents and the exsistance of comets
    your evidence for old earth
    this is a copy paste of talk orgins i never trust there refrences i have many reasons not to, so these are different rocks? these dates by the way are selected dates, i dont dout they can get many ages from all different rocks.
    Because my post is so long i will only list the major assumptions for radiometric dating than i will do a post by itself ill start a little age of the earth that we can reply to back and forth sound good? i have the kids so i will do tomorrow. actually i will list assumptions as well than deal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Also, I want to tackle your statement that we've never observed mutations which adds "information" to a genome. But for that I'll first need a definition of what exactly you mean by "information" because that's a horribly vague word. Think carefully about it though, because I'm going to keep you to the definition you choose.

    Cheers.

    well i have herd it defined a few different ways here are probably the two easiest most popular ways.


    Information can be defined as a coded message contains an expected action and intended purpose.
    Dna contains instructions to build organisms different organisms different patterns.



    Or even specified complexity



    here is the reason i believe atheist evolution will never be able to account for information.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1 there has to be alphabet thats the DNA. Which has to come from a source a creator
    2 than there has to be a code that the DNA spells, only certain letters form certain words. which has to be predetermined by a intelligence.
    every code is based upon mutual agreement between sender and receiver how can evolution explain this? there has to be meaning to a set of symbols, matter alone cannot do this. It cannot understand coded information only intelligence can put this process in place.
    For example the word dog has meaning only because we have given it meaning. But in another language it means nothing, to dirt or matter it means nothing.
    3 than the message in the code has to contain meaning, which is the description of the amino acid sequences for all the proteins to construct the organs.
    4 action the process of translation construction of entire organism the sender expects a certain result from the receiver. the sender must have a purpose but matter has no purpose
    5 the outcome of the receiver is the result, life
    the outcome is predicted by the goal of the sender


    this has to come from intelligence and cannot from matter and energy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ystem_of_Units
    information is none of these so it is not material like love memory laws of logic




    however more important to me is what evidence do you have that a single celled organism can create new novel genetic information functional genes enzymes etc. that were not alredy in the biosphere?
    as i said before there originally was no genes to create brains eyes legs etc were did this come from? what process can create this new information to make evolution credible?

    I had a few questions for you first the question i posted last under the spoiler if you could give me your opinion on that please post 5 i believe my first response to you.
    as well as these
    how do things like reproductive system immune system digestive system evolve?
    What evolved first heart, kidney, or lungs-each is useless without the other two


    If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
    OVERTHRUSTS
    are were there are huge mountains of rock that supposedly slide thousands of miles from Cambrian or lower layers to top of mountains.
    But many have no evidence of this happening and there rocks would have crumbled and showed sighs of this happing but they dont.
    If evolutionist cant explain these than there whole theory is dead

    The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming
    The Lewis overthrust in Montana
    THE MATTERHORN
    THE MYTHEN
    THE APPALACHIANS





    Many of the great over thrust areas occupy hundreds and even thousands of square miles! In desperation at the problems, men are trying to move mountains in order to support a crumbling theory!
    "We may even demonstrate that strata have turned completely upside down if we can show that fossils in what are the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them."—*A. Geikie, Textbook of Geology (1963), p. 387.

    "Since their earliest recognition, the existence of large overthrusts has presented a mechanical paradox that has never been satisfactorily resolved."—*M.K. Hubbert and *W.W. Riley, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Over-thrusting Faulting," in Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-117






    how does matter produce a organism with memory?

  10. #10
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    OK, with reference to the information question, what I wanted to know is what you mean when you say that all the mutations we have observed decrease the total amount of information and statements of that sort.

    To analyse that statement I need to know how you've defined information (which you've done, thanks) but I also want to know how you determine that the total amount of information of a genome has decreased. Or what it even means for the amount of information to decrease.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  11. #11

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    commentary thread post 38 and 35
    vagn i am on purpose not getting into anything with the commentary forum if you have a question for me pm me or debate me



    tankbuster please any comments you make please make them over here [if they have to do with anything i have said] and i will respond, not only that you have misunderstood my question that you still have not replied to, know you are my fav evolutionist pleas keep it that way.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    OK, with reference to the information question, what I wanted to know is what you mean when you say that all the mutations we have observed decrease the total amount of information and statements of that sort.

    To analyse that statement I need to know how you've defined information (which you've done, thanks) but I also want to know how you determine that the total amount of information of a genome has decreased. Or what it even means for the amount of information to decrease.

    hey tank, can i call you frank the tank? have you see old school?

    determining the total amount of information in a organism genome would be very hard indeed[though i did here a somewhat accurate way would be measure of the specified complexity of a given genome would be the number of proteins coded
    http://creation.com/dr-don-batten-cv]


    But this is not needed as we only need to determine what the specific mutation in question or mutations do to what they are mutating.
    For instance a ovius loss would be the loss of a gene or enzyme correct? losing the function of a gene or protein is oviusly loss.
    I showed a similar example before but just to reestablish
    http://creation.com/bears-across-the-world#box
    Know i think we can both agree this is a loss of information and cannot explain the origin of the gene or be used as a mechanism for evolution upward complexity correct?


    The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

    • Level of catalytic activity
    • Specificity with respect to the substrate
    • Strength of binding to cell structure
    • Specificity of binding to cell structure
    • Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

    http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

    every observed mutation either reduces the speciificity of the enzyme or totally knocks out the function.
    Obviously as i said above in last post for evolution to be true it needs to explain the origin of these genes and enzymes correct would you agree with that? and that destroying already existing information or biological systems is going in the wrong direction.
    Last edited by total relism; February 18, 2011 at 11:12 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Age of the earth


    first tank said this

    [
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    QUOTE=Tankbuster;8999514]
    If you are, then I think we might first talk a little about the age of the Earth, since that's kind of a fundamental point which needs to be established if we're even going to talk about evolution: obviously evolution needs millions of years to work.

    So I'd say: give me your single best (or two best, if you can't help yourself) pieces of evidence which you think prove that the Earth is 6000 years old (or whatever you think it is).
    My piece of evidence is obviously the fact that every single radioactive isotope we have which has a high enough half-life time to be applicable, dates several groups of meteorites imbedded in the crust of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years:

    This graph is taken from Dalrymple (1991)
    So give me your best piece of evidence and explain how it can be that multiple dating methods using different radiometric dating methods using materials with different half-lifes yield the same result and do so consistently.
    [/QUOTE]


    than i replied with this

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    first off i dont think any evidence proves the age of the earth because all go under Unitarianism dating assumptions, whether they give a old age or young age they all go under the same assumptions.
    My main goal would be to show how inconstant these assumptions are, obviously Unitarianism assumptions contradict themselves and reveal different ages, so therefore they cannot be true so no dating method is proof of anything.
    This is not part of science because no one was there to test observe and demonstrate all the assumptions these go under.
    I think the evidence as a whole show the weight of evidences is favored to thousands of years and not millions or billions.
    So i think this is a unfair thing to ask me to present just 2 when you are ovisuly trying to use multiple radiometric dating methods.
    If i could only pick 2 than i guess erosion of continents and the exsistance of comets
    your evidence for old earth
    this is a copy paste of talk origins i never trust there references i have many reasons not to, so these are different rocks? these dates by the way are selected dates, i don't doubt they can get many ages from all different rocks.
    Because my post is so long i will only list the major assumptions for radiometric dating than i will do a post by itself ill start a little age of the earth that we can reply to back and forth sound good? i have the kids so i will do tomorrow. actually i will list assumptions as well than deal.



    so i will know respond to radiometric dating and why i see it as unreliable

    heres assumptions that go into the dating methods

    1each system is a close system which in real nature does not exists nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products
    2 each system most initially have contained no daughter components which is unprovable
    3 the process rate must always be the same the decay rate must never have changed
    know there are many more but these are the main assumptions all radiometric dating goes under.
    here is how these dates effect the results of samples [dont have to read but for easy way to understand how they effect the dates]
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n4/assumptions


    today newly formed rock in Hawaii will radiometric date millions and billions of years old radiometric dating has dated living animals millions of years old.
    when different radiometric dating methods are applied to the same rock they can and most often do give radically different results.
    Evolutionist will throw out any radiometric dates if they do not match the fossils, we only see the selected dates, evolutionist will attack each others radiometric dates as unreliable if it does not match there own personal theory.
    The kbs tuff is a great example Kbs tuff originally dated 230 mya evolutionist exspalin away as excessive decay because it did not match the fossils.
    Than they date 2.6 million dated 3 ways to confirm new date, that happened to match with fossils show as great proof of radiometric dating and its accuracy.
    Than human fossil found so they redated 1.8 mya to match new fossil finds. Its the fossils that count for the age not the radiometric dating.
    If the dates do not match the fossils they are exspalined away as contaminated etc every time they state the age with absolute authority.
    http://creationresearch.org/Merchant...roduct_Count=0
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...17/i3/pigs.asp
    It also shows how flexible radiometric dating can be you can get just about any age you want if you test enough times enough different ways.
    If the rocks were really as old as they want us to believe than there would no radiocarbon 14 left it would have decayed away yet it is still there. In fact if the whole earth was started as carbon 14 it would have decayed in 1million years but the evolutionist want us to believe the earth is billions of years old.
    In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours.
    Decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions theatrically .
    Polonium halos prove millions of years of radioactive decay in micro seconds hours and days.
    One rock dated by the rate group shows that one rock decayed 1.5 billion years in 6,000 years evidence for accelerated decay.
    They have dated some diamonds as 2 times the supposed age of the earth.
    What they are measuring is not ages, but decay amounts that alone cant give you a age. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock.
    when the dating is applied to recent lava flows this is the results
    mt saint helans 10 years after eruption
    dated patasuim argon 350,000 years old. Different samples average age off 2.8 million years .
    mt ngaruuhoe from 1954
    patasium argon of 3.5 million years another part dated .8 million years
    another recent basalt 110 million years
    1800-1801 hualili flow Hawaii
    2.6 million to 2.960 million

    so they do not work for observed testing but when they date "millions of years ago" its suppose to work
    when no one is there to observe it long ago and far away.

    "For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A.
    Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

    Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”


    Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. (* B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under FieldConditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

    uranium thorium lead date of 97 million years, in a supposed 20 million year old granite, it zircon dated 1,483 million years
    r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

    1. A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61


    Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634


    range of 343 million to 4,493 millon
    a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27

    age of 9.588 billion older than earth
    tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149


    recent lava 1969 flows in Africa rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
    k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572

    (iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+


    i could go on and on with these types of dates but this should show how the assumptions effect the dates


    "‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."—*T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].


    "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]





    knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
    2nd peter 3 3-7



    uniformitrism v 4
    Last edited by total relism; February 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    first people are saying on commentary thread that until a better explanation is given THEY WILL BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
    THAT IS LIKE SAYING PRETEND 10 IS TRUTH AND WE KNOW WE NEED TO GET TO 10 FOR TRUTH, SO WELL EVOLUTION IS 4 PLUS 3 THATS 7 IM GOING TO BELIEVE IT EVEN IF I KNOW ITS WRONG UNTIL SOMEONE GETS CLOSER TO 10.
    I MOST CERTAINLY OVISLUY BELIEVE CREATION IS A MUCH BETTER EXPLANATION than evolution but just showing the problems here with this thinking.
    I would like tank to tell me why what makes this faith that the evolutionist have in evolution? What causes it what real evidence is there? I was unimpressed by the tree of Darwin and vestigial structures. Evolution has never been observed and so much of what we know runs counter to its predictions, how do people still have faith?

    The implication of this assessment seems to be that creationists ought not to reject evolutionary concepts such as stellar evolution without first developing a “better” concept of their own as a substitute. This claim, sometimes called the “best-in fi eld” fallacy … maintains in effect that one is not justifi ed in rejecting falsehood until a theory of elegance equal to the false position has been devised. But it is a down-to-earth fallacy tooIt seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe he must meet any objective standardsof logic, reason, or probability
    (MacBeth, 1971, p. 78)
    MacBeth, N. 1971. Darwin Retried. Gambit,
    Ipswich, MA

    i layed out the basic creation model in my first post thousands of years universe global flood created separate kinds.
    The creation orchard vs the evolution tree of life
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
    Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution —the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.
    Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.


    That makes many predictions as i showed in first post, original complexity know falling apart for all things, mutations destroy kill break biological systems ,these are not being built up this fits creation not evolution, information non material things like logic memory etc.
    Evolution cannot itself explain laws of logic knowledge things that are needed for science

    creation predicts design and complexity i showed biological systems, dna, information

    if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!

    And all that fits on a needle of a pin
    and people think evolution has a better explanation for this? The result ultimately of hydrogen gas? And Water raining on rocks could produce this?
    Creation predicts universe would show order and design sure enough it follows persis mathematical laws these laws are what make astronomy and science possible

    "The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are inter-dependent."—*W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

    there would be symphonic relationships with animals and plants because they were all created in the recent past

    that life will reproduce after life this is a scientific law Biogenesis

    the fossil record supports the creation orchard and were the evolution tree of life splits from the orchard it has no evidence for it, the better explanation creation.

    The Cambrian explosion absolutely destroyed the darwin tree of life and fits the creation orchards "trunk'

    creation predicts there would be non material things like love sense of justice information laws of logic laws the universe follow etc
    predict genome are falling apart not building up because of the fall and curse this is without exception. And is in line with the second law of thermodynamics

    creation predicts there will be legends of a worldwide flood found in most ancient Cultures and there is
    creation predicts that man all over throwout all time will have sense of a creator and worship something greater than themselves. this is what we find all through history every little tribe worships something greater than themselves

    creation predicts trillions of dead plant and animals buried laid down rapidly by water all over the earth,Rock layers spread continent wide, thousands of feet of water deposited sedimentation, examples of large scale rapid erosion, Sea creatures buried on top of mountain ranges all over earth,
    Billions of fish and deep sea creatures buried rapidly together with land animals, mass extinctions
    This is just what we see, found in rock layers all over the earth.

    creation predicts that animals reproduce after there own kind says 11 times i think in Genesis after there own kind, and will not evolve new kinds after creation no new organs no new genes Enzymes no new information will ever evolve that was not already present in the animals genome.

    Creation predicts there would be evidence of a young universe there are hundreds, also that there would be flaws with any and all indicators that are said to prove a old earth

    creation predicts early human ancestors went through bottleneck also 3 main human lineages from noahs 3 daughters in law
    carter r w mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations
    nucleic eic acids res 35 [9] 3039-3045 2007

    creation successfully predicted little diversity in y chromosome almost none, also that the variation would be regionally specific
    carter r w mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations
    nucleic eic acids res 35 [9] 3039-3045 2007
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/mitochondrial-daughters-noah-p-339.html

    creation successfully predicted little variation in mitochondrial dna to be slightly more than y chromosome, and diversity would be distributed across world
    carter r w mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations
    nucleic eic acids res 35 [9] 3039-3045 2007
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...oah-p-339.html

    also predicted a lot of variation in x chromosome
    carter r w mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations
    nucleic eic acids res 35 [9] 3039-3045 2007
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...oah-p-339.html
    i cannot see how people think evolution has a better explanation for life on earth.
    evolutions predictions do not help science, science started before Darwin by creationist.
    ‘Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.’
    Philip Skell, ‘Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology’, The Scientist19(16):10, 29 August 2005. The whole article can be read here.


    Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states:
    ‘In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.’
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...missing_links/


    DrWhitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:
    Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’
    “I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions.
    http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/
    Last edited by total relism; February 19, 2011 at 09:17 AM.

  14. #14
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    First off my apologies for the tardy reply. Planning my birthday got in the way, and since then I've had some trouble with my internet.

    I see it hasn't you though Since I was pleasantly surprised to find four consecutive posts with lots of information, alleged predictions, questions, references back to the opening posts, etcetera...

    I doubt we're ever going to get to all those questions and every bit of information, so I have to wonder why you brought them up, and whether or not you seriously expect me to reply in detail to every single of the dozens of broad questions and anecdotes you provided.

    But anyway...
    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    first all say thank you again to tank, just pretend i say it every time first from know on
    Same here.

    Now as for bringing this quoting thing to its conclusion, I think you're simply operating around a basic misconception.

    well maybe true but he [Gould] obviously thought most all change happened through big jumps
    That's simply false. He believed that most speciation occurred through periods of rapid changes rather than gradual changes, but he still realised that there was a lot of gradual change going in.

    However, Gould's rapid evolution is entirely dependent on the common evolutionairy mechanisms and nothing else, and therefore it is entirely consistent with evolutionairy theory.
    are you saying Goulds ideas are still in textbooks? really? i never here his position represented in any of the debates i watch the media, scientific American, online evolution articles, and random material books i read of theres [not much time but i do try to keep up].
    Really?
    I'm sorry but then you're just not reading as much of it as you think you are.

    Explanations on punctuated equilibrium and how it works and why it's a part of modern neo-darwinian synthesis are everywhere.
    Here's the section on Berkeley's evolution 101 which notes how it is an "important model of evolutionairy change".
    And here's PBS's take on it, also firmly noting that it has been observed and the only debate now is over the extent to which it takes place.

    And those are just the media and popular explanations of evolutionairy theory talking about it.
    On the more scientific side, there's about 90 papers on pubmed exploring punctuated equilbrium.

    Also, the fact that Gould, Eldridge and Mayr are veritable giants in the field of evolutionairy biology and that people look up to them, might be a teensy hint that their ideas haven't been rejected at all.

    So these ideas aren't rejected at all. The mechanism of punctuated equilibrium is firmly accepted nowadays, and the only mystery is why you haven't caught on to this.
    I read a quick wiki article your source heres what Richard dawkins said about it.

    "it does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity"
    It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory,"
    And Richard Dawkins, as an ultra-darwinist, thinks that almost all speciation happens through gradual evolution. But notice that even he (and you'll hardly find anyone who's less extreme on this point) clearly says that Gould's theory is part of neo-Darwinism and that it does have applications. He just doesn't think it occurs all that often.
    Gould on the other hand would say that most speciation happens this way, and so he would say that it does occur often.

    That's a pretty profound disagreement, but one that's entirely comprised within darwinism. Both Gould and Dawkins firmly believe that the fossil record is consistent with evolution, they're just not agreed on which evolutionairy mechanisms explains the bulk of speciation - either migration or punctuated equilibrium.

    So to use Gould as an example of someone who says that "the fossil record does not support evolution" is dishonest. And I'll keep rubbing your nose in that. At the most you could say that they agree that a naive and uncritical application of evolutionairy theory does not explain the fossil record well.

    You were probably most honest when you put it like this:
    I would never say these guys are creationist just that what they say the record shows is what creationist would aspect the record to show.
    Fine. So what they say the record shows is what you assert creationists says it shows.
    Fine.

    But what they say it shows is that it supports a different interpretation of evolutionairy theory. NOT that they "admit" that it does not fit with evolutionairy theory at all. But that's what you said they admitted.

    So, putting it as simple as I can: saying that someone admits that the fossil record does not support evolution when all they are saying is that the fossil record implies a different interpretation of the theory of evolution, is dishonest.
    Also notice gould theories tree,looks a hell of alot like the creation orchard no?
    Erm, yeah.
    I mean if we cut away well over the bottom half of his tree and pretend like those fossils don't exist.

    Then yeah, it totally looks the same.
    does not sound of gradual evolution supporter to me
    Nobody said he was. Don't strawman.
    he admits that evidence is not used from the fossil record to support evolution,than tells his other reasons why he supports evolution outside of the fossil record. If he thought fossils supported evolution he would have mentioned them as well obviously and not made his comment.
    So i have not misrepresented any of these quotes. I dont appreciate you chalenging a few quotes than saying all my qoutes are bad as you have said if you want lets go through them all.
    Oh trust me, we could, but I think anyone reading already sees just where this is going: you've taken biologists who propose new evolutionairy mechanisms in a firmly evolutionairy framework, and you presented them as saying that "the fossil record does not support evolution".

    We all see what you did there.
    Since Darwin anything good out of the fossil record for evolution?
    I assume you're just trolling at this point, but just in case you're actually serious, here's a way of illustrating it:
    Try and find out how many fossils named in this Wikipedia article on Human Evolution were found in or before Darwin's time.

    Here's a hint: you won't need more than one hand to count them.

    Then ask yourself how dumb the above question sounds. Whether you agree with it or not, we have definitely found lots of fossils which evolutionairy biologists are very happy with.
    i have yet to see this ripping apart, and yes they admit that slow gradual evolution is not found in the fossil record, that were the creation orchard and creation predictions are and evolution predictions are evolution has no evidence were it diverges from creation prediction.
    See above: Gould's model of punctuated equilibrium is completely different from the creationist orchard.

    Here's the two side by side:




    You can't simply predict that those look alike and expect us not to notice. The punctuated equilibrium model is still fundamentally rooted in common ancestry, and still expects to find plenty of fossils of ancestors of modern species in a phylogenetically consistent way.

    Many of which we have found, by the way. But more on that when we talk about evolutionairy predictions.

    Now on to the meat (and I really friggin' hope I won't have to go over this again - if there's anyone who actually thinks you representing quotes from biologists like Gould and saying they "admit that the fossil record does not support evolution" when all they say is that the fossil record does not support a uniquely gradualist model of evolution... if anyone thinks that your representation of that is fair, then I might have to spell it out even simpler. But unless that happens I don't think I'll bother).

    You accused me - in reference to my request not to use more than your two best arguments for a Young Earth - of unfairness because you say I also use various dating mechanisms. I can see your point, but I don't think it's valid: of course there are various dating mechanisms and in theory they all provide their own piece of evidence for an old earth... however that's not really my evidence. My piece of evidence is that all these dating mechanisms agree even though they are based on different materials with different half-life times. The agreement of various radiometric dating techniques is the evidence.

    Now, as for your objections to radiometric dating:

    This is not part of science because no one was there to test observe and demonstrate all the assumptions these go under.
    I cannot fathom how spectacularly weak that objection is. We aren't talking about mere assumptions here: the decay of radioactive particles is only affected by the laws of physics. For you to doubt that the half-life of uranium has not been the same over the past few billion years, is tantamount to saying that you don't know whether the strong nuclear force has always been the same.


    However, you're missing the main thrust of the argument: the point is not even that one of these dating methods might be mistaken; for all we know that's possible, and for all we know there was indeed a time when radioactive decay occurred faster because of magical forces. But if this was the case, then we have absolutely no reason at all to expect that our current dating results will agree with each other.

    The reason is precisely because of these different half-lifes: if there was a time in which all radioactive decay happened twice as fast, then a material with a half-life time of 500 million years and one of 1 billion years will start to run out of order.
    So that simply doesn't work.

    Are you saying that every single one of these half-life times just happened to be sped up by just the right amount (a different speed for every single material) just to give it the time of 4,5 billion years? Is that what you're saying?
    this is a copy paste of talk origins i never trust there references i have many reasons not to, so these are different rocks? these dates by the way are selected dates, i don't doubt they can get many ages from all different rocks.
    So... what? You're simply saying "I'm going to say that these dates are selected, so there"?

    Nice try. But talkorigins didn't invent this table, it comes from the peer-reviewed book that I sourced it to.

    So simply dodging won't work: please provide evidence that these dates are selected.
    Oh and by the way, please provide some evidence by what physical mechanism it would be impossible to test the radioactive decay of a material? Because that's all radiometric dating requires.

    And then you go off with a laundry list of unsupported claims about all the times radiometric dating has failed. Here's an idea: pick one, source it (one of the rules of the debate remember) and make sure I can check it, and please explain (i) why radiometric dating was still applied correctly but (ii) the results were unrealistic.

    So far you've done nothing of this: just lots of supposed examples, none of which I can check. My advice would be to tone it down to a few examples which you are sure stand up to scrutiny.

    As for your challenge on genetic information:
    tankbuster please any comments you make please make them over here [if they have to do with anything i have said] and i will respond, not only that you have misunderstood my question that you still have not replied to, know you are my fav evolutionist pleas keep it that way.
    You've asked my dozens if not hundreds of questions already. I've made it clear that I will not respond to every single one of them - not because I can't, but because it does nothing but make our already looooong posts longer, and because most of them aren't even relevant.

    Try this: if there's this one question you have that you think really destroys evolution, ask it and be done with it. Don't hide it in a maze of easily answered questions; otherwise people might start thinking you're just trying to bury me under questions rather than actually interested in the answers.

    And then as for your challenge concerning genetic information: in your explanation of what you mean by the word "information", you seem to switch back and forth between two quite different meanings. On one hand you talk about the functionality that genes entail, when you note that "the loss of a function is an obvious loss in information"; but on the other hand, you're also talking about the DNA sequence itself and how a mutation there can subtract information.
    That's a pretty slippery set of definitions you have there, but I'm going to go along with it.

    Now, when you say that evolution has not been capable of increasing the amount of information in an organism, obviously you cannot be referring about evolution not being able to spawn advantageous functions: we know that that can occur. Regardless of what happens at the genetic level, I think we can all agree that - say - the ability of some strains of bacteria to consume nylon over the last few decades, is the evolution of a new function while the organism retains the rest of its functionality. So obviously that's an increase of information in terms of functionality. Even creationists can agree with this, I hope.

    On the genetic level then, the idea that no new information can be added to a genome is swiftly and easily debunked by the phenomenon of gene duplication which we've actually observed in the lab and of which we can see the traces in the genomes of many organisms alive today.
    For instance, a study concerning yeast in a glucose-poor environment found that several of the genes involving the hexose transport system (HXT6 and HXT7) had in fact been duplicated several times, resulting in a larger mRNA sequence, and leading to demonstrable increases in the proficiency of the bacteria to digest glucose. Some of these duplications then exhibited further mutations (which led to a better uptake of glucose per square area)...
    ... which means, that after a finite number of generations, the genetic code of the yeast in question exhibited genes whose specific base-pair relationships were found nowhere else in the genome. And this led to demonstrable functional advantages, as well as not having impacted the original genetic code at all - it had simply added new "information".

    So those are both examples of increases of functional information and increases in genetic information. If those two simple examples do not meet your criteria, then please explain why and do so from your original definitions of information.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  15. #15

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    First off my apologies for the tardy reply. Planning my birthday got in the way, and since then I've had some trouble with my internet.

    I see it hasn't you though Since I was pleasantly surprised to find four consecutive posts with lots of information, alleged predictions, questions, references back to the opening posts, etcetera...
    .

    It was actally 3 in a row, and 2 of them age of earth and information were being seperated as 2 post so we can just keep those 2 going back and forth since i thoght those would be the two we were going to focus on. Sorry for the third post ignore that post all together i should not have made it, unless of coarse there is something you wanted to reply to on it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    I doubt we're ever going to get to all those questions and every bit of information, so I have to wonder why you brought them up, and whether or not you seriously expect me to reply in detail to every single of the dozens of broad questions and anecdotes you provided.

    yeah just ignore that last post im sorry we should concentrate on age of earth information or anything on orginal post i am a idiot



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Now as for bringing this quoting thing to its conclusion, I think you're simply operating around a basic misconception.


    That's simply false. He believed that most speciation occurred through periods of rapid changes rather than gradual changes, but he still realised that there was a lot of gradual change going in.

    However, Gould's rapid evolution is entirely dependent on the common evolutionairy mechanisms and nothing else, and therefore it is entirely consistent with evolutionairy theory.

    he had his own version of the tree, as i sowed off wiki link and i belive you are missing the point because what is being discused is not speciation or variation or missing links between these groups, but the creation orchard vs the evolution common decent.
    The links between major family groups phyla etc were the creation orchard seperates from the common decent tree goulds or gradual evolution [as i pointed out in my second responce].

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Really?
    I'm sorry but then you're just not reading as much of it as you think you are.

    Explanations on punctuated equilibrium and how it works and why it's a part of modern neo-darwinian synthesis are everywhere.
    Here's the section on Berkeley's evolution 101 which notes how it is an "important model of evolutionairy change".


    This has to do with minor varation between species, what im asking is between major families etc the larger groups how does that change come about.
    what i need to know is what you belive slow gradual? or not? or both? how did the diffrent families major groups phylum come about slow change or rapid etc.
    more important how the fossil record suports your brand of evolution over the creation orchard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And here's PBS's take on it, also firmly noting that it has been observed and the only debate now is over the extent to which it takes place.

    i want you to notice what they said here

    Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence

    also
    What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution?

    This idea biolgically is what i was refering to as not being acepted, also notice in the begining you said the less adapted modifed theory is best that is oviusly the creation orchard it fits the evidence and does not need to bring in other rescuing devices, also goulds idea is bringing evolutions prediction closer to creation orchard.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And those are just the media and popular explanations of evolutionairy theory talking about it.
    On the more scientific side, there's about 90 papers on pubmed exploring punctuated equilbrium.

    Also, the fact that Gould, Eldridge and Mayr are veritable giants in the field of evolutionairy biology and that people look up to them, might be a teensy hint that their ideas haven't been rejected at all.

    So these ideas aren't rejected at all. The mechanism of punctuated equilibrium is firmly accepted nowadays, and the only mystery is why you haven't caught on to this.

    I want to see how the big changes happen your still focused on minor adaptation variation as what your saying is part of creation post flood diversification model.
    What we orgianlly were discusing is the qoutes and what they say and tell us, whitch is the lack of missing links at the family larger groups of organism.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And Richard Dawkins, as an ultra-darwinist, thinks that almost all speciation happens through gradual evolution. But notice that even he (and you'll hardly find anyone who's less extreme on this point) clearly says that Gould's theory is part of neo-Darwinism and that it does have applications. He just doesn't think it occurs all that often.
    Gould on the other hand would say that most speciation happens this way, and so he would say that it does occur often.

    That's a pretty profound disagreement, but one that's entirely comprised within darwinism. Both Gould and Dawkins firmly believe that the fossil record is consistent with evolution, they're just not agreed on which evolutionairy mechanisms explains the bulk of speciation - either migration or punctuated equilibrium.

    They belive so beacuse they will change evolution to fit the fossils anyway nessasary.
    But tell me how does no links between major groups were it diverges from the creation orchard fit evolution?
    you seem so stuck on speciation whitch is not part of what we are disusing at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    So to use Gould as an example of someone who says that "the fossil record does not support evolution" is dishonest. And I'll keep rubbing your nose in that. At the most you could say that they agree that a naive and uncritical application of evolutionairy theory does not explain the fossil record well.
    I stand by what i said they said, just as your sourse said they belive specition is found in the fossil record even up to genus and family but when it diverges from creation orchard than no no missing links.
    untill you relize speciation is not being debated or variation at the tips and branches like gould said we will be talking right past each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    You were probably most honest when you put it like this:

    im sorry if i came off as saying they were creationist but i never meant to just that what we see in the fossil record suports creation prediction and were creation differs from evoltuion, evolution has no evidence for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Fine. So what they say the record shows is what you assert creationists says it shows.
    Fine.

    thank you so at least we can say creation fits the fossil record without any kind of modification to fit it into to match.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    But what they say it shows is that it supports a different interpretation of evolutionairy theory. NOT that they "admit" that it does not fit with evolutionairy theory at all. But that's what you said they admitted.

    So, putting it as simple as I can: saying that someone admits that the fossil record does not support evolution when all they are saying is that the fossil record implies a different interpretation of the theory of evolution, is dishonest.
    what they are saying is modify evolution to fit the fossils in the way speciation happens and genus and even up to family maybe, a resucing devise or diffrent intepritaion whatever you want to call it [bringing it closer to creation prediction]
    but they are admitting no links were it diverges from creation in the major organism groups.
    maybe i should reword it like i have above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Erm, yeah.
    I mean if we cut away well over the bottom half of his tree and pretend like those fossils don't exist.

    Then yeah, it totally looks the same.

    i agree the bottom is difrent cambrian exsplosion which suports creation trunk as i said not any evolution trunk.
    the whole ponit im trying to make is those fossils needed for evolutions tree are not there.
    but if you take darwins tree which you orgianlly posted on first post and goulds tree and creation orchard goulds is almost a "missing link" betwwen the two
    i like how i added that in there missing link im so funny


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Nobody said he was. Don't strawman.

    im sorry i thoght you suported gradual by your orginal tree of evolution. on first post



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Oh trust me, we could, but I think anyone reading already sees just where this is going: you've taken biologists who propose new evolutionairy mechanisms in a firmly evolutionairy framework, and you presented them as saying that "the fossil record does not support evolution".


    i belive it is oviusl to anyone that they refer to speciation genus variation not between major groups, no i have not taken any out of context once you understand we are not debating speciation.
    agin were evolution diverges from creation it has no evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    We all see what you did there.

    I assume you're just trolling at this point, but just in case you're actually serious, here's a way of illustrating it:
    Try and find out how many fossils named in this Wikipedia article on Human Evolution were found in or before Darwin's time.

    Here's a hint: you won't need more than one hand to count them.

    Then ask yourself how dumb the above question sounds. Whether you agree with it or not, we have definitely found lots of fossils which evolutionairy biologists are very happy with.

    the thing is the overall record gives less mising links than darwins time, know you want to discuss any of these in perticluar i will.
    maybe pick top 3 or so and we can disucess them, just because wiki claims something does not mean its true notice they claim were 98% identicle dna to chimps
    I did not mean less fossils overall just less transitions as the qoute said, by the way a exspert, for exspale i bet left wing wiki will still probley teach about you the evoltuion of the horse
    holy crap guess what see what i found on wiki

    The evolution of the horse pertains to the phylogenetic ancestry of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium over geologic time scales. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal.


    know if you will go back to my qoute
    We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit


    ‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
    – Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

    david raup and eldridge says that the horse evolution is bunk as well as gg simpson and many others i have large amount of info on horse evolution it has been know to be false for decades, yet wiki makes great claims about it.
    dont belive everything you here
    and i dont care of some evolutinist are happy with the fossils, they are the most imaginitive people ever, a fragment of bone can be a missing link perfect form for them, exsaple they found one tooth they said it was perfect missing link between man and ape, taght in textbook after textbook as proof of evolution they drew the half man half ape people a whole village what they ate how they walked all from one tooth.
    40 years later come to find its the tooth of a pig thats nebraska man

    "fossils are fickle, bones will sing any song you want to hear"
    shreeve j arguments over a woman discover 11[8] 58 1990



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    See above: Gould's model of punctuated equilibrium is completely different from the creationist orchard.

    Here's the two side by side:




    You can't simply predict that those look alike and expect us not to notice. The punctuated equilibrium model is still fundamentally rooted in common ancestry, and still expects to find plenty of fossils of ancestors of modern species in a phylogenetically consistent way.

    Many of which we have found, by the way. But more on that when we talk about evolutionairy predictions.
    First you have selected 2 diffrent trees than orginaly you used on wiki, but no it looks alot like the creation orchard if you take out the common decent part, straight stasis thorgh time with little variation is what i was refering to.
    Also were they differ there is no fossils whitch is my whole point, the cambrian exsplaosion and links between major groups.
    Also you said it still predicts fossil ancestry forms bewtween these major groups thank you jesus finally we are geting somewere.
    were are these many that we have found between the major groups?




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Now on to the meat (and I really friggin' hope I won't have to go over this again - if there's anyone who actually thinks you representing quotes from biologists like Gould and saying they "admit that the fossil record does not support evolution" when all they say is that the fossil record does not support a uniquely gradualist model of evolution... if anyone thinks that your representation of that is fair, then I might have to spell it out even simpler. But unless that happens I don't think I'll bother).

    you somehow have mssed the difrence between speciation variation, and links between were the orchard diverges from evolution tree. witch is were the debate is not speciation noone disagrees with variation.
    I thoght i pointed this out in a very easy way in my pm to you and my last post responce to your claiming i was taking these out of context.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    You accused me - in reference to my request not to use more than your two best arguments for a Young Earth - of unfairness because you say I also use various dating mechanisms. I can see your point, but I don't think it's valid: of course there are various dating mechanisms and in theory they all provide their own piece of evidence for an old earth... however that's not really my evidence. My piece of evidence is that all these dating mechanisms agree even though they are based on different materials with different half-life times. The agreement of various radiometric dating techniques is the evidence.

    I see what you are saying as well but i could just as well point to many that all point to a age to young for evolution.
    Also these dates are selected dates i have not yet tried to get to the refrences but i know how the dating works any that does not match what there thery needs will be thrown out.
    in fact i was just reading recently ill post when i get to my norm coputer, a meteriote was first datted

    martian rock ALH84001 originally dated at 4.5 billion years old
    Kerr R.A 1996 ancient life on mars? Science 273 864-866
    than re-dated at 400 million by other radiometric dates.
    Lapen T J et al 2010 a younger age for ALH8001 and its geochemical link to shergottie sources in mars. Scince 328;347-351

    they redated to fit there new theory selected what are"good results"


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Now, as for your objections to radiometric dating:

    I cannot fathom how spectacularly weak that objection is. We aren't talking about mere assumptions here: the decay of radioactive particles is only affected by the laws of physics. For you to doubt that the half-life of uranium has not been the same over the past few billion years, is tantamount to saying that you don't know whether the strong nuclear force has always been the same.
    However, you're missing the main thrust of the argument: the point is not even that one of these dating methods might be mistaken; for all we know that's possible, and for all we know there was indeed a time when radioactive decay occurred faster because of magical forces. But if this was the case, then we have absolutely no reason at all to expect that our current dating results will agree with each other.

    I woder how you can say this when i gave many exsaples of acelerated decay in labs we have incresed decay rates by billoins, There is ample evidence for rapid deacy the only magic needed is to deny this and pretend they dont exsist.
    the thing is i gave exsaples of many cases they do not agree on the same rock, i could give many more but to keep things short i did not also your dates are selected dates .



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    The reason is precisely because of these different half-lifes: if there was a time in which all radioactive decay happened twice as fast, then a material with a half-life time of 500 million years and one of 1 billion years will start to run out of order.
    So that simply doesn't work.

    Are you saying that every single one of these half-life times just happened to be sped up by just the right amount (a different speed for every single material) just to give it the time of 4,5 billion years? Is that what you're saying?

    no im saying they most often do not match with difrent methods aplied. and are you saying that we are to belive talk origins? or lets asume these were the only dates done, and they all matched what about when we test recent lava flows of known age for exsaple mt saint helens and get difrent results from the same rock using difrent methods.
    than are we to trust long ago and far away it works? or the hear and know observation? i chose scince over faith in the unobserved


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    So... what? You're simply saying "I'm going to say that these dates are selected, so there"?

    Nice try. But talkorigins didn't invent this table, it comes from the peer-reviewed book that I sourced it to.

    So simply dodging won't work: please provide evidence that these dates are selected.
    Oh and by the way, please provide some evidence by what physical mechanism it would be impossible to test the radioactive decay of a material? Because that's all radiometric dating requires.

    the problem with talk origins is there refrences dont always say what they claim, by selected i mean they only publish the dates that fit the theroy.
    I wii try to get orginal refrence to see what kind of selecting has gone on, of corse i would have to get the books as well to see selecting probley.
    you have to be there throgh the rocks history to test that it has decayed constant as well as the other asumtions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And then you go off with a laundry list of unsupported claims about all the times radiometric dating has failed. Here's an idea: pick one, source it (one of the rules of the debate remember) and make sure I can check it, and please explain (i) why radiometric dating was still applied correctly but (ii) the results were unrealistic.
    you just made a unsuported claim that my were unseported
    im not sure witch you would have acess to.

    see this is hard because i think they all will stand up
    range of 343 million to 4,493 millon
    a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27
     
    age of 9.588 billion older than earth
    tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

    recent lava 1969 flows in Africa rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
    k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572



    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post

    As for your challenge on genetic information:

    You've asked my dozens if not hundreds of questions already. I've made it clear that I will not respond to every single one of them - not because I can't, but because it does nothing but make our already looooong posts longer, and because most of them aren't even relevant.

    Try this: if there's this one question you have that you think really destroys evolution, ask it and be done with it. Don't hide it in a maze of easily answered questions; otherwise people might start thinking you're just trying to bury me under questions rather than actually interested in the answers.

    I was just saying dont respond to my stuff over there if you want to respond to something i have said lets do it here.
    how could a question destruy evolution? weird but i would like you to respond than to the question you responded to over there since that is what braght this up.
    on my first responce to your orginal post uner the spoiler at the bottom.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    And then as for your challenge concerning genetic information: in your explanation of what you mean by the word "information", you seem to switch back and forth between two quite different meanings. On one hand you talk about the functionality that genes entail, when you note that "the loss of a function is an obvious loss in information"; but on the other hand, you're also talking about the DNA sequence itself and how a mutation there can subtract information.
    That's a pretty slippery set of definitions you have there, but I'm going to go along with it.
    how so read my first responce and second. those 2 do not contridict each other, mutations reduce.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Now, when you say that evolution has not been capable of increasing the amount of information in an organism, obviously you cannot be referring about evolution not being able to spawn advantageous functions: we know that that can occur. Regardless of what happens at the genetic level, I think we can all agree that - say - the ability of some strains of bacteria to consume nylon over the last few decades, is the evolution of a new function while the organism retains the rest of its functionality. So obviously that's an increase of information in terms of functionality. Even creationists can agree with this, I hope.
    yes gain of function happens but loss of information nothing that can be used as evidence for origins bacteria to people evolution

    found in waters with waste water from nylon factory
    can digest byproducts of nylon so how did they gain ability to digest nylon?
    3 enzymes involved in degrading E1 E2 E3
    E1 and E3 alter nylon so E2 can break it down
    E2 breaks down carboxyesterase and they found a point mutation in it
    changes in active site of enzyme to know be able to digest nylon by a reduction of enzyme specificity, loss of enzyme specificity because harmful mutation.
    It is biochemically degenerative to enzyme and requires a already existing of the enzyme and its specificity, its degeneration is not a mechanism that can account for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.


    1. Negoro, S., T. Ohki, N. Shibata, K. Sasa, H. Hayashi, H. Nakano, K. Yasuira, D. Kato, M. Takeo, and Y. Higuchi, 2007. Nylon-oligomer degrading enzyme/substrate complex: Catalytic mechanism of 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase. Journal of Molecular Biology 370:142–156.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.


    Regards

    Jonathan Sarfati




    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    On the genetic level then, the idea that no new information can be added to a genome is swiftly and easily debunked by the phenomenon of gene duplication which we've actually observed in the lab and of which we can see the traces in the genomes of many organisms alive today.
    For instance, a study concerning yeast in a glucose-poor environment found that several of the genes involving the hexose transport system (HXT6 and HXT7) had in fact been duplicated several times, resulting in a larger mRNA sequence, and leading to demonstrable increases in the proficiency of the bacteria to digest glucose. Some of these duplications then exhibited further mutations (which led to a better uptake of glucose per square area)...
    ... which means, that after a finite number of generations, the genetic code of the yeast in question exhibited genes whose specific base-pair relationships were found nowhere else in the genome. And this led to demonstrable functional advantages, as well as not having impacted the original genetic code at all - it had simply added new "information".

    So those are both examples of increases of functional information and increases in genetic information. If those two simple examples do not meet your criteria, then please explain why and do so from your original definitions of information.
    I am unable to get link im not on my reg coputer right know and i cannot open it.
    however gene duplication is not new information it just copies alredy existing information, it does not exsplain the origin of what is being copied, it is to rare event to be the cause increse information also.
    as pointed out in this debate here with talk originshttp://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
    gene duplication is not increse in information its like saying we know have 2 copies of yesterdays paper how do we get todays paper?
    Last edited by total relism; March 02, 2011 at 11:34 AM.

  16. #16

    Default Re: On Evolution (Tankbuster vs. total relism)

    Its been awhile know so i think its safe for a moderator to close this thank you


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •