Why is evolution right?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#264 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I support your skepticism in relation to the theory of evolution.
There is more variation amongst mankind and dogs, races & breeds, then there is in some organisms that vary slightly and are given a new species or sub species name. One can argue with an evolutionist for years and go around in circles about what is adaptation/microevolution as opposed to evolution/macroevolution.
Indeed individuals adapt during their life time with many mutations, epigenetic changes that are now known to be inherited and immunity. Evolutionists do not call this adaptation or evolution because individuals are not based on 'population genetics', and evolutionists would look a little silly to suggest evolution is happening to us as we speak.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_21...
This is a good link because the research is presented by an evolutionary researcher that not only suggests mankind share a common ancestor with an orang, not a chimp, but also speaks to how easily algorithmic data can be interpreted any way one wishes to support whatever they want and that includes the fossil evidence.
The same fossils have orang traits that can be used to tie mankind to orangs just like the same fossils can be used to link mankind to a knuckle walker and on the back of one single fossil to some unknown ape that was not a knucklewalker at all. Evolutionists call this empirical evidence. It is not!
If any theory relating to abiogenesis was close surely by now they would successfully made a 'species' in the lab by now. No one has.
Surely, if any theory relating to the scenarios that support evolution were close there would be clarity rather than more chaos with almost every new finding eg Ardi, recently found basilosaurus dated to 49mya that predates a supposed ancestor, Indohyus at 48mya, modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya.
So TOE is a theory that is often misrepresented as being based on science, rather than mountains of misrepresentation.
I would say mountains of misrepresentation is what your whole post is.

There is very much clarity with the theory of evolution. It is so clear that it has been used to make successful predictions. It is so clear, that it is the basis of modern biology. Without it, most of biology wouldn't make sense.

What you are referring to is evidence that may or may not alter our view of the evolution of one group or another. None of these things shake the foundation of biology.

You refer to a variability in phenotypes of dogs and man to refute taxonomy. You can do that, but morphological characters can be stable or plastic. Traditionally, taxonomists have relied on characters that were fairly stable and differences in these characters would indicate that indeed it is a new species. This is often supported by genetic, ecological and geographical evidence among others. Now molecular biology is providing powerful tools to corroborate or refute the accepted systematics of taxa at different levels.

Further, there exist cryptic species complexes, where the morphology of each species in the complex is so similar they cannot be seperated easily. The grey treefrog complex of 2 distinct species that look alike but are not the same is one example. So obviously, morphology and phenotype can be used to distinguish among species, but it has its limits. Taxonomists are aware of this.

microevolution-change in a population by the addition of new information. The a new population with new trait or traits may establish, but they are still the same species. For instance resistance by some populations of bacteria to antibiotics or resistance to insecticides by some populations of insects.

macroevolution-change in populations over time that can result in extinction, speciation, and the establishment of higher taxa. Macroevolution involves deep time.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#265 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>So TOE is a theory that is often misrepresented as being based on science, rather than mountains of misrepresentation.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much?

Isn't LING a sin in your religion?

I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#266 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I support your skepticism in relation to the theory of evolution.
There is more variation amongst mankind and dogs, races & breeds, then there is in some organisms that vary slightly and are given a new species or sub species name.
Which is why science largely moved over to cladistics rather than species specific naming systems. However, the common terms don't go out of style easily. Science uses metric, common usage is feet and inches.
One can argue with an evolutionist for years and go around in circles about what is adaptation/microevolution as opposed to evolution/macroevolution.
Well, you can continue to argue as long as you like, but the difference is EXTREMELY easy to understand.

If it happens to an individual, it's adaptation. YOU (a person) adapt to a cold climate.

If it happens to a population, it's evolution. ELK (a population in the deer family) evolve features which help them survive in the cold.
Indeed individuals adapt during their life time with many mutations, epigenetic changes that are now known to be inherited and immunity.
Wow, you couldn't get this more wrong. You do not adapt via mutations. Mutations occur BEFORE you were born, not after. Any mutations occurring during your life are likely cancer causing.

Epigenetics, BY DEFINITION, are not inherited. They are things that happen to you before you are born but which are not DNA caused. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a good example.

And immunity (I assume you mean like chicken pox) is neither of these things but a learned response from your immune system.
Evolutionists do not call this adaptation or evolution because individuals are not based on 'population genetics', and evolutionists would look a little silly to suggest evolution is happening to us as we speak.
That and you are talking gibberish.
This is a good link because the research is presented by an evolutionary researcher that not only suggests mankind share a common ancestor with an orang, not a chimp
Really? That's what makes this a good link? LOL. No. Sorry, we are not more closely related to orangs than chimps.
The same fossils have orang traits that can be used to tie mankind to orangs just like the same fossils can be used to link mankind to a knuckle walker and on the back of one single fossil to some unknown ape that was not a knucklewalker at all. Evolutionists call this empirical evidence. It is not!
Yes, orangs also evolved from the common ancestor to both chimps and humans. Obviously, there are going to be features common to all three.

However, since Orangs exist in a specific area and do not have as much DNA in common with humans as chimps which exist in the area in which humans evolved, these sort of conclusion are based on nothing but wishful thinking.
If any theory relating to abiogenesis was close surely by now they would successfully made a 'species' in the lab by now. No one has.
Actually THOUSANDS of new species have been created in labs all over the world. Monsanto does almost ALL its business in bio-engineer crops.
Surely, if any theory relating to the scenarios that support evolution were close there would be clarity rather than more chaos
Just because you are confused doesn't mean the rest of us are.

By the way, this argument works even better against you guys.

Surely if God were real, there wouldn't be any other religions around.
with almost every new finding eg Ardi, recently found basilosaurus dated to 49mya that predates a supposed ancestor, Indohyus at 48mya, modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya.
So TOE is a theory that is often misrepresented as being based on science, rather than mountains of misrepresentation.
Most of the above is based on your inability to grasp that a fossil find shows an individual which existed within a time frame.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#267 Sep 22, 2012
<<<Ardi>>>

This is what Talkorigins has to say about Ardi:

"Creationists have, of course, commented on this new fossil (e.g. Answers in Genesis, the ICR, Discovery Institute, Creation Ministries). But, exciting as this find is for scientists, it won't have much significance in the creation/evolution debate. For creationists, this is unquestionably an ape. It is, after all, more primitive than other australopithecine fossils that they already classify as apes, so the hominid features in pelvis, teeth, locomotion aren't going to concern them at all.

"There was one quote from the Institute for Creation Research which I thought interesting:

"'There is still no solid evidence to support the fanciful idea that humans evolved from primates. This stands to reason, since mankind was specially created from the beginning.'

"That sums up the usual creationist attitude: evidence is irrelevant. No fossil can possibly be evidence for human evolution, no matter what it looks like, because they already know that evolution didn't happen."

<<<recently found basilosaurus dated to 49mya that predates a supposed ancestor, Indohyus at 48mya>>>

Can't find this one.
Can you document this?

<<<modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212 mya>>>

They can't find the rest of the bird, so it has been suggested that it was a reptile which made the footprints.
The same feature has been found on some dinosaur fossils.

An Evolutionist on another forum comments, "Dinosaur and bird prints have been confused since the beginnings of paleontology (no joke, some Connecticut dinosaur tracks were misinterpreted as the prints of the bird Noah let loose from the ark to find land)."

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#268 Sep 22, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would say mountains of misrepresentation is what your whole post is.
There is very much clarity with the theory of evolution. It is so clear that it has been used to make successful predictions. It is so clear, that it is the basis of modern biology. Without it, most of biology wouldn't make sense.
What you are referring to is evidence that may or may not alter our view of the evolution of one group or another. None of these things shake the foundation of biology.
You refer to a variability in phenotypes of dogs and man to refute taxonomy. You can do that, but morphological characters can be stable or plastic. Traditionally, taxonomists have relied on characters that were fairly stable and differences in these characters would indicate that indeed it is a new species. This is often supported by genetic, ecological and geographical evidence among others. Now molecular biology is providing powerful tools to corroborate or refute the accepted systematics of taxa at different levels.
Further, there exist cryptic species complexes, where the morphology of each species in the complex is so similar they cannot be seperated easily. The grey treefrog complex of 2 distinct species that look alike but are not the same is one example. So obviously, morphology and phenotype can be used to distinguish among species, but it has its limits. Taxonomists are aware of this.
microevolution-change in a population by the addition of new information. The a new population with new trait or traits may establish, but they are still the same species. For instance resistance by some populations of bacteria to antibiotics or resistance to insecticides by some populations of insects.
macroevolution-change in populations over time that can result in extinction, speciation, and the establishment of higher taxa. Macroevolution involves deep time.
Was this twoddle meant to impress me. I know perfectly well what population genetic, all the bla bla about cryptic species, ring species and anything else you spoke to.

That is why I stated that evos do not see the mutations, epigentic changes and immunity, that I call adaptation to the environment, as evolution of even adaptation. You lot can't even acknowledge that happens at all and skirt around with woffle to pretend you've had something of substance to say. Well you haven't!!!!.

I doubt you even know anything about the mutations individuals accrue in a lifetime nor what epigentic inheritance is!....Such is why you have carried on with the obvious everyone should know already and presented nothing that refutes a single assertion I made.

To clarify my assertion I will restate in simpler terms.

TOE is as clear as mud and you have plenty of mud to offer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#269 Sep 22, 2012
Maz, what do you believe in? Now odds are we can show that your belief is wrong or at the very least not based upon any sort of science.

One thing that I do know about the theory of evolution versus creationism is that there is no known model of the fossil record that any creationist has proposed that fits the real fossil record. Meanwhile the real fossil record has no problem with the evolutionary model.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#270 Sep 22, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<<<Ardi>>>
This is what Talkorigins has to say about Ardi:
"Creationists have, of course, commented on this new fossil (e.g. Answers in Genesis, the ICR, Discovery Institute, Creation Ministries). But, exciting as this find is for scientists, it won't have much significance in the creation/evolution debate. For creationists, this is unquestionably an ape. It is, after all, more primitive than other australopithecine fossils that they already classify as apes, so the hominid features in pelvis, teeth, locomotion aren't going to concern them at all.
"There was one quote from the Institute for Creation Research which I thought interesting:
"'There is still no solid evidence to support the fanciful idea that humans evolved from primates. This stands to reason, since mankind was specially created from the beginning.'
"That sums up the usual creationist attitude: evidence is irrelevant. No fossil can possibly be evidence for human evolution, no matter what it looks like, because they already know that evolution didn't happen."
<<<recently found basilosaurus dated to 49mya that predates a supposed ancestor, Indohyus at 48mya>>>
Can't find this one.
Can you document this?
<<<modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212 mya>>>
They can't find the rest of the bird, so it has been suggested that it was a reptile which made the footprints.
The same feature has been found on some dinosaur fossils.
An Evolutionist on another forum comments, "Dinosaur and bird prints have been confused since the beginnings of paleontology (no joke, some Connecticut dinosaur tracks were misinterpreted as the prints of the bird Noah let loose from the ark to find land)."
Here is basilosaurus dated to 49mya.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/techn...

I don't care what these boofheads say about modern bird footprints that look just like modern bird footprints. These right ones invented a mythical theropod to put them on to save the day!!!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...

The point I have made is that evolutionists like to say they know evolution is right because they have mountains of evidence and not picking is pointless. Your homology means nothing more than a pick a box of traits that suits the flavour of the month and your genomic comparisons and distances are equally substanceless.

Evolutionists do not have mountains of evidence at all. They have mountains of misrepresentation that is all as clear as mud.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#271 Sep 22, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? That's what makes this a good link? LOL. No. Sorry, we are not more closely related to orangs than chimps.
<quoted text>
Yes, orangs also evolved from the common ancestor to both chimps and humans. Obviously, there are going to be features common to all three.
However, since Orangs exist in a specific area and do not have as much DNA in common with humans as chimps which exist in the area in which humans evolved, these sort of conclusion are based on nothing but wishful thinking.
<quoted text>
Actually THOUSANDS of new species have been created in labs all over the world. Monsanto does almost ALL its business in bio-engineer crops.
<quoted text>
Just because you are confused doesn't mean the rest of us are.
By the way, this argument works even better against you guys.
Surely if God were real, there wouldn't be any other religions around.
<quoted text>
Most of the above is based on your inability to grasp that a fossil find shows an individual which existed within a time frame.
I am not confused at all.
You however are either very confused or know stuff all about this science you are trying to defend.
Epigenetic inheritance is called such because it has been demonstrated that epigenetic changes can be inherited.
"Increasingly, biologists are finding that non-genetic variation acquired during the life of an organism can sometimes be passed on to offspring—a phenomenon known as epigenetic inheritance. An article forthcoming in the July issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology lists over 100 well-documented cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of organisms, and suggests that non-DNA inheritance happens much more often than scientists previously thought."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/...
Evos like to chase their tail adnauseum about what adaptation is or isn't, how much adaptation relates to evolution and the difference between adaptation/microevolution and evolution/macroevolution. What you don't have is any convincing evidence of any organisms ability to adapt without limit so you go around in cirlces trying to use lab experiments that demonstrate adaptation that demonstrates less than the variation seen in single species breeds and races, because that pitiful offering is all you have.
"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
I am clear about the difference and what is seen in the lab. The above article suggests MACROEVOLUTION... "CANNOT BE WITNESSED" IN THE LAB. Just because these bright sparks give any adaptation that is less variation than we see in races and breeds, a new species name, does not mean you have evidence of anything other than an organism can adapt. Creationists agree organisms need an ability to adapt and indeed individuals adapt during their own lifetime, regardless of evos inability to deal with this.
In fact recent research into the accumulative effects of beneficial mutations and epistasis are overwhelmingly negative.
I'll wait until you demonstrate you know nothing about this either and then I'll post links to the research.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#272 Sep 22, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, what do you believe in? Now odds are we can show that your belief is wrong or at the very least not based upon any sort of science.
One thing that I do know about the theory of evolution versus creationism is that there is no known model of the fossil record that any creationist has proposed that fits the real fossil record. Meanwhile the real fossil record has no problem with the evolutionary model.
You do not have a model either. You have ever changing scenarios that have been overturned on the back of a single fossil.

My scenario is Genesis. Although it is up for some interpretation, at least it is a scenario that can be supported or falsified.

TOE cannot be falsified. In aves, a mythical theropod was invented when modern bird footprints were found and dated to 212mya effectively falsifying the current dino to bird theory.

Indeed birds, according to Genesis were created hot on the heels of the creatures of the sea, meaning I have birds dated to more than halfway back to the Devonian where I need them to be. Mosern whale bones have also been found in Michigan ina geological area dated to over 290mya. The carbon dating was all over the place in trying to work out why these whale bones were found there. All sorts of stories have ensued with evos trying to explain them.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

This handwaving is what evolutionists call a model.

I do not pretend that I have irrefuteable evidence for creation. I do say that much of the evidence aligns with a creationist paradigm in general that an evolutionary one. Evos on the other hand like to pretend they have something of substance to offer. They don't!!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#273 Sep 22, 2012
So are you saying that your god created life millions if not billions of times over? That is getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it? I have yet to see any peer reviewed article that put a limit on how much a specie could evolve. That would be world shaking news so when you make a claim like that without a link it seems highly likely that you are wrong.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#274 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
That is why I stated that evos do not see the mutations, epigentic changes and immunity, that I call adaptation to the environment, as evolution of even adaptation.
When discussing topics of science with educated people it is important to know that specific words have specific definitions and are not interchangeable with words that have different definitions.

Adaptation is what happens to an INDIVIDUAL. If you take an INDIVIDUAL to the top of a mountain, they will produce more blood cells to cope with the lack of oxygen.

That change has NO EFFECT on future generations. EVERY individual needs to adapt individually.

Evolution is a change in a population. A snowshoe hare is a snowshoe hare REGARDLESS of the fact that was born in a zoo in Florida. That's because that POPULATION developed these features which were passed on to future generations which are BORN with them REGARDLESS of exposure.

You are mixing up the two terms and then complaining that we don't take you seriously.

Learn the vocabulary and then we might.
You lot can't even acknowledge that happens at all and skirt around with woffle to pretend you've had something of substance to say. Well you haven't!!!!.
I played "A Brief History of Time" audio book for my dog, he also felt that there was nothing of substance there.

Is that because the book is worthless? Or do you think it's because my dog didn't understand the words being used.

You literally can't participate in the discussion if you don't have a handle on the terms.
I doubt you even know anything about the mutations individuals accrue in a lifetime nor what epigentic inheritance is!....
Actually, as you displayed earlier and now again, it's you that lacks an understanding of epigenetics as they are NOT INHERITED.

You do not get fetal alcohol syndrome because you mother has it. you get it because she drinks. That's cause and effect, not inheritance.
Such is why you have carried on with the obvious everyone should know already and presented nothing that refutes a single assertion I made.
Actually, I've addressed and refuted every point you've actually made and quite a few points that you think you made but didn't because you used the wrong words.

You haven't responded to ANY of the issues brought up.

So, basically, you are accusing us of doing what you are in fact doing yourself. In the meantime, we are not accusing you of doing what we are doing (namely using the correct terminology and backing up our points with well reasoned explanations and examples).

Though if you would like to start doing that, it would be appreciated. Maybe there is an adult there who can help you.
To clarify my assertion I will restate in simpler terms.
TOE is as clear as mud and you have plenty of mud to offer.
Your inability to grasp a concept does not mean that the concept is unclear. It means that you are incapable of understanding it.

2+2 is 4. That's pretty clear. My dog still can't work it out.

His ignorance doesn't make 2+2 unclear. It just means that he's not too bright.

Do you know what an analogy is?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#275 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not have a model either. You have ever changing scenarios that have been overturned on the back of a single fossil.
My scenario is Genesis. Although it is up for some interpretation, at least it is a scenario that can be supported or falsified.
TOE cannot be falsified. In aves, a mythical theropod was invented when modern bird footprints were found and dated to 212mya effectively falsifying the current dino to bird theory.
Indeed birds, according to Genesis were created hot on the heels of the creatures of the sea, meaning I have birds dated to more than halfway back to the Devonian where I need them to be. Mosern whale bones have also been found in Michigan ina geological area dated to over 290mya. The carbon dating was all over the place in trying to work out why these whale bones were found there. All sorts of stories have ensued with evos trying to explain them.
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html
This handwaving is what evolutionists call a model.
I do not pretend that I have irrefuteable evidence for creation. I do say that much of the evidence aligns with a creationist paradigm in general that an evolutionary one. Evos on the other hand like to pretend they have something of substance to offer. They don't!!!!
The finding of birdlike footprints in no way busts the theory of evolution. It only makes sense that the predecessor of the bird would have birdlike footprints. You need to do better than that.

And the fossil record busts any Genesis claim that you have. When you say you believe Genesis does that mean you believe the Noah's Ark myth too? You do realize that was debunked over 200 years ago, don't you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#276 Sep 22, 2012
By the way, they did not use carbon dating to date those whale bones. That shows that you don't even read the articles that you post. Very bad from.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#277 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not confused at all.
You however are either very confused or know stuff all about this science you are trying to defend.
Epigenetic inheritance is called such because it has been demonstrated that epigenetic changes can be inherited.
Let's address this specifically.

Your claim seems to be this:

Mutations occur and are passed from mother to child, therefore evolution is false.

However, evolution is "change in a population over time".

So, if mutations occur, that is change.
If they pass from one generation to another, that is over time.

Explain EXACTLY how mutations passing from one generation to another would be evidence AGAINST evolution.

Be specific.
What you don't have is any convincing evidence of any organisms ability to adapt without limit
You are talking gibberish.
Find me ONE reputable scientist who claims that if you take a turtle and put it in a tree it will adapt wings.

You can't. No one supports that claim.

There are very clear, very strict limitations of adaptation.

An animal is not going to spontaneously sprout novel limbs simply because his environment changed.

However, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Adaption is NOT evolution. You can tell because one starts with an "a" and the other starts with an "E".
so you go around in cirlces trying to use lab experiments that demonstrate adaptation that demonstrates less than the variation seen in single species breeds and races, because that pitiful offering is all you have.
Okay, let's compare lab experiments then.

I'm assuming you are either a YEC or a IDer.

What experiments has your team run to demonstrate Jew Magic? How about spontaneous animal creation? How about a simple experiment which can measure the amount of design in one organism vs another?

Got ANY experiments?
" The above article suggests MACROEVOLUTION... "CANNOT BE WITNESSED" IN THE LAB.
Neither can Earthquakes, supernovas, contenental drift, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, etc etc etc

There are a whole host of phenomena which we can not observe in the lab because they are either slow or large or extremely powerful.

Show me the lab where they are running an experiment that proves that a giant redwood has one ring for every year even if it likes to be 500.

No one is doing that experiment.

In the meantime, remind me again what experiments you guys have run to support creationism...

Oh, right. None.
In fact recent research into the accumulative effects of beneficial mutations and epistasis are overwhelmingly negative.
Sigh.

You do realize that in order for your argument to be valid, there can NOT BE ACCUMULATION of mutations.

If there is an accumulation of mutations REGARDLESS of beneficial or negative, it DISPROVES your position that nothing changes ever.

Evolution is change.
Creationism is everything is exactly the way it was when Noah dropped them off the boat.

You can't have both.

Either you have the EXACT same DNA as your mom, or you're wrong.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#278 Sep 22, 2012
MazHere wrote:
The carbon dating was all over the place in trying to work out why these whale bones were found there. All sorts of stories have ensued with evos trying to explain them.
No, just one story and it's this:

Anyone who is trying to use carbon dating to date fossils is either deliberately trying to get the wrong answer or has absolutely no understanding of how carbon dating works.

This is how you sound to us:

"We measured thirteen different highways using this 12 inch ruler and found that every single one of these roads, whether it's from Boston to NYC or from Philly to Las Vegas was only 12 inches long."

Figure out what tools are used for what stuff, THEN you can try and measure things.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#279 Sep 22, 2012
One last thing before I call it a night, Maz it seems you don't like radiometric dating. Can you name any flaws with it?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#280 Sep 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
So are you saying that your god created life millions if not billions of times over? That is getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it? I have yet to see any peer reviewed article that put a limit on how much a specie could evolve. That would be world shaking news so when you make a claim like that without a link it seems highly likely that you are wrong.
My assertions, or any variation of creationists assertions, are no more ridiculous then suggesting elements organised themselves into a complex factory of reproduction all by themselves.

Indeed I should not need to present any further support for the creationist claim that an organisms ability to adapt is limited. You have a fossil record full of extinct species, your whole TOE is based in species extinction that did not adapt and survival of the so called fittest or luckiest. There is current research into climate change that also highlights many species inability to adapt.

There is creationist algorithmic magic, just like yours, that suggests the cost of beneficial mutations will lead to genetic entropy as proposed by John C Sanford. He was an evolutionist with over 70 published and peer reviewed papers.

His work was criticized and that is no surprise. However recent work into epistasis supports his work in principle.

In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Nume...

I have already read evolutionists refute to Sanfords work. I say his algorithmic magic can't be any worse than yours.

I suggest evolutionists require just as much faith to accept TOE as creationists do.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#281 Sep 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
One last thing before I call it a night, Maz it seems you don't like radiometric dating. Can you name any flaws with it?
You had best get to bed because I have made no statement about radiometric dating. I am not a YEC but I like much of what they have to say.

Now that you mention it I don;t think much of your radiometric dating.....

An example would be the half live of sm146 has been reduced by around 33%. This means many more half lives had time to turn over, leading to a longer time. These smart ones have reduced the half life by one third and come up with earlier earth.

Based on analyses of 146Sm/147Sm &#945;-activity and atom ratios, we determined the half-life of 146Sm to be 68 ± 7 (1&#963;) million years, which is shorter than the currently used value of 103 ± 5 million years
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/16...

The present-day 238U/235U ratio has fundamental implications for uranium-lead geochronology and cosmochronology. A value of 137.88 has previously been considered invariant and has been used without uncertainty to calculate terrestrial mineral ages. We report high-precision 238U/235U measurements for a suite of uranium-bearing minerals from 58 samples representing a diverse range of lithologies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/16...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#282 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You had best get to bed because I have made no statement about radiometric dating. I am not a YEC but I like much of what they have to say.
Now that you mention it I don;t think much of your radiometric dating.....
An example would be the half live of sm146 has been reduced by around 33%. This means many more half lives had time to turn over, leading to a longer time. These smart ones have reduced the half life by one third and come up with earlier earth.
Based on analyses of 146Sm/147Sm &#945;-activity and atom ratios, we determined the half-life of 146Sm to be 68 ± 7 (1&#963;) million years, which is shorter than the currently used value of 103 ± 5 million years
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/16...
The present-day 238U/235U ratio has fundamental implications for uranium-lead geochronology and cosmochronology. A value of 137.88 has previously been considered invariant and has been used without uncertainty to calculate terrestrial mineral ages. We report high-precision 238U/235U measurements for a suite of uranium-bearing minerals from 58 samples representing a diverse range of lithologies.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/16...
I couldn't sleep and I saw that from your post that you still don't read articles, even when they give you only the abstract.
In the first article you cited does not imply what you said at all. Sm146 is not an isotope used for dating the Earth. Or the solar system. Its half life is much to short to make it useful to measure either. Also a change in half life by a third does not meat that many more half lives would have had to occur, no on the contrary only about one third more half lives would have occurred. It is occurs naturally as the slightest trace. So it is rather difficult to procure much less measure its half life. You have one paper that says that the original measurement of its half life was wrong.
And of course the second article you linked explains how the value of U235/U238 can vary slightly and how that may affect the values of only one dating methodology. This will not make a huge difference, it will only mean that the error bars will need to be increased slightly if you use that one particular method. There are several methods of dating using Uranium alone. There is U238 to Pb206, U235 to Pb207, and of course fission track dating, which is not all that common but really cool.
Neither of your articles put any doubt at all into the validity of radiometric dating. And since many materials can be dated by more than one method it is not uncommon to date an object more than once. The different methods act as a check on each other.
For beginners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dati...

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#284 Sep 23, 2012
Okay, so maybe those researchers who attribute whale evolution to the Indohyus are wrong.

According to the Wikipedia article on the Indohyus, paleontologists didn't agree on this anyway. A rival theory attributes whale evolution to an extinct mammal group called the mesonychids.

One scientific article stated that "Cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."

So what is your point? Are you trying to establish that evolutionists can be wrong? If so, I concede. In fact, I can add even another item to your collection of Evolutionary goofs: At first, Darwin attributed whale evolution to bears, but later changed his mind.

Or are you trying to establish that God created whales in their present form? If so, I don't quite see your logic. The protagonist of the cited article infers that whales are evolved from earlier species also.

I won't have to make a major paradigm shift as long as science explains why whales have vestigial legs, why whale embryos have nostrils which relocate into blowholes, and why whale embryos grow hair which is later resorbed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web