Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »He didn't need to know anything about plate tectonics.
He didn't need to know anything. Not knowing about plate tectonics explains his puzzlement at the fossil record of the day.Soul Winner wrote: »What creationists call transitional fossils are what was predicted by Darwin himself
No they aren't. Which you would know if you bothered to learn what evolution actually is rather than simply copying and pasting quotes from Creationist websites.Soul Winner wrote: »In between fin to hand evolution there has to be non function somewhere between the transition from sea to land, either the hand that started to develop in the sea doesn't work in the sea or the vestigial fin failed to work on land.
No there doesn't, evolution predicts that this isn't the case and this is confirmed by the fossil record.Soul Winner wrote: »If you do a little research you will find that these are the very words of Charley Darwin himself.
And all the quotes from the website the Skeptics Bible are from the Bible itself, so obviously you respect that web site too :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »Well I was going to a few years back but Robindch suggested that I read something more contemporary. But it is on my to do list. When was the last time you read it?
So you haven't read Darwins work but you know more about it from reading quotes from it on Creationist websites that most.Soul Winner wrote: »But fins did evolve into hands right? And fins are used for swimming, and hands are used for gripping. So between swimming and gripping something had to give.
You will notice that humans can swim, yet we don't have fins. Odd that, given Soul Winner's theory of evolution that states a hand cannot be used as a fin and a fin cannot be used as a hand.
Soul Winner wrote: »And given the length of time for this evolution to take place what ever came in between had to be functional, so where is the evidence in the fossil record for this functionality?
All over it. Look at the evolution of the whale. Or the many link Morbet bothered to post to you that you no doubt ignored.Soul Winner wrote: »Well yeah, that's my point. So where exactly in the fossil record is the evidence for this functionality between fin and hand, and flippers and legs?
Given that myself and others have already shown you think evidence you will forgive me if I seriously doubt you are genuinely interested.
Assuming you are actually now genuinely interested and just can't remember all the evidence show already for this, perhaps looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus will help.
You will notice it has legs that function as fins.
We all ready have Soul Winner, we already have. Ambulocetus has been mentioned 17 times already on this thread, along with a host of other such examples.Soul Winner wrote: »Show me.
We can only show you the evidence, we can't make you look at it.Soul Winner wrote: »Yes but it would still leave a fossil wouldn't it? In fact we should expect to find more fossils of this type because they are more prone to dying off under Darwinian principles than others. Where are they?
Because they do not evolve they would be very rare. You are talking about one or two a generation out of populations of hundreds of thousands. Since they are not selected by natural selection they do not become the species. As such you would not expect to find them in the fossil record.
Says who? Darwinian evolution says that such mutated animals would be so rare as to be very unlikely to show up in the fossil record as they are not selected by natural selection and thus do not grow in numbers. If the fossil record was full of them then there is something wrong with Darwinian evolution.Soul Winner wrote: »But we should find them, that is the point!!!
Darwinian evolution predicts that in the fossil record we will find species such as Ambulocetus, not your stump creatures. And that is exactly what we find.Soul Winner wrote: »Why should that be the case?
What do you mean should be? It is the case. Darwinian evolution is how life on Earth develops.Soul Winner wrote: »If most mutations are detrimental, lets say even ten percent are detrimental (and that's gratuitous) then we should still find evidence for these transitional forms in the fossil record.
No we shouldn't (most mutations are neutral by the way, but that is beside the point).
The fossil record is a tiny percentage of the animals that actually lived.
Imagine the population of Ireland right now, and imagine that 0.00001 of us is going to end up fossilized (which is generous). Do you think that fossil record of this current generation of humans is going to also contain the tiny number of humans who have significant genetic mutations, for example someone born without arms?
The odds of that happening are very small. Most of the fossils will be of perfectly normal humans. It is only traits that are common across the population that you expect to find in fossils. The odds that the rare except will also end up being in the fossil record are very small.Soul Winner wrote: »Total codswallop. That's not what Darwinian theory predicts and you know it.
It is exactly what Darwinian theory predicts. You don't understand this because you don't understand Darwinian evolution nor have you ever expressed any genuine interest in trying to understand Darwinian evolution.
Wow, you still don't get it.Soul Winner wrote: »Now if detrimental mutations are more common than beneficial mutations then we should expect to see more fossils of dead creatures in those stages of evolution where they died off as a result of these detrimental mutations.
Imagine you have a population of 10 animals. 6 have neutral mutations, 1 has a beneficial mutation and 3 have detrimental mutations. Ah you say, more detrimental mutations!!.
But that is ignoring evolution.
2 of the 3 with the detrimental mutations die off before mating, so only 1 animal with one of these mutations exists in the next generation. The 1 with the beneficial mutation is successful and mates better than the 6 neutral mutation. So next generation you have more of the animal with the benefitial mutation than previous, and so on through the generations.
And then the next generation, those with this mutation continue to be successful in mating (nature is selecting them).
After 5 generations there are 8 with the mutation, ie the entire species is been replaced with the mutation.
so you get something like this
Gen 1 - NNNNNNDDDB
Gen 2 - NNNNNNNDBB
Gen 3 - NNNNNNBBBB
Gen 4 - NNNBBBBBBBB
Gen 5 - NNBBBBBBBBB
Gen 6 - BBBBBBBBBBB
Gen 7 - BBBBBBBBBBB
Notice in the entire set there are only 4 with the detrimental mutations because they died off quickly. Over the generations the population of animals with these detrimental mutations is tiny compared to the others.
Now imagine that lets say 2 out of that entire set are going to end up being fossilized (remember only a tiny percentage of animals actually end up fossilized)
What do you think the odds are that those 2 will be the "D" animals? Very very small. The odds that they will either be 'N' or 'B' are far greater.
This is what Darwinian evolution predicts (whether you believe it is right or wrong, this is what the theory says). And this is what we find in the fossil record.
No on is denying that determintal mutations happen, or that they are more numerous than those that give new functionality. But Darwinian evolution predicts that over the population over generations these will be tiny compared to the others. And this is what we find in the fossil record.
Darwinian evolution is true. Get over it
Soul Winner wrote: »Darwinian evolutionary theory is not supported by the available evidence, how intelligent people cannot see this is beyond my comprehension.
Intelligent people tend to learn what a theory actually says before they dismiss it.0 -
Us trying to understand the universe and where we fit in it, is comparable to my cat trying to understand rocket science.
On one hand we have hard core christians who try and believe in every single verse of the Bible, I think if Jesus himself (If such a person exists) was to come down tomorrow and say - "Look this passage in the bible has been totally missunderstood" Christians would not believe it.
Being a one time bible thumper I am actually surpised to what I bought into without actually questioning it.. Problem with organised religion is anything deemed contradictory is not to be entertained, and the only basis of fact or what is deemed as fact or "truth" is the bible, a collection of books written sometime before and after the life of a guy that maybe lived in around 2000 years ago....
However on the other hand we have those that try to disprove the idea of Jesus and a God which is equally ridiculous...
I think the idea that we are even close to understanding things, whether you believe in god, nothing or superman from the planet Krypton is purley delusional! I am not saying you are not entitled to you're own idea, it's when people try and tell you "Look you are going to hell cause we are right and everyone else is wrong"
I am going to go with the Vikings - There stories are a little more kick @ss! 0 -
-
He didn't need to know anything. Not knowing about plate tectonics explains his puzzlement at the fossil record of the day.
What exactly has knowing the inner workings of plate tectonics got to do with predicting what the fossil record will eventually show. Remember Lyell's idea of uniformitarianism which is vital for the theory of evolution to be true. Uniformitarianism states that everything has been laid down in the strata at the same rate all the time. So if you're thin king about bringing upheavals into this argument then think again, Lyell's idea does not allow them and Darwinian evolutionary theory depends on Lyell's theory to be true in order to have the time needed to work. So be careful how you answer this one.No they aren't. Which you would know if you bothered to learn what evolution actually is rather than simply copying and pasting quotes from Creationist websites.
I didn't copy and paste anything from any creationist website. I don't even visit such sites, and if I did I'd hardly use what they say to backup what I'm saying here. I'd rather quote thing that materialists and evolutionists say to support what I'm saying. All I did was quote Charles Darwin himself and you go into a rant.And all the quotes from the website the Skeptics Bible are from the Bible itself, so obviously you respect that web site too :rolleyes:
Sigh...So you haven't read Darwins work but you know more about it from reading quotes from it on Creationist websites that most.
Sigh again...You will notice that humans can swim, yet we don't have fins. Odd that, given Soul Winner's theory of evolution that states a hand cannot be used as a fin and a fin cannot be used as a hand.
To go from fin to hand there must have been many stages in between. And at each stage natural selection was selecting the best trait for survival at that time and then passing it on to the next generation, it wasn't looking to the future knowing that this particular branch of life will need hands on land at some point. So the fact that humans are here and evolved from fish you should expect to see transitional forms with full functionality in the fossil record. You do see transitional forms in some case but only between certain types of whales and fish but nothing from fish to humans.All over it. Look at the evolution of the whale. Or the many link Morbet bothered to post to you that you no doubt ignored.
Like I said, there is evidence for transition between certain types of species (whales as you say) in the fossil record, but they are all transitioning from one type of whale to another type of whale, not into another species altogether, which is what Darwinian evolution predicts, does it not?Given that myself and others have already shown you think evidence you will forgive me if I seriously doubt you are genuinely interested.
You haven't shown me anything of the sort. You have shown that species transition from one form to another form but remain more or less the same type of creature at the end of the process, i.e. whale types change into different whale types. That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm arguing that the fossil record does not support the idea that fins evolved into hands. Now maybe they did evolve in this way, but the fossil record doesn't show it.Assuming you are actually now genuinely interested and just can't remember all the evidence show already for this, perhaps looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus will help.
I like this part: "It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals." That's it, debate is over, lets all go home. When I look at this creature I see a creature that is perfectly adapted to its habitat. It could be argue that it is a transitional form alright but it could also be argued that its just a distinct species. But when you predict that all life evolved from a single celled organism of course you're going to try to shoe horn anything that might be regarded as a transitional form into your hypothesis. And that's what this article is doing. Like I said in an earlier post, when you find what looks like a transitional form you are quick to point it out, but when you can't you say things like the theory doesn't predict that you should see transitional forms in the way creationists say, or Darwin didn't understand plate tectonics. Which is it?
You will notice it has legs that function as fins.
It looks more like an ancestor of the otter to me than a whale. If you were to tell me that the otter is a descendant of this creature I would have no problem with that at all because otters came from somewhere right? And this is as good a candidate as any. But just stating that this is a transitional form that proves that whales evolved from land mammals without any debate on the matter is talking quite a leap. We don't even know whether it was reptilian or not, we don't know how its inner organs we arranged so how come they are so sure that it is a transitional form?We all ready have Soul Winner, we already have. Ambulocetus has been mentioned 17 times already on this thread, along with a host of other such examples.
I just dealt with Ambulocetus, now where are the others you say you mentioned?Says who? Darwinian evolution says that such mutated animals would be so rare as to be very unlikely to show up in the fossil record...
They aren't rare though, that is the point. Bad or neutral mutations are much more common than mutations that are beneficial. Yet in every fossil you have a species that has evolved perfectly to its environment with no evidence of bad or neutral mutations whatsoever. OK bad mutations might not be in evidence because they are not selected for and hence not passed on but neutral ones should be in evidence.. If the fossil record was full of them then there is something wrong with Darwinian evolution.
All we find in the fossil record are species which have only ever evolved beneficial mutations that just so happen to enable them to adapt to their environments, or in other words nature has selected the ones that are best suited to a particular environment to survive than those which aren't. Yet in every single experiment done in the lab, mutations which are bad or neutral are much more common than beneficial mutations. If this is true in the lab then it is more than likely to be true in nature, which means that we should see more evidence of it in the fossil record. We don't. all we find are species which appear fully formed and perfectly adapted to their environments.Darwinian evolution predicts that in the fossil record we will find species such as Ambulocetus, not your stump creatures. And that is exactly what we find.
We should also find evidence for species in transition. Surely at some point in the evolution from fin to hand the fin will not look like a fin or a hand. As long as it is in water it will need to be a fin and as long as its on land it will need to be hand or claw like, but in between, there will be some loss of prime functionality, i.e. the ability to swim fast enough to catch prey (which humans can't do by the way) or on land the ability to grip branches or catch insects or whatever. All we see are fins that are perfectly adapted for swimming in water or hands/claws etc that are perfectly adapted for gripping and catching. With the Ambulocetus we have a creature who appears to be perfectly adapted to surviving in water but who could also adapt to living on land but to say that it is the transitional link between whales and mammals is leap of faith.What do you mean should be? It is the case. Darwinian evolution is how life on Earth develops.
Maybe it is but the fossil record is not evidence of it.No we shouldn't (most mutations are neutral by the way, but that is beside the point).
So where is the evidence for them in the fossil record? Again all we see is evidence for beneficial mutations. Perfectly adapted claws, teeth, wings or fins and so on...The fossil record is a tiny percentage of the animals that actually lived.
I know. As an side, can you explain (in your own word please) how fossils come about in the first place?Imagine the population of Ireland right now, and imagine that 0.00001 of us is going to end up fossilized (which is generous). Do you think that fossil record of this current generation of humans is going to also contain the tiny number of humans who have significant genetic mutations, for example someone born without arms?
Not all but at least some. If the ratio of bad/neutral mutations to beneficial mutations is anything to go by then the ratio of people with no arms would be a lot higher than what it is now meaning that we should find even more fossils of people with no arms (or whatever impediment) in your scenario.
In any case. How did life evolve the ability to pass on mutational information in the first place? If the mutation (beneficial or otherwise i.e and extra finger on each hand say) was really random, then the organism wasn't expecting it. But throughout its life this mutation served its master well. How then was it able to pass this mutational information onto to its offspring? That always puzzled me too. Just because mutations happen, that doesn't automatically mean that those traits (beneficial in this case) will automatically get passed on. If I randomly mutate a new finger would that pass on to my future kids? If I was born with a defect that made it easier for me to get around than normal people (say something like double jointedness or something) would that trait get passed on? No, not necessarily. So how are we so sure that beneficial mutations in nature get passed on? Just because the benefit the organism which originally mutated the trait doesn't mean that it will be able to pass this trait on. That is also assumed.The odds of that happening are very small. Most of the fossils will be of perfectly normal humans. It is only traits that are common across the population that you expect to find in fossils. The odds that the rare except will also end up being in the fossil record are very small.
Rare maybe, but not impossible. After 150 years of digging you'd expect to find evidence of more species in transition than we do. All we find are species that appear perfectly adapted to their environments, fully formed.It is exactly what Darwinian theory predicts. You don't understand this because you don't understand Darwinian evolution nor have you ever expressed any genuine interest in trying to understand Darwinian evolution.
I do understand it, until you change it. The theory itself is as able to adapt to whatever counter facts are thrown at it as species in nature are able to adapt to changes in their environments, so much so that (like creatures in nature) the modern version of the theory looks nothing like the original version.Imagine you have a population of 10 animals. 6 have neutral mutations, 1 has a beneficial mutation and 3 have detrimental mutations. Ah you say, more detrimental mutations!!.
2 of the 3 with the detrimental mutations die off before mating, so only 1 animal with one of these mutations exists in the next generation. The 1 with the beneficial mutation is successful and mates better than the 6 neutral mutation. So next generation you have more of the animal with the benefitial mutation than previous, and so on through the generations.
And then the next generation, those with this mutation continue to be successful in mating (nature is selecting them).
After 5 generations there are 8 with the mutation, ie the entire species is been replaced with the mutation.
so you get something like this
Gen 1 - NNNNNNDDDB
Gen 2 - NNNNNNNDBB
Gen 3 - NNNNNNBBBB
Gen 4 - NNNBBBBBBBB
Gen 5 - NNBBBBBBBBB
Gen 6 - BBBBBBBBBBB
Gen 7 - BBBBBBBBBBB
Notice in the entire set there are only 4 with the detrimental mutations because they died off quickly. Over the generations the population of animals with these detrimental mutations is tiny compared to the others.
Now imagine that lets say 2 out of that entire set are going to end up being fossilized (remember only a tiny percentage of animals actually end up fossilized)
What do you think the odds are that those 2 will be the "D" animals? Very very small. The odds that they will either be 'N' or 'B' are far greater.
This is what Darwinian evolution predicts (whether you believe it is right or wrong, this is what the theory says). And this is what we find in the fossil record.
No on is denying that determintal mutations happen, or that they are more numerous than those that give new functionality. But Darwinian evolution predicts that over the population over generations these will be tiny compared to the others. And this is what we find in the fossil record.
The only problem with all this is that that is not what Darwin predicted. The theory has changed to adapt to the facts of the fossil record and then its claimed that this is what the theory predicted in the first place. It isn't but I'm sure you will find a way to present it other wise.Darwinian evolution is true. Get over it
Its total BS, sorry.Intelligent people tend to learn what a theory actually says before they dismiss it.
Intelligent people don't generally resuscitate debunked theories and reword them to match up with new facts that the original theory did not predict.0 -
-
-
Did you derive:Soul Winner wrote: »Darwin predicted millions of transitional forms which he was convinced would be found, so much so that he was willing to risk his theory on it. They haven't been found but the theory survived and has changed to match the facts. Great science that.
From:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Charles Darwin
?
It is noteworthy that you use misrepresentation to attack a man in order to undermine a theory.
Once again, Darwin was pointing out that his theory was so strong that the most devastating attack that could be made upon it was the lack of fossil data. And this is not devastating at all.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »What exactly has knowing the inner workings of plate tectonics got to do with predicting what the fossil record will eventually show.
Plate tectonics has a massive impact on the fossil record. This was unknown in Darwin's time.Soul Winner wrote: »To go from fin to hand there must have been many stages in between. And at each stage natural selection was selecting the best trait for survival at that time and then passing it on to the next generation, it wasn't looking to the future knowing that this particular branch of life will need hands on land at some point.
Yes, that is the point. Non-functioning "stumps" that Creationist say should be in the fossil record are not what evolution predicts. It is not surprising that they are not found then, given that evolution is correct.Soul Winner wrote: »Like I said, there is evidence for transition between certain types of species (whales as you say) in the fossil record, but they are all transitioning from one type of whale to another type of whale
Does that creature at the top look like a type of whale to you :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »When I look at this creature I see a creature that is perfectly adapted to its habitat. It could be argue that it is a transitional form alright but it could also be argued that its just a distinct species.
That is exactly what it is, a distinct species. If you find that puzzling it is because you do not understand what the heck evolutionary theory is actually saying.
Stop rotting your mind with Creationist websites and bother to read something on evolution.Soul Winner wrote: »It looks more like an ancestor of the otter to me than a whale.
What it looks like to you is rather irrelevant.
You ask for evidence, we give you evidence, you say we haven't debated it with you enough and it doesn't look like a whale to you. I cannot sum up how irrelevant your opinion of what you think it looks like is.
It wasn't reptilian, it was a mammal. And yes we do know that.Soul Winner wrote: »We don't even know whether it was reptilian or notSoul Winner wrote: », we don't know how its inner organs we arranged so how come they are so sure that it is a transitional form?
Because they know what they are doing. The evidence for the link is found in the arrangement of the skeleton structure.Soul Winner wrote: »They aren't rare though, that is the point. Bad or neutral mutations are much more common than mutations that are beneficial.
Organisms with bad mutations are rare compared with the general population. How many normal people right now do you know, compared to how many you know with a serious genetic disease?Soul Winner wrote: »All we find in the fossil record are species which have only ever evolved beneficial mutations that just so happen to enable them to adapt to their environments
They don't just so happen to adapt to their environment, its called natural selection.Soul Winner wrote: », or in other words nature has selected the ones that are best suited to a particular environment to survive than those which aren't. Yet in every single experiment done in the lab, mutations which are bad or neutral are much more common than beneficial mutations. If this is true in the lab then it is more than likely to be true in nature, which means that we should see more evidence of it in the fossil record.
No we shouldn't, as I explained in the last post. I can't help you Soul Winner if you don't pay attention to what people are explaining to you. Look at my detailed explanation of N B D mutations. Actually bother this time.Soul Winner wrote: »All we see are fins that are perfectly adapted for swimming in water or hands/claws etc that are perfectly adapted for gripping and catching.
That might be all you see, but that is because you are not paying attention. Ambulocetus' legs are neither as suited to high speed running as Diacodexis, nor as adapted to moving in water as a modern whale.Soul Winner wrote: »So where is the evidence for them in the fossil record? Again all we see is evidence for beneficial mutations. Perfectly adapted claws, teeth, wings or fins and so on...
What are you expecting to see exactly? By definition you won't see neutral mutations Soul Winner, that is why they are neutral, they don't change the phenotype.Soul Winner wrote: »I know. As an side, can you explain (in your own word please) how fossils come about in the first place?
The bones of dead animals forms cavities in the rock around them that are gradually replaced by minerals.Soul Winner wrote: »Not all but at least some. If the ratio of bad/neutral mutations to beneficial mutations is anything to go by then the ratio of people with no arms would be a lot higher than what it is now meaning that we should find even more fossils of people with no arms (or whatever impediment) in your scenario.
How many people do you know without any arms out of the entire population of Ireland? :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »If I randomly mutate a new finger would that pass on to my future kids?
Your future kids are going to have your DNA where this mutation first occurred. That is assuming they don't get the non-mutated DNA of your mother for that gene. Your kids have a 1 in 2 chance of getting the DNA that produces the extra finger.
This is assuming that your extra finger wasn't so unbenefitial that it prevented you from mating in the first place. In that case the mutated DNA dies with you, which means the mutation was not selected by natural selection.Soul Winner wrote: »If I was born with a defect that made it easier for me to get around than normal people (say something like double jointedness or something) would that trait get passed on? No, not necessarily. So how are we so sure that beneficial mutations in nature get passed on?
In asexual reproduction it definitely will get passed on. In sexual reproduction there is a 1 in 2 chance it will.
No it isn't.Soul Winner wrote: »Just because the benefit the organism which originally mutated the trait doesn't mean that it will be able to pass this trait on. That is also assumed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeneticsSoul Winner wrote: »The only problem with all this is that that is not what Darwin predicted.
It is what Darwin predicted as much as someone without an understanding of genetics (something you and Darwin have in common) could predict.
Did you actually understand any of that rather long explanation I took time to write out for you? Did you even bother to read it?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »You mean there hasn't been a fossil found that supports Darwin's original theory. We're not going to find a fossil that disproves Darwinian evolutionary theory, we don't have to, all that needs to happen is for Darwin's prediction to be borne out, it was, the theory should be dead, it's not, it changed, go figure. :rolleyes:
/Sets phasers to sarcasm
My God!
A theory that is adapted to new information and evidence?!
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement