|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Undeniable Science of Biology
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 The Undeniable Science of BiologyOur world is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest life forms, microbial mats fossilized as stromatolites, date back to within the first billion years of Earth's existence. The earliest metazoans (multiple called organisms) are barely a billion years old. Thus for the first two billion years life existed on this planet it consisted solely of single called organisms. Two billion years. That is a long time. Long enough for photosynthetic phytoplankton to evolve, fill the oceans and pump up atmospheric oxygen levels. There are no sound geological explanations for the prolonged presence of free oxygen--that pretty much comes from biological activity. For three hundred to four hundred million years all metazoans were marine organisms. Ultimately plants and insects invaded the terrestrial biome, marking the beginning of the Paleozoic. Cambrian, Vendian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississipian, Pennsylvanian, Permian. Without looking it up primitive vascular plants dominated the land in the Silurian, while the first sarcopterygian lungfish did not crawl out of tooth filled oceans into this new ecological niche until the Devonian. Scientists recognized there should exist a specific type of amphibian in specific strata, and after searching uncovered acanthostega. |
||||||||||||
|
Shiva |
||||||||||||
|
Whoa Good point on how the sciences dovetail, though. Including geology, chemistry, physics... |
||||||||||||
|
Response I'm confident you can debate without resorting to ridicule and insults. On the other hand, people insecure in their positions often avoid honest, open debate. |
||||||||||||
|
insecure? |
||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Sep-22, 07:25 |
...except that evolution theory offers an explanation only from the point of single cell organisms onwards, not about how the first single cell organism was generated. It is of some importance to clearly distingish this (abiogenesis) from evolution. |
||||||||||||
|
Stal Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution presupposes life began… evolution describes what happens afterwards |
||||||||||||
|
I once asked for evidence that supports the theory of evolution and I was told the fossil record. I then asked how many transitional fossils exist, noting that Darwin himself said that for his theory to be correct, the number of transitional fossils would have to be truly enormous (or truly huge, I forget which.) I was alternately told the number was indeed truly enormous or was many. I asked for the number to be quantified. Surely if transitional fossils are a main evidence for the theory of evolution, the number should be known or readily available. No one gave me a number. I asked for a ballpark number of transitional fossils. Fifty? 200? 500? 1,000? 10,000? No one could even give a ballpark number. I thought surely someone can identify 5 or 10 transitional fossils - where and when they were found, and why they are believed to be transitional fossils. No one did. In fact, at this point, I believe the Christian bashing and creationism bashing began. And that’s why a debate on the theory of evolution is pointless. It’s a vehicle for at least one person on here to vent his spleen at creationists and engage in personal attacks. I couldn’t be less interested. The theory of evolution has survived as long as it has based on ambiguity, generalizations, wishful thinking (“Anything can happen in billions of years!”) and hostility and attacks toward anyone who questions or criticizes it. That’s my opinion. |
||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Sep-22, 22:16 |
Transitional fossils www.rom.on.ca There is a good educational article in Wikipedia about transitional fossils, the beginning of which reads as follows: <A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2] In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but he explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[3] He noted the limited collections available at the time but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[4] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between earlier, non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, including many transitional fossils.[5] Specific examples of class-level transitions are: tetrapods and fish, birds and dinosaurs, and mammals and "mammal-like reptiles". > en.wikipedia.org So, I'd like to conclude that there actually are several examples of transitional fossils that fit quite reasonably to the present theory. |
||||||||||||
|
Transitional Fossils www.talkorigins.org The elephant and whale series are famous, as is the series of the earliest amphibians. Why would God create fossils of whales with legs? Suppose God did not wish for men to believe whales evolved from a terrestrial mammal. Then why create fossils (or actual prehistoric specimens) of legged cetaceans? Before all of those we find sarcopterygian lungfish in the Silurian, and then primitive amphibians almost identical to those fish in the Devonian. Beautiful transitional species. You could hardly ask for more as a regular biologist. But as a creationist you might as for a whale, horse, or even a rabbit. Maybe a beaver or aquatic mammal--something modern that could have survived a similar environment. Alas, it is not meant to be. God never saw fit to sacrifice ANY modern mammal in undisturbed geologic strata spanning the millions and millions of years separating the Paleozoic Cambrian from the mesozoic Cretaceous. Somewhere close to four hundred million years of rock strata completely devoid of a single fossil mammal of any kind from the Miocene to now. Why is that? |
||||||||||||
|
Insult Free Thread There WILL be a double standard, as I will not delete anything by any creationist posting here, beyond obvious and egregious violations of GK rules on doxxing, obsenity, and pornography. I trust all participants will behave with excessive consideration for the opinions of others, and will censor posts that violate this standard with extreme prejudice. While I am a big fan of free speech, this is MY thread and no even remotely insulting post will be permitted on this thread. Thanks in advance for your respectful participation. Please post supporting evidence for any claim as best you can. |
||||||||||||
|
Vic 21:47 Let me work through your points in the order you have listed them.... <I asked how many transitional fossils exist, noting that Darwin himself said that for his theory to be correct, the number of transitional fossils would have to be truly enormous (or truly huge, I forget which.)> That's not how Science works. 1. Whether or not a theory is 'true' doesn't depend on a threshold amount of evidence. There are doubtless lots of things that are 'true' that we don't even know about. Our ignorance doesn't make them untrue. DEMONSTATING that it's 'true' requires evidence. 2. Science isn't about PROVING a theory 'true'. It is about gathering evidence that demonstrates the theory is a BETTER EXPLANATION than other competing theories. 3. 'Transitional' fossils is a term that seems to change meaning every time it is raised. We have a very large number of fossils that are described as 'transitional', but as soon as they are studied, someone demands a 'transitional' fossil either side, and then more either side of them, as though a continuous record needs to be made available. Sorry, but we only have the evidence that we have. What theory best fits the evidence available? I'm waiting for a better alternative to be proposed. <I asked for the number to be quantified. Surely if transitional fossils are a main evidence for the theory of evolution, the number should be known or readily available.> The number is in fact quite large, and growing constantly. Go to any large natural museum if you want to see them 'in the flesh', or scan the internet if you would be happy with documentary data. But fossils are no longer 'main evidence' for evolution as a principle, only for specific expressions of it. The theory you are targeting here is fifty years out of date. See later... <I thought surely someone can identify 5 or 10 transitional fossils - where and when they were found, and why they are believed to be transitional fossils. No one did.> Then you didn't ask the right people. I'm just an interested layman, but even I know of at least a dozen transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds alone, never mind the other evolutionary pathways. <In fact, at this point, I believe the Christian bashing and creationism bashing began.> Not at all! The bashing started when some sceptical scientists couldn't rebut Darwin on the evidence, so they convinced prominent churchmen that evolution was an attack on faith. The prominent churchmen, being largely ignorant of the data available, made fools of themselves. The pro-Darwinists showed them up as fools. But because 'evolution' had been made a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy, people of faith were prejudiced against reading the data objectively. What we see today certainly contains a percentage of 'Christian-bashing', because anti-evolutionists keep presenting evolution as a satanic deception, but using dodgy arguments in support. Evolutionists show up these arguments to be flawed, and then (gratuitously) go further to turn them into attacks on a simplistic version of Christian faith and then imply ALL Christian faith is simplistic. In this regard, anti-evolutionary fundamentalists are bringing the Gospel into disrepute, and I wish they wouldn't. Personally, I think it is fair enough for ignorance to be called out as ignorance, whatever side it is on. Now for points you DIDN'T raise... There is a lot more evidence for evolution than fossils! You seem to be presenting an argument that is based on data from more than fifty years ago. There is DNA evidence, there is biological evidence (e.g., what used to be called the 'recapitulation theory' of embryonic development), there is genetic data, there is support from paleoecology and geology, there are any number of independent scientific disciplines that converge on supporting the overall theory. Of course, there is not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there never is in Science. As I said at the beginning, Science is about working with the best theory we have so far, and then improving it or replacing it as more data comes in. <The theory of evolution has survived as long as it has based on ambiguity, generalizations, wishful thinking (“Anything can happen in billions of years!”) and hostility and attacks toward anyone who questions or criticizes it.> No; it has survived because even though it has flaws, it is still better than any other alternative on offer. Science is always a work in progress, and when a better theory comes along it will be adopted, just like better evidence caused Heliocentrism to be adopted over the old Geocentric model. Even then, there were observations which couldn't be explained by Newton's Theory of Gravitation, such as the precession of Mercury's orbit; but nobody seriously suggested that gravity didn't exist. When Einstein came up with a theory that better fitted observations, Relativity was adopted as a better theory of gravity. So tell me, Vic; how do YOU think the current biosphere on Earth arose? And what evidence do you have to support this theory? I have read extensively in Creationist literature, and I have still not found anything that holds water when examined closely. The best I have discovered is a list of 'problems' with the current theories, but nothing that would serve as a better alternative. |
||||||||||||
|
Insulting Creationists |
||||||||||||
|
Thanks for your response, and I’ll offer my thoughts after yours. <<<I asked how many transitional fossils exist, noting that Darwin himself said that for his theory to be correct, the number of transitional fossils would have to be truly enormous (or truly huge, I forget which.)>>> <<That's not how Science works. 1. Whether or not a theory is 'true' doesn't depend on a threshold amount of evidence. There are doubtless lots of things that are 'true' that we don't even know about. Our ignorance doesn't make them untrue. DEMONSTATING that it's 'true' requires evidence.>> I agree that truth exists apart from man’s discovery of it, that is, something is not true only after man or woman declare it to be true. And if they declare it to be false, when it’s really true, that doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes false. <<2. Science isn't about PROVING a theory 'true'. It is about gathering evidence that demonstrates the theory is a BETTER EXPLANATION than other competing theories.>> Agree with the first part, but not the second. I don’t think anything is provable (beyond any doubt) from a scientific standpoint. However, the second part of what you wrote seems to leave out, or consider not valid, the simple position of, “We don’t know.” If there are two competing thoughts or ideas to explain a phenomena, and one idea has very little evidence and the other even less, I don’t think the idea with very little evidence should be considered a theory simply because it’s a better explanation than the second idea. I think the only response to the phenomena should be, “We don’t know” and to wait for someone to propose a more credible idea. <<3. 'Transitional' fossils is a term that seems to change meaning every time it is raised.>> And that’s very unfortunate. What do you suppose the reason is that the definition of a transitional fossil changes so often? <<We have a very large number of fossils that are described as 'transitional', but as soon as they are studied, someone demands a 'transitional' fossil either side, and then more either side of them, as though a continuous record needs to be made available.>> That’s why it’s crucial to have a definition of transitional fossil that is agreed upon by both evolutionists and creationists (or at least scientists who are skeptics of Darwin’s theory) and stick to it. In my view, a transitional fossil is a fossil dug from the earth that has visible (not conjectured) features that demonstrate it is an intermediary between two established species. The features that cause it to be considered a transitional fossil have to be visible and not the result of extrapolation by imagination. <<Sorry, but we only have the evidence that we have. What theory best fits the evidence available? I'm waiting for a better alternative to be proposed.>> I believe, “We don’t know” is a valid alternative. <<<I asked for the number to be quantified. Surely if transitional fossils are a main evidence for the theory of evolution, the number should be known or readily available.>>> <<The number is in fact quite large, and growing constantly.>> How large and growing at what rate? <<Go to any large natural museum if you want to see them 'in the flesh', or scan the internet if you would be happy with documentary data.>> I think evolutionists should be able to answer the question of how many transitional fossils exist, even if it’s a ballpark number. <<But fossils are no longer 'main evidence' for evolution as a principle, only for specific expressions of it. The theory you are targeting here is fifty years out of date. See later...>> Didn’t mean to suggest transitional fossils were the only evidence presented by evolutionists, but the fossil record is certainly mentioned when evolutionists seek to present evidence. <<<I thought surely someone can identify 5 or 10 transitional fossils - where and when they were found, and why they are believed to be transitional fossils. No one did.>>> <<Then you didn't ask the right people. I'm just an interested layman, but even I know of at least a dozen transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds alone, never mind the other evolutionary pathways.>> Ok, can you identify them? Their names, when and where they were found, and a brief description that justifies their being called transitional fossils? To be continued… (Don’t want this post to become too long.) |
||||||||||||
|
Andrew Eohippus, orohippus epihippus, medohippus, miohippus kalabahippus, parahippus and merychippus are well represented in the fossil record. All intermediate forms between early mammals and modern equus. |
||||||||||||
|
How many? |
||||||||||||
|
<<Not at all! The bashing started when some sceptical scientists couldn't rebut Darwin on the evidence, so they convinced prominent churchmen that evolution was an attack on faith. The prominent churchmen, being largely ignorant of the data available, made fools of themselves. The pro-Darwinists showed them up as fools. But because 'evolution' had been made a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy, people of faith were prejudiced against reading the data objectively.>> I was speaking of my experience in debating this issue, not an historical experience. But, on what you wrote, I have never thought one needs to reject the theory of evolution to be a Christian because becoming a Christian is via John 3:16 and Romans 10:9, which have nothing to do with the creation account in Genesis. I do believe Darwin’s theory is incompatible with the Holy Bible - and not just the creation account in Genesis. <<What we see today certainly contains a percentage of 'Christian-bashing', because anti-evolutionists keep presenting evolution as a satanic deception, but using dodgy arguments in support.>> I think the theory of evolution should rise or fall on evidence and not on claims that it’s a satanic deception. <<Evolutionists show up these arguments to be flawed, and then (gratuitously) go further to turn them into attacks on a simplistic version of Christian faith and then imply ALL Christian faith is simplistic.>> I could cite passages from the Bible that speak of the importance of having the faith of a child and how God reveals Himself not to the proud and learned, but I suspect you know those passages. But here are two anyway. Jesus Christ is speaking in both: “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:15) “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Matthew 11:25-26) And here are some short passages from the Apostle Paul: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19) “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21) “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29) <<In this regard, anti-evolutionary fundamentalists are bringing the Gospel into disrepute, and I wish they wouldn't. Personally, I think it is fair enough for ignorance to be called out as ignorance, whatever side it is on.>> “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18) “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) <<Now for points you DIDN'T raise... There is a lot more evidence for evolution than fossils! You seem to be presenting an argument that is based on data from more than fifty years ago.>> Yes, I’m aware evolutionists cite more than the fossil record when presenting their case. I was using the fossil record as an example. <<There is DNA evidence, there is biological evidence (e.g., what used to be called the 'recapitulation theory' of embryonic development), there is genetic data, there is support from paleoecology and geology, there are any number of independent scientific disciplines that converge on supporting the overall theory.>> Ok, why not present the evidence? In the above, you’re saying evidence exists in those fields, but you’re not citing or presenting it. <<Of course, there is not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there never is in Science.>> But science ought to be based on the Scientific Method - observation, hypothesis, experiment (able to replicated,) confirmation of hypothesis. I realize why one species turning into another species cannot fit in that framework given the length of time involved, but long-running experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, which have very short generational spans, does not support the theory. <<As I said at the beginning, Science is about working with the best theory we have so far, and then improving it or replacing it as more data comes in.>> So the theory is presumed to be right no matter what, and if data (like the Cambrian explosion or the complexity of cells and DNA) comes in that seems to contradict it, that doesn’t mean the central claim of the theory might be wrong? It just means the theory has to be changed to fit the new data? Is there any discovery that would invalidate the theory of evolution? Because I think a scientific theory, to be valid, needs to be falsifiable. <<<The theory of evolution has survived as long as it has based on ambiguity, generalizations, wishful thinking (“Anything can happen in billions of years!”) and hostility and attacks toward anyone who questions or criticizes it.>>> <<No; it has survived because even though it has flaws, it is still better than any other alternative on offer.>> I think a valid alternative is, “We don’t know.” <<Science is always a work in progress, and when a better theory comes along it will be adopted, just like better evidence caused Heliocentrism to be adopted over the old Geocentric model. Even then, there were observations which couldn't be explained by Newton's Theory of Gravitation, such as the precession of Mercury's orbit; but nobody seriously suggested that gravity didn't exist. When Einstein came up with a theory that better fitted observations, Relativity was adopted as a better theory of gravity.>> I don’t believe the theory of evolution has the evidentiary support that you do, so I don’t think it deserves to be considered a valid theory that can be modified to fit whatever discoveries appear to contradict it. To be continued… |
||||||||||||
|
@zorroloco And I don’t think asking for one is odd. Darwin himself said for his theory to be correct, the number of “intermediate varieties” would have to be truly enormous. I’m just wondering whether it is. “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.“ www.goodreads.com |
||||||||||||
|
As I said previously, I believe an acceptable alternative is, “We don’t know.” I personally believe the creation account in Genesis - a position I came to after rejecting the theory of evolution. Do I think the creation account can be proven scientifically? No, nor do I think it was intended to. If I found errors in the Holy Bible, I would be much, much less inclined to believe the creation account. But I believe the Holy Bible is accurate and that its promises are valid (at least in my personal experience) so I am inclined to believe the early chapters of Genesis as well. |
||||||||||||
|
@zorroloco Thanks for that list. I’ll check it out tonight. |
||||||||||||
|
toria |
||||||||||||
|
Andrew See what happens? You’re basically asking to list every rational number between 0 and 1. 1/2,1/4,1/8,… |
||||||||||||
|
Regarding Darwin’s In Darwin's time, paleontology was still a rudimentary science. Large parts of the geological succession of stratified rocks were unknown or inadequately studied. Darwin, therefore, worried about the rarity of intermediate forms between some major groups of organisms. Today, many of the gaps in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. Microbial life of the simplest type was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago. The oldest evidence of more complex organisms (that is, eucaryotic cells, which are more complex than bacteria) has been discovered in fossils sealed in rocks approximately 2 billion years old. Multicellular organisms, which are the familiar fungi, plants, and animals, have been found only in younger geological strata. |
||||||||||||
|
@vocihc And “millions” is pretty general as it could include any number between 2 million and umpteen number of millions. Could you narrow it down a little? |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
@zorroloco 11:24 To say if the theory of evolution is accurate, we’re all transitional species and all fossils are transitional seems to put the cart before the horse. I don’t accept the premise upon which you’re basing the conclusions. |
||||||||||||
|
@zorroloco 11:39 |
||||||||||||
|
@vocihc Does any evolutionist want to define “transitional fossil” and state whether they agree with the definition I offered? It seems unproductive to discuss how many transitional fossils exist without first agreeing upon a definition of “transitional fossil.” |
||||||||||||
|
The Point very informative as well... www.youtube.com |
||||||||||||
|
@vochic If you don’t know or don’t want to reveal your definition, that’s fine. I don’t think I should have to watch a snarkily-titled video to get the answer (and I didn’t.) |
||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
