Question About Evolution
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 2:49 pm
Stargazer43 wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.
The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.
The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.
Is it really? Even if we evolved from a tiny bacteria that existed a few billion years ago, does it preclude the possibility that the reason we evolved was because the Lord put into place the natural laws, elements, and conditions that would allow that to occur? You have to remember that a huge portion of the Bible is written in parables and metaphors
Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms by the way the two words are used in our society; not by itself - it is not an inherent contradiction as one could believe that natural and gradual processes were guided or driven by a preexisting intelligence with a purpose. In the scientific culture, evolution is purposeless material mechanism; not used to further any purpose or will of God. It excludes the creator by definition. They are not consistent and evolution as most atheist scientist, or academics use it and mean to teach it is not compatible with theism in any meaningful way. One can believe in evolution, and be a theist. Absolutely. But not as it is defined by the larger body of evolutionists.
The New testament is largely parables and metaphors, but the Old testament is far more literal, more physical, grounded in nature, and only gets into the supernatural or metaphysical when it comes to debunking paganism. Paganism is the great enemy of the torah.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 3:11 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Evolution is not in contradiction with the text if it only meant believing in evolution. However, an evolutionist really - in the sense that it is used - is a metaphysical naturalist. Following the laws of naturalism, nature is a closed system of material causes and affects which can never be influenced by anything outside naturalism, and I'm talking of course specifically about the supernatural creator. In the final analysis, there is no God, or if one exists, its existence is irrelevant to how life and the universe came about.
That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.
The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.
That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.
The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.
I'm sorry, what on Earth is an "evolutionist"?
You don't have to be a staunch empiricist or a metaphysical naturalist to accept evolution.
Then you go talking about "macro evolution", a sure sign that you don't really understand the evidence in favour of evolution. There is no "macro" and "micro" evolution, just evolution. We have a large amount of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record and shared biochemistry, as well as real life examples like the Peppered moth and MRSA.
An evolutionist is my term for the large body of those who believe in macro evolution + nothing beyond the laws of naturalism were involved in the creation of the universe and life in it. Which are most atheists and those who believe in Evolution in general.
The theory makes no meaningful numerical, quantitative predictions, like most serious sciences. It just throws up this creator-less creation myth with no proof of life's origins leaving it open-ended, gives itself ample time, which is a cheap cop-out, and has been betrayed consistently by the technologies we've developed to further our understanding of biology.
Where is your proof for macro evolution. How many transformations do you predict a zebra would undergo to become a whale like creature? And how does the fossil record support that? We have a series of species whose fossils could be slotted in a way that suggests evolution. Could be. We don't have a scintilla of evidence that man shared a common ancestor with a tortuose, and if YOU do or know of someone who does, please put forth a meaningful number to the mutations it would have taken for such to be true. That is science. Theories to explain away what you don't know is not.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 3:18 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
I was discussing evolution with someone who buys into young earth creationism, and they asked me the usual "well if we came from Chimpanzees, why are there still Chimpanzees". I explained that we didn't come from Chimps, but rather a common ancestor we share with Bonobos and Chimpanzees that lived 6 million years ago. I also explained that physiologically, it probably would have resembled a chimp more than a human, but this is because the Chimp never left the trees, the original environment of the shared progenitor, so there were less physiologically apparent adaptations needed than the human ancestral line that split off and filled a new niche in the retreating forests that were being displaced by grasslands through climate change.
However, they hit me with a hard question I couldn't answer, and that's "why in recorded history hasn't a new species developed". They defined a species as a boundary in which a group of organisms can interbreed. The question was, more or less "why hasn't any group of organisms gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle?"I mentioned mules, but that doesn't really apply since they can't reproduce at all. I imagine that in the event that a new species does form, it probably would happen through the kind of intercourse that a donkey and horse (close enough to produce offspring but different enough to produce a freak or oddity) provide, but I don't know of any real world examples. If someone could fill me in on this, let me know.
They argued that a kind of meta-consciousness brought all the different life forms into being through intention and that, while different species can change form to a limited extent (Saber tooth tigers to Siberian Tigers/ Woolly Mammoths to Elephants), there is no organic based, common line of descension that all life shares, only commonality shared through a meta-physical intelligence.
However, they hit me with a hard question I couldn't answer, and that's "why in recorded history hasn't a new species developed". They defined a species as a boundary in which a group of organisms can interbreed. The question was, more or less "why hasn't any group of organisms gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle?"I mentioned mules, but that doesn't really apply since they can't reproduce at all. I imagine that in the event that a new species does form, it probably would happen through the kind of intercourse that a donkey and horse (close enough to produce offspring but different enough to produce a freak or oddity) provide, but I don't know of any real world examples. If someone could fill me in on this, let me know.
They argued that a kind of meta-consciousness brought all the different life forms into being through intention and that, while different species can change form to a limited extent (Saber tooth tigers to Siberian Tigers/ Woolly Mammoths to Elephants), there is no organic based, common line of descension that all life shares, only commonality shared through a meta-physical intelligence.
I wish by no means to offend any young earth creationists, but what you're describing only prooves that these guys are good a asking questions and are well adept at articulation and (often) masters of rhetorics.
Neither Constantine, St. augustine or any recent pope dismissed science in favour of Biblical literalism. Disrespecting science would also mean disrespecting God's ways.
Absolutely. The signature of God is truth, and if something is true, religion cannot deny, or else it is a false religion.
But... on that same token, science is always changing, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to possibilities, especially when evidence is so sparse for macro evolution.
We cannot hinge belief in God on the truisms of the day, especially when the text was never ment to explain science to begin with. This evolution theory may be totally discarded a thousand years from now, or many theories birthed out of it may offer better explanations, but as long as mans nature is still the same, the text will be as true then, 1000+ years from now, as it was for moses.
Huh?
Let me try to translate what you're saying here.
Basically you're saying that "we cant chuck christianity, because the theory of evolution might just be a passing fad."
But that assumes that you cant be both a christian AND believe in evolution.
Many do both.
And you just said yourself that "the bible was never meant to explain science". So if the bible was never meant to be a geology textbook then whats the issue anyway?
The issue is that, you can believe in both, but not in the way it is framed by a large body of those who believe in the theory. Evolution may be a passing fad, it may not be. What I am saying is that Judaism and Christianity should not hinge its truth on the big bang, or any other scientific theory out there, especially when our abrahamic faith was never meant to explain science.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
02 Nov 2012, 3:23 pm
Fnord wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth. They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean". Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
This is like saying that all atheists are willing to pay 200,000 dollars (and cheat their families of insurance money and inheritane) to be put in a high tech feeezer after they die just because almost everyone scammed by Alcor are atheists.No, it's like saying that anyone who wants you to join their Happy Jesus Fan Club is likely to be out of touch with reality.
Saying that all christians are a member of this club, is like saying that all atheists believe what Alcor says or that they're fans of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
02 Nov 2012, 3:25 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Where is your proof for macro evolution. How many transformations do you predict a zebra would undergo to become a whale like creature? And how does the fossil record support that? We have a series of species whose fossils could be slotted in a way that suggests evolution. Could be. We don't have a scintilla of evidence that man shared a common ancestor with a tortuose, and if YOU do or know of someone who does, please put forth a meaningful number to the mutations it would have taken for such to be true. That is science. Theories to explain away what you don't know is not.
You are VERY wrong about this. Google is your friend. There is much evidence of many different types that all clearly show that man and tortoise share a common ancestor. The genetic evidence is the strongest of all. The patterns of nested hierarchies of different things (such as the placement of endogenous retroviruses or the placement of pseudogenes) in comparing the DNA of different species produce the same tree of life as is found in the fossil record. Perfectly consistent, no contradictions (UNLIKE a literal reading of the Bible). That these patterns MATCH is itself more evidence that evolution is an observed FACT of nature.
I do not know of any other idea in science that is supported by as many different types of evidence all pointing to the same reality as evolution is. It explains so much so neatly with so few assumptions. It is a great description and explanation of what we observe in nature, and yes, humans share a common ancestor with tortoises, like it or not. That is apparently the way God made us (if there is a God), and if He DIDN'T do it that way then why oh why please tell me why does EVERYTHING we can observe and measure seem to indicate evolution happens?
_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008
02 Nov 2012, 3:28 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
. We don't have a scintilla of evidence that man shared a common ancestor with a tortuose, and if YOU do or know of someone who does, please put forth a meaningful number to the mutations it would have taken for such to be true. That is science. Theories to explain away what you don't know is not.
This wiki link discusses the common ancestor of humans and tortoises, called tetrapods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod
Quote:
Tetrapoda includes four classes: amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Overall the biodiversity of tetrapods has grown exponentially over time from a single amphibian group sometime in the Devonian to many thousands of species today.
Quote:
Fossil early tetrapods
Nine genera of Devonian tetrapods have been described, several known mainly or entirely from lower jaw material. All but one were from the Laurasian supercontinent, which comprised Europe, North America and Greenland. The only exception is a single Gondwanan genus, Metaxygnathus, which has been found in Australia.
The first Devonian tetrapod identified from Asia was recognized from a fossil jawbone reported in 2002. The Chinese tetrapod Sinostega pani was discovered among fossilized tropical plants and lobe-finned fish in the red sandstone sediments of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of northwest China. This finding substantially extended the geographical range of these animals and has raised new questions about the worldwide distribution and great taxonomic diversity they achieved within a relatively short time.
Nine genera of Devonian tetrapods have been described, several known mainly or entirely from lower jaw material. All but one were from the Laurasian supercontinent, which comprised Europe, North America and Greenland. The only exception is a single Gondwanan genus, Metaxygnathus, which has been found in Australia.
The first Devonian tetrapod identified from Asia was recognized from a fossil jawbone reported in 2002. The Chinese tetrapod Sinostega pani was discovered among fossilized tropical plants and lobe-finned fish in the red sandstone sediments of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of northwest China. This finding substantially extended the geographical range of these animals and has raised new questions about the worldwide distribution and great taxonomic diversity they achieved within a relatively short time.
What humans and tortoises have in common is being four-limbed vertebrates. Our common ancestor is this mainly aquatic type of animal of which fossils have been found. It is how life first came out of the oceans and up onto land.
Quote:
From water to land
Initially making only tentative forays onto land, tetrapods adapted to terrestrial environments over time and spent longer periods away from the water, while also spending a longer part of their juvenile stage on land before returning to the water for the rest of their life. It is also possible that the adults started to spend some time on land (as the skeletal modifications in early tetrapods such as Ichthyostega suggests) but only to bask in the sun close to the water's edge, not to hunt or move around. The first true tetrapods that were adapted to terrestrial locomotion were small. Only later did they increase in size.
Initially making only tentative forays onto land, tetrapods adapted to terrestrial environments over time and spent longer periods away from the water, while also spending a longer part of their juvenile stage on land before returning to the water for the rest of their life. It is also possible that the adults started to spend some time on land (as the skeletal modifications in early tetrapods such as Ichthyostega suggests) but only to bask in the sun close to the water's edge, not to hunt or move around. The first true tetrapods that were adapted to terrestrial locomotion were small. Only later did they increase in size.
Neither that article nor any others I have read give any estimation of the specific number of mutations needed to diversify like that. I don't think we have the knowledge to calculate that currently. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fossils show that it happened.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 3:41 pm
Fnord wrote:
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
They have some serious questions to ask themselves. Their decline would not make a better America, they need to help them through this because Jewish ethics aren't exactly peddled by any other group, especially atheists. Christians took our ethics to the world, they have some serious theological questions to ask, and it won't work within their current reliance on faith, or their total disconnect from the old testament.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
02 Nov 2012, 3:50 pm
JNathanK wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Most creationists are too stupid and ignorant when it comes to earths history and the origins of life because they are too afraid of picking up a science book and learn the truth.Their response would be oh snap the bible is incorrect about the planets history! They don realize that the earth is by far older than some 4000 year old book written by a bunch of desert bums!
Well, they are intelligent people. Its just they cling to their assumptions, because the familiarity those assumptions offer provides them comfort.
Right. because they're emotionally invested in their opinions and ideas. I think that could easily apply to people who hold wrong notions, as well as right ones. That's why I strive not to be attached to any set of assumptions. It allows me to, more clearly, entertain ideas without fully accepting them. Half the things I talk about with friends, I'm usually just playing devils advocate and don't fully buy into any of it. I'll talk about something way out there like space aliens intervening with our genetics, and I entertain the ideas as far as is necessary to understand all the connotations of it, but I don't fully embrace anything unless there's enough evidence to support it. Too many people won't give other ideas the time of day unless it helps confirm what they already believe. This needs to change if humanity wants to advance itself.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
02 Nov 2012, 4:08 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
From internal evidence in the text, none of it amounts to the creationist literal interpretation of 6 literal days. None! The sun isn't even created on the first day, and our 24 hour period is relative to the earths rotation with a sun shining. In Genesis 1:14, there were no days, years, or seasons prior to Day 4 of creation. It is the creationists and a large body of Christianity really pushing this, and it isn't right.
I'm not arguing metaphorically, Genesis and the whole torah's genius had to have been written with divine guidance, it could not have just been written by brilliant men, we don't have anything since then that has been as true, powerful, with more human revolutions per sentence, per paragraph, per chapter, per book then this torah.
When I say it is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1, Im saying that evolution as it is understood in many atheist circles excludes the possibility that God had any hand in creation. Even if a God exists, it had no hand in the creation of the universe, and life on earth... all that we know and see had natural beginnings, and that is it.
...evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. You're looking at abiogenesis (Living organisms forming spontaneously) there. Evolution is what happens *after* that, or however else life came to be. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the creation of the universe. Or planet Earth. I am completely unsure what you're talking about here.
On a less on topic (but more related to your post) topic:
Oh yes, Divine Guidance telling us to kill people by throwing stones at them and burning them alive, as well as Divine Guidance giving us instructions on how we should keep slaves! Great revelations there bub.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 4:19 pm
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Where is your proof for macro evolution. How many transformations do you predict a zebra would undergo to become a whale like creature? And how does the fossil record support that? We have a series of species whose fossils could be slotted in a way that suggests evolution. Could be. We don't have a scintilla of evidence that man shared a common ancestor with a tortuose, and if YOU do or know of someone who does, please put forth a meaningful number to the mutations it would have taken for such to be true. That is science. Theories to explain away what you don't know is not.
You are VERY wrong about this. Google is your friend. There is much evidence of many different types that all clearly show that man and tortoise share a common ancestor. The genetic evidence is the strongest of all. The patterns of nested hierarchies of different things (such as the placement of endogenous retroviruses or the placement of pseudogenes) in comparing the DNA of different species produce the same tree of life as is found in the fossil record. Perfectly consistent, no contradictions (UNLIKE a literal reading of the Bible). That these patterns MATCH is itself more evidence that evolution is an observed FACT of nature.
I do not know of any other idea in science that is supported by as many different types of evidence all pointing to the same reality as evolution is. It explains so much so neatly with so few assumptions. It is a great description and explanation of what we observe in nature, and yes, humans share a common ancestor with tortoises, like it or not. That is apparently the way God made us (if there is a God), and if He DIDN'T do it that way then why oh why please tell me why does EVERYTHING we can observe and measure seem to indicate evolution happens?
The fossil record does not suggest that man and tortuose came from the same ancestor. You can arrange fossils to suggest an evolutionary morphing of one species into a totally different one, but we do not have the 1,000,000 + mutation examples that could take an ox or a horse and turn it into a whale. We have, what, 9? Where are the billions of mutation examples that link a fish to a flying bird? Forget millions and billions of real fossil examples, evolutionists cannot and will not put forth a number which it can then morph in computer models. The tree of life is not computable in our lifetime.
Showing the complex systems in the body that would form an outer shell, a pair of wings, webbed feat, breathing holes going from the front of an animal through its lungs and reappearing on top of its head, all of these would require endless mutations, most mutations killing the animals evolution into something totally different. To achieve this on a computer requires a total abandonment of the dogma evolutionists have bought into. You can make macro evolution work in computer simulations, but it would mean abandoning macro evolution as it was understood by Darwin, and the scientific community for the last century. You can use serious science to justify evolution, but Evolution itself is not serious science.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 4:25 pm
abacacus wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
From internal evidence in the text, none of it amounts to the creationist literal interpretation of 6 literal days. None! The sun isn't even created on the first day, and our 24 hour period is relative to the earths rotation with a sun shining. In Genesis 1:14, there were no days, years, or seasons prior to Day 4 of creation. It is the creationists and a large body of Christianity really pushing this, and it isn't right.
I'm not arguing metaphorically, Genesis and the whole torah's genius had to have been written with divine guidance, it could not have just been written by brilliant men, we don't have anything since then that has been as true, powerful, with more human revolutions per sentence, per paragraph, per chapter, per book then this torah.
When I say it is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1, Im saying that evolution as it is understood in many atheist circles excludes the possibility that God had any hand in creation. Even if a God exists, it had no hand in the creation of the universe, and life on earth... all that we know and see had natural beginnings, and that is it.
...evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. You're looking at abiogenesis (Living organisms forming spontaneously) there. Evolution is what happens *after* that, or however else life came to be. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the creation of the universe. Or planet Earth. I am completely unsure what you're talking about here.
On a less on topic (but more related to your post) topic:
Oh yes, Divine Guidance telling us to kill people by throwing stones at them and burning them alive, as well as Divine Guidance giving us instructions on how we should keep slaves! Great revelations there bub.
Well name some specific examples from the bible, and we'll explore them.
Evolutionists, as I have described them in previous posts, think within the framework of naturalism, and nothing exists beyond it. Matter is all there is, and force, entropy, and waves of probability only exist descriptively to describe a specific mode that matter is in. As far as evolution is concerned, we came about naturally, and there was no divine hand involved. That is what I'm saying.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 4:33 pm
Janissy wrote:
This wiki link discusses the common ancestor of humans and tortoises, called tetrapods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod
Quote:
Tetrapoda includes four classes: amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Overall the biodiversity of tetrapods has grown exponentially over time from a single amphibian group sometime in the Devonian to many thousands of species today.
Quote:
Fossil early tetrapods
Nine genera of Devonian tetrapods have been described, several known mainly or entirely from lower jaw material. All but one were from the Laurasian supercontinent, which comprised Europe, North America and Greenland. The only exception is a single Gondwanan genus, Metaxygnathus, which has been found in Australia.
The first Devonian tetrapod identified from Asia was recognized from a fossil jawbone reported in 2002. The Chinese tetrapod Sinostega pani was discovered among fossilized tropical plants and lobe-finned fish in the red sandstone sediments of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of northwest China. This finding substantially extended the geographical range of these animals and has raised new questions about the worldwide distribution and great taxonomic diversity they achieved within a relatively short time.
Nine genera of Devonian tetrapods have been described, several known mainly or entirely from lower jaw material. All but one were from the Laurasian supercontinent, which comprised Europe, North America and Greenland. The only exception is a single Gondwanan genus, Metaxygnathus, which has been found in Australia.
The first Devonian tetrapod identified from Asia was recognized from a fossil jawbone reported in 2002. The Chinese tetrapod Sinostega pani was discovered among fossilized tropical plants and lobe-finned fish in the red sandstone sediments of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of northwest China. This finding substantially extended the geographical range of these animals and has raised new questions about the worldwide distribution and great taxonomic diversity they achieved within a relatively short time.
What humans and tortoises have in common is being four-limbed vertebrates. Our common ancestor is this mainly aquatic type of animal of which fossils have been found. It is how life first came out of the oceans and up onto land.
Quote:
From water to land
Initially making only tentative forays onto land, tetrapods adapted to terrestrial environments over time and spent longer periods away from the water, while also spending a longer part of their juvenile stage on land before returning to the water for the rest of their life. It is also possible that the adults started to spend some time on land (as the skeletal modifications in early tetrapods such as Ichthyostega suggests) but only to bask in the sun close to the water's edge, not to hunt or move around. The first true tetrapods that were adapted to terrestrial locomotion were small. Only later did they increase in size.
Initially making only tentative forays onto land, tetrapods adapted to terrestrial environments over time and spent longer periods away from the water, while also spending a longer part of their juvenile stage on land before returning to the water for the rest of their life. It is also possible that the adults started to spend some time on land (as the skeletal modifications in early tetrapods such as Ichthyostega suggests) but only to bask in the sun close to the water's edge, not to hunt or move around. The first true tetrapods that were adapted to terrestrial locomotion were small. Only later did they increase in size.
Neither that article nor any others I have read give any estimation of the specific number of mutations needed to diversify like that. I don't think we have the knowledge to calculate that currently. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fossils show that it happened.
Well that is what is required Janissy, a numerical estimation that others can then study. What you observe are fossils that could be slotted in an evolutionary tree of life. What you see amongst turtles are species that are closely related, and the fossil record supports that. You do not have the billions upon billions of working examples that we can therefore say, this turtle came the next creature, which came the following creature after that, and so on. Commonalities amongst species do little to explain the complex differences which logically isolate them. The more we know, the more complex all of this becomes, and we need a theory that accounts for complexity in the natural world, because evolution and its original framers are so simplistic. Otherwise we are dependent on faith, and cheap cop-outs like "Well they had millions of years to evolve, anything could have happened in that time period."
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
02 Nov 2012, 4:40 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The fossil record does not suggest that man and tortuose came from the same ancestor.
Actually it does. You are misinformed about this.
One of the most stunning finds ever was made just in the past decade or so. Do a little reading about Tiktaalik or read Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish. He knew there were documented fossils of tetrapod land animals from 365 million years ago, and fossils of lobe-finned fish from 385 million years ago, but until he went seriously looking for them we didn't have any fossils of the transitional forms of fish going to land. Now we do! He went looking for rocks of the right age and of the right type (from shallow water river or coastal deposits) and lo and behold, there was Tiktaalik, a fish with legs just like all those Darwin fish you see on atheists' cars.
Going the other way hundreds of millions of years later, the evolution of whales from land animals is also quite well documented now from fossils found in the past twenty or thirty years of many transitional forms. And like I say, the genetic evidence is even stronger than the fossil record, and is totally consistent with what we find in the fossil record.
As for hominid evolution, you couldn't ask for a more perfect transitional form between man and ape than Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy" fossil and others of her kind). Even if she was not a direct ancestor of ours, there is no doubt we are related. She is at the very least our cousin. And again genetic evidence is even stronger. Check out human chromosome 2. It shows many clear signs of being two ape chromosomes fused together end-to-end. Again I say, IF evolution did not happen, that would make God a malicious prankster to plant so much evidence (basically every scientific observation ever made) that clearly indicates it does happen.
So again, YOU ARE WRONG, SIR!
_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008
Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 02 Nov 2012, 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
02 Nov 2012, 4:43 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Well name some specific examples from the bible, and we'll explore them.
Evolutionists, as I have described them in previous posts, think within the framework of naturalism, and nothing exists beyond it. Matter is all there is, and force, entropy, and waves of probability only exist descriptively to describe a specific mode that matter is in. As far as evolution is concerned, we came about naturally, and there was no divine hand involved. That is what I'm saying.
I'll deal with the second part of your post first, because it's the simpler of the two.
You're wrong. End of. Evolution has nothing to do with force, matter, or entropy. It has nothing to do with whether or not a divine hand created life. What you're talking about is entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Evolution deals only with what happens once life is already there. I have no idea why you're so hung up on that.
First part of your post:
This is a good place to start, dealing with slavery.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.
02 Nov 2012, 4:44 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The fossil record does not suggest that man and tortuose came from the same ancestor.
Yes it does. The wiki link I posted upthread explains about that ancestor.
Quote:
Where are the billions of mutation examples that link a fish to a flying bird? Forget millions and billions of real fossil examples, evolutionists cannot and will not put forth a number which it can then morph in computer models. The tree of life is not computable in our lifetime.
The fossil record contains many examples of now extinct animals between fish and flying bird. You could consider dinosaurs the halfway point between them. An exact number of mutations needed has not been put forth since we don't know how to figure out an algorithm for that. Perhaps future generations will figure that out.
Quote:
Showing the complex systems in the body that would form an outer shell, a pair of wings, webbed feat, breathing holes going from the front of an animal through its lungs and reappearing on top of its head, all of these would require endless mutations, most mutations killing the animals evolution into something totally different. To achieve this on a computer requires a total abandonment of the dogma evolutionists have bought into. You can make macro evolution work in computer simulations, but it would mean abandoning macro evolution as it was understood by Darwin, and the scientific community for the last century. You can use serious science to justify evolution, but Evolution itself is not serious science.
I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that but scientists are currentl;y working to reverse engineer a dinosaur (sort of) from a chicken.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/ff_chickensaurus/
Vestigial characteristics do show current (not fossil) evidence of ancient ancestors and the mutations needed to get from them to current organisms. Now and then children are born with a tail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
]
Quote:
Vestigial tail is when a child is born with a semi-functional tail, complete with muscles, nerves, skin, and blood vessels. It is believed to be caused by a mutation of the genes that exist in infants to cause the cellular death of body parts that are not needed.
(from a different article on birth defects which I didn't link because the pictures are very disturbing.)
02 Nov 2012, 5:21 pm
blackelk wrote:
Oh, you're so persecuted.
Thank you for the sympathy. I knew I could count on a real Christian to show how much he or she cares.
blackelk wrote:
This is nothing but a caricature...
No, this is what I've experienced, and what I believe to be true -- just like when you experience the "Holy Spirit" and believe that your experience is true. You can not discredit my experience and belief without discrediting your own, as well.
blackelk wrote:
... and ironically what atheists preach.
... because they are not so blinded by religious doctrine that they do not see how ridiculous most religious doctrine really is.
blackelk wrote:
Famous atheists like Dawkins and Harris do say science proves religion wrong and use it as a tool to attack their faith. The same way they do with reason, although poorly.
It's easy; all an Atheist needs to do is study the Bible. Fortunately for them, it seems that what most Christians believe about their Bible is only what they've been told to believe, because so few of them seem to read their Bibles at all.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
