Evolution problems

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution is demonstrated pretty clearly in the fossil record.

The problem is that creationists see the "gaps" and think that these gaps disprove evolution. If there is a demonstrated gap - creationists will demand that there be a fossil to fill the gap. When a fossil is found in that gap - they will demand that there be 2 more fossils to fill in the two new gaps created by the new fossil. It will go on and on like this until there is a 100% complete fossil record - and, when you account for how difficult it is for fossils to form and how difficult it is to discover the fossils a 100% fossil record ain't happening anytime soon.

I beg to differ. It is pretty obvious there are gaps. I remember getting into a discussion with Youngterrier on this exact same subject and eventually had him tell me that I was making it worse that it really was. I wasn't. I was using quotes from Paleontologists who admitted how bad the gaps were.

By the way, how do think they layed out the fossil record? On the assumption that evolution was true and less sophisticated animals had to come first. Now they find something and put it in where it should fit in the theory. Somewhat circular reasoning.

Here are just a couple:

This is actually what you are trying to invoke. Gould was no hack and Panda's thumb is very pro evolution.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. “The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” (Bergman, Jerry, “The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish,” CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. ) “Absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution…. This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere” (Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

I find it hard to believe that the majority who oppose me here believe that evolution is so ironclad, it cannot be improved, even when faced with challenges. Isn't that the point of the scientific theory? To keep challenging until it has beaten all attempts?

I simply have been pointing out the known shortcomings with evolution and am asking, "why do we keep barking up the same tree?" Why not look at it from a different angle?

That you for at least putting up your side of the story. Tons on scholars on here who give nothing but opinions without any research or forethought.

[Skjellyfetti]

Of course it can be improved. That's why there are still scientists studying it and improving it.

Why not look at it from a different angle?

And, what other scientific angle is that, SeattleGriz?

[SeattleGriz]

Of course it can be improved. That's why there are still scientists studying it and improving it.

Why not look at it from a different angle?

And, what other scientific angle is that, SeattleGriz?

Well, as long as we are talking about the fossil record, there was Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium to account for the sudden increase of complex forms during the Cambrian period. From what I have read, not many like his theory, because it cant be tested, but at least it was an attempt.

What would cause a sudden explosion in complexity? Bioinformatics is the field that is going to figure it out in my opinion. As with most sciences, they are making huge strides in this field, but ideologies still get in the way.

You familiar with the Encode project? A huge group of scientists looked at the function of DNA and said a large majority had function. Well of course some got mad because they didn't like the word function (Larry Moran for one) and what it meant to their ideology. So instead of working with the group, he threw a tantrum. This sort of crap is what is stifling innovation, and ultimately money for research.

Encode was not about information, but gave it as an example of how the field fights anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions.

[Chizzang]

Of course it can be improved. That's why there are still scientists studying it and improving it.

Why not look at it from a different angle?

And, what other scientific angle is that, SeattleGriz?

Jesus as a Scientist...

[travelinman67]

Great thread. SG showing how to have an informed debate.

[SeattleGriz]

Great thread. SG showing how to have an informed debate.

Thank you. What I have been proposing is not that difficult to grasp and something that 700+ scientists have gone on record as saying. "Evolution in its current form is not adequate enough to start with a single common ancestor and give us all the diversity we see with just mutation and natural selection."

The inability for some to realize that our academia will black ball you unless you think exactly like them is astounding. Shows they don't understand what fighting for grants will cause as a result.

[houndawg]

If evolutionary predictions are wrong so often you'd think that some up and coming young scientist would come with a different theory. One that is better than "it must be creationism if evolution is wrong".

How do you think that scientist would be received? Evolutionists who think the theory needs help get plenty of threats of losing their university positions if they don't tow the line.

That, and I have not saidf evolution is wrong, what I have said is that results are shoehorned into the theory when the predictions prove inaccurate.

Look up junk DNA if you want to see an inaccurate prediction that was carried on and on until genetics finally got sophisticated enough to prove them wrong.

Didn't scare Einstein.

[CID1990]

How do you think that scientist would be received? Evolutionists who think the theory needs help get plenty of threats of losing their university positions if they don't tow the line.

That, and I have not saidf evolution is wrong, what I have said is that results are shoehorned into the theory when the predictions prove inaccurate.

Look up junk DNA if you want to see an inaccurate prediction that was carried on and on until genetics finally got sophisticated enough to prove them wrong.

Didn't scare Einstein.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Maybe those poor beleaguered scientists who believe in the bearded dude in the sky pulling the puppet strings should have some courage like Galileo or Copernicus

Or offer some alternative theory OTHER than "there are gaps in the record and therefore evolution must be wrong and there is no other way to explain it without JEEZUS!"

[Chizzang]

Didn't scare Einstein.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Maybe those poor beleaguered scientists who believe in the bearded dude in the sky pulling the puppet strings should have some courage like Galileo or Copernicus

Or offer some alternative theory OTHER than "there are gaps in the record and therefore evolution must be wrong and there is no other way to explain it without JEEZUS!"

And still to this day nobody has ever seen an electron...
And yet it is NOT an issue - and as Nik Tesla pointed out there are gaps in electrical theory
But here's the catch

Because the Bible makes no mention of electricity
Nor does it proclaim the nature of electrons
And the universal relevance of the electron and electricity are excluded from Biblical notoriety

Today we can have leisurely relaxed conversations about Electricity
Without veiled Biblical references and suggestions of greater hidden powers and cosmic agendas

Were the animal kingdom excluded from Biblical fumbling and guess work we'd be having completely different conversations about Evolution

This is the undeniable ROOT of all evolution debate

and quite literally the root of all "lack" of debate elsewhere in science
because the Bible failed to make reference of such matters

[CID1990]

and quite literally the root of all "lack" of debate elsewhere in science
because the Bible failed to make reference of such matters

precisely - you would think that the genius intelligent designer would have included a fvcking periodic table or something.... right after the family tree page in your illuminated family bible

[Pwns]

Electrical phenomena can be demonstrated with experiments and repeated.

Has anyone ever set up an artificial biosphere and watched over it a few billion years to see if complex multicellular life forms arise from completely inorganic matter?

[Chizzang]

Electrical phenomena can be demonstrated with experiments and repeated.

Has anyone ever set up an artificial biosphere and watched over it a few billion years to see if complex multicellular life forms arise from completely inorganic matter?

The exact nature of electrons remains a mystery
And to date - the Electron remains unobserved - it is a theory

[andy7171]

yawn

this

[CID1990]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Maybe those poor beleaguered scientists who believe in the bearded dude in the sky pulling the puppet strings should have some courage like Galileo or Copernicus

Or offer some alternative theory OTHER than "there are gaps in the record and therefore evolution must be wrong and there is no other way to explain it without JEEZUS!"

And still to this day nobody has ever seen an electron...
And yet it is NOT an issue - and as Nik Tesla pointed out there are gaps in electrical theory
But here's the catch

Because the Bible makes no mention of electricity
Nor does it proclaim the nature of electrons
And the universal relevance of the electron and electricity are excluded from Biblical notoriety

Today we can have leisurely relaxed conversations about Electricity
Without veiled Biblical references and suggestions of greater hidden powers and cosmic agendas

Were the animal kingdom excluded from Biblical fumbling and guess work we'd be having completely different conversations about Evolution

This is the undeniable ROOT of all evolution debate

and quite literally the root of all "lack" of debate elsewhere in science
because the Bible failed to make reference of such matters

You know, that's a actually an interesting premise

I wonder if Genesis actually just started out with a matter of fact statement rather than the mythological explanation of the creation.... if it had simply started out.... "God created everything" and then seques into "sometime later, Adam tried to get into Eve's fig leaf by tempting her with an apple"

Instead, we have this stupid ass timeline of 7 days (COINCIDENTALLY BASED ON THE ZOROASTRIAN AND BABYLONIAN CALENDARS wow) wonder how the hell THAT happened? Real original there, Mr. Bible writer

we'd probably be arguing about whether or not it REALLY was an apple or whether it was just a metaphor for the rise of human intelligence.... wait.... nevermind

[SeattleGriz]

How do you think that scientist would be received? Evolutionists who think the theory needs help get plenty of threats of losing their university positions if they don't tow the line.

That, and I have not saidf evolution is wrong, what I have said is that results are shoehorned into the theory when the predictions prove inaccurate.

Look up junk DNA if you want to see an inaccurate prediction that was carried on and on until genetics finally got sophisticated enough to prove them wrong.

Didn't scare Einstein.

Predicting our DNA would be full of functionality instead of junk is exactly what ID predicted. Neo Darwinists have been using the phrase " junk DNA" up until recently when our science has gotten good enough to counter the statement. Why do you think the Neo Darwinists don't like the Encode project and claim it was crappy science? Because it goes against their narrative.

To add to this, Darwinism owns our academic institutions and rightly so, but to just expect ID to jump in and take over is pretty grand. Proving an intelligent agent is going to take time, with a whole lot less money.

Danm typing on a tablet is painful. I will post some links when I get a chance.

Posted this link earlier, but am quoting a different portion. See how Dr Moran only seems to care about what ID might be able to get from the results?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/wh ... 64101.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the sort of crap the ID field has to overcome.

"The creationists are going to love this. You blew it Ed Yong. ... 'Almost every nucleotide ...'? Gimme a break. Don't these guys read the scientific literature? This is going to make my life very complicated." (Larry Moran, "ENCODE Leader Says that 80% of Our Genome Is Functional")

"[ENCODE's previous] results were widely interpreted as proof that most of our genome has a function and the result featured prominently in the creationist literature. ... Responsible science journalist should have dug deeper to find out whether the new ENCODE data was any better than the earlier data and whether their interpretation of the results is being widely accepted in the scientific community. They don't have an excuse this time." (Larry Moran, "The ENCODE Data Dump and the Responsibility of Science Journalists")

"I'm not letting the science journalists off the hook but I reserve my harshest criticism for the scientists, especially Ewan Birney who is the lead analysis coordinator for the project and who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the consortium. Unless other members of the consortium speak out, I'll assume they agree with Ewan Birney. They bear the same responsibility for what has happened. ... The public now believes that the concept of junk DNA has been rejected by scientists and that our huge genome really is full of wonderful sophisticated control elements regulating the expression of every gene. It's going to take a lot of effort to undo the damage caused by scientists like E[w]an Birney." (Larry Moran, "The ENCODE Data Dump and the Responsibility of Scientists")

A little tibdit on Larry's tantrum:

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype."

[BlueHen86]

Oh great, another evolution thread. Apparently trolls don't evolve.

[andy7171]

Why is it so hard to think god gave Adam a soul after he evolved. To where he should be.

[DSUrocks07]

Why is it so hard to think god gave Adam a soul after he evolved. To where he should be.

Dont let any pro-lifers hear you say that...

[travelinman67]

... Apparently trolls don't evolve.

[SeattleGriz]

Electrical phenomena can be demonstrated with experiments and repeated.

Has anyone ever set up an artificial biosphere and watched over it a few billion years to see if complex multicellular life forms arise from completely inorganic matter?

The exact nature of electrons remains a mystery
And to date - the Electron remains unobserved - it is a theory

Good results come out of predictions and they are also reproducible in the laboratory. That helps immensely.

[Chizzang]

The exact nature of electrons remains a mystery
And to date - the Electron remains unobserved - it is a theory

Good results come out of predictions and they are also reproducible in the laboratory. That helps immensely.

No.. THEY are not reproducible in the lab
The means by which we measure their existence can be observed in the lab
Which is vastly different than seeing one or directly examining one

Electrons are a THEORY
And had the Bible proclaimed that Electricity was GOD's work
Then the unobserved Electron and electrical anomaly would be attributed to GOD and GOD alone
And we'd be debating the nature of the Electron in light of Gods work

But because God and the old testament made no such mention
We are saved from that tedious debate - even though electrical theory still has some holes

[SeattleGriz]

Good results come out of predictions and they are also reproducible in the laboratory. That helps immensely.

No.. THEY are not reproducible in the lab
The means by which we measure their existence can be observed in the lab
Which is vastly different than seeing one or directly examining one

Electrons are a THEORY
And had the Bible proclaimed that Electricity was GOD's work
Then the unobserved Electron and electrical anomaly would be attributed to GOD and GOD alone
And we'd be debating the nature of the Electron in light of Gods work

But because God and the old testament made no such mention
We are saved from that tedious debate - even though electrical theory still has some holes

Did I say we made electrons in the lab? Here is what I said:

Good results come out of predictions and they are also reproducible in the laboratory. That helps immensely.

Boy, what you said now looks exactly like what I said.

You are so hell bent on trying to turn this into a God debate, your Atheist bitterness is showing...like always. Sit back, relax and take a deep breath, actually do some research on the subject of evolution, and it will all be okay.

It is like Pwns said. If we could make a big beaker and reproduce new species, we would, but we don't have that luxury. Hell, you didn't even bother to read my post that Chitdog didn't bother to read either.

60599 generations in the lab and still E Coli. Only able to use citrate. See the difference

At least when I don't make sense it is from drinking. What is your excuse?

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

One thing about it is that there's the assumption that an unvalidated methodology was used to reach the finding. I'm talking about the use of molecular biology. It's one of those things where a field makes statements all the time about things that happened thousands, tens of thousands, and millions of years ago based on what are essentially mathematical models and there is no way to actually validate the idea that the models reliably establish what they're believed to establish. No way to jump into a time machine and actually confirm, for instance, that what the molecular biologists say happened during the evolutionary history of the spiders actually happened.

To me there's a lot of stuff like that in science. Scientists will make very confident sounding statements about what happened a million years ago or what's going on with some star they believe to be a million light years away based on information that's not really direct observation. It's based on them assuming they know how things work over such time intervals and distances. But there's no way they or any of us will ever really know that their assumptions are correct. I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry I glossed over it. Some common sense coming from a guy who actually performs real experiments.

[BlueHen86]

Great thread. SG showing how to have an informed debate.

Be sure to take notes.

[Chizzang]

No.. THEY are not reproducible in the lab
The means by which we measure their existence can be observed in the lab
Which is vastly different than seeing one or directly examining one

Electrons are a THEORY
And had the Bible proclaimed that Electricity was GOD's work
Then the unobserved Electron and electrical anomaly would be attributed to GOD and GOD alone
And we'd be debating the nature of the Electron in light of Gods work

But because God and the old testament made no such mention
We are saved from that tedious debate - even though electrical theory still has some holes

Did I say we made electrons in the lab? Here is what I said:

Good results come out of predictions and they are also reproducible in the laboratory. That helps immensely.

Boy, what you said now looks exactly like what I said.

You are so hell bent on trying to turn this into a God debate, your Atheist bitterness is showing...like always. Sit back, relax and take a deep breath, actually do some research on the subject of evolution, and it will all be okay.

It is like Pwns said. If we could make a big beaker and reproduce new species, we would, but we don't have that luxury. Hell, you didn't even bother to read my post that Chitdog didn't bother to read either.

60599 generations in the lab and still E Coli. Only able to use citrate. See the difference

At least when I don't make sense it is from drinking. What is your excuse?

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?