Evolution and science...

Great Debates
1

[ Continued from http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298171 – CKDH ]

Have you ever seen the Grand Canyon? So all those layers of sediment were laid down how?

Right near where I live, in the middle of the USA, there is a big plaque that states that the geologists say that at one time this whole area was under 100’ of water.
The same exact layers of sediment run from Western Europe to the east through Russia and china. There are fossils in the mountains. NOT ONCE EVER has there been a fossil found that was a TRANSITIONAL life form. Even Darwin knew that if his THEORY, conjecture, hypothesis was true that we would find millions of them but yet not one! Just the fact that there are fossils and were we find them like in Montana all of the different ones all together just like they all drowned. For the conditions to be right for a fossil to form, it takes the dead animal to be covered with soil and kept from 02 so that the body doesn’t decay. Sounds like a flood to me…

Open your eyes you have been duped…

You believe in these millions and millions of years why? You date the fossils by the layer of sediment that they are found in along with other fossils that are found around them, index fossils. You date the sediment layers based on the PRESUMMED evolutionary time scale and the fossils that you find the sediment. The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, the wheels of evolutionary thinking go round and round, round and round. :smack:

They just found a dinosaur in the belly of a MAMMAL. It was funny to listen to them try to justify how that could have happened. :smiley: Since they were not suppose to be contemporaries…LOL
Life is irreducibly complex Darwin thought cells were these simple things…

Evolution as it is commonly defined: the gradual change of organisms from simple to complex via mutation where by the beneficial mutations are then spread through the gene pool because the positive mutation gives the organism an advantage over the others.

That is a pretty common definition for evolution as it is known. At lest with those I have talked to and debated were able to agree on what evolution was suppose to be before we could debate if it happened or didn’t. If you don’t do that with Evolutionist they go all over the place…

There is a **scientific ** problem with the theory that those who believe it are taking on faith, not science. There has never been a documented case of mutation ever adding information to the genes of an organism. The genes can be recombined in different ways which is why we have so many different breeds of dogs. But a mutation has never to my knowledge been show to add information or be good for the organism. A fish has less genetic information than a reptile or a human so where did this increase of information come from…

It is by faith that you believe in evolution not science or reason…

2

You know, this is the sort of thing that causes scientists and those who support scientific education to simply roll their eyes at the people who attempt to “debunk” evolutionary theory. Mammals arose prior to the rise of dinosaurs. As long as the dinosaur and mammal were of appropriate size and age, there is no reason to find evidence that one had eaten the other in any way surprising. (You would not happen to have a reference that discusses this purported discovery, would you?)

As to the rest of your witnessing, your erroneous generalities are too vague to spend a lot of time addressing, so if you have an actual issue to discuss, please present it in a coherent fashion.

3

While I suspect that the OP will not actually choose to read the discussion regarding Information Theory that a few Creationists have begun to profer, (if he actually understands it), those viewing at home may wish to consider the topic as addressed on Talk Origins: The Evolution of Improved Fitness which addresses the errors among the “Information Theory” advocates.

4

Why do’t you respond to the thread Zev started, first of all. Or are you write only? We’ll see if you are too cowardly to respond to this thread.

Answer 1: Read any geology book. Over millions of years the river cut out the canyon, and deposited sediment. Do you have the evidence that any flood in history (a one time flood) deposited different layers of sediment?

Here’s a riddle: Where was Hawaii a few million years ago? You do know that we can measure Mt. Everest growing, right?

Define what a traditional fossil would look like. In fact, we have found millions - just about every fossil except ones just before extinction are transitional. In fact there are transitional animals alive today. (Well, all are, actually, but some are more obvious than others.) Consider the elephant seal. It can only breed on land, but only eats in the water. What stupid creator made that? It is obviously on the way into the sea - once it evolves the technique of mating in water, it will soon lose its flippers and never go on land again (well, probably - evolution is not directed, so we don’t know for sure. It might never figure this out and go extinct.)

You own me a new irony meter, dupe.

So, tell me why the same fossils are always in the same sediment. Odd if they got laid down in the flood, right? I’ll leave it for posters who are more technically up on radioactive dating to respond the the lies from your church bulletin on that subject, which will surely be up next. If you are brave enough to respond, of course.

Your church is lying to you again. Of course they were contemporaries - if not, how did the mammals take over after the dinosaurs went extinct? Perhaps you think all dinosaurs are the size of T Rex? I fail to see why this cool discovery is in any way damaging to evolution. Everyone always assumed mammals ate dinosaur eggs, why not little dinosaurs?

In my experience creationists are either ignorant, stupid, or liars. Awaiting your response to see which category you fit in to.

Life is irreducibly complex Darwin thought cells were these simple things…

Evolution as it is commonly defined: the gradual change of organisms from simple to complex via mutation where by the beneficial mutations are then spread through the gene pool because the positive mutation gives the organism an advantage over the others.

That is a pretty common definition for evolution as it is known. At lest with those I have talked to and debated were able to agree on what evolution was suppose to be before we could debate if it happened or didn’t. If you don’t do that with Evolutionist they go all over the place…

There is a **scientific ** problem with the theory that those who believe it are taking on faith, not science. There has never been a documented case of mutation ever adding information to the genes of an organism. The genes can be recombined in different ways which is why we have so many different breeds of dogs. But a mutation has never to my knowledge been show to add information or be good for the organism. A fish has less genetic information than a reptile or a human so where did this increase of information come from…

It is by faith that you believe in evolution not science or reason…
[/QUOTE]

5

I believe the OP is referring to this discovery: Dinosaur Found in Mammal’s Belly.

6

Not in this Forum! (I find your “cowardly” crack to teeter toward the unacceptable in this Forum, as well.)

Refute the silliness, but do not post direct personal insults.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

7

Nope. By evidence. Read the talkorigins site tomndebb referenced, and get back to us. It is the most convenient source of references and refutations of your lies.

8

Northern Piper, thanks for the link.

9

ehhh, not so much… evolution is simply change over time due to mutations, not just beneficial ones. it doesn’t necessarily mean simple → complex, either; just different. for example, a population that evolves sufficiently different receptors on its females’ eggs to prevent interbreeding with its parent population isn’t more complex; it’s simply not the same… and changes do not have to be beneficial, so long as they are not detrimental. a mutation will spread through the population as long as it does not significantly decrease chances of the organism’s survival to reproductive age.

“good” can of course only be defined with respect to an organism’s surroundings-- if a mutation increases the organism’s chance of survival in its particular environment, that mutation can be said to be beneficial, or “good” for that organism. are you seriously contesting that there is no record of a mutation resulting in an organism’s being better adapted to its environment? if so, the peppered moth is one of many examples. this is not an example of evolution, as both variants of moths were still able to interbreed, but it does prove the statement above quoted to be false.

take the advice of these nice folks and read up.

also, your statement that we “believe” in science by faith is ridiculous. it is the application of the principles of science that creates your clothes, your car, your medicine. science is simply the pursuit of understanding the world/universe in which we live so that we may exploit that knowledge to make our lives longer and more comfortable, and unlike other sources of information, there is no incentive to push minds in a direction other than that which is most supported by real data.

10

ack, the second quote above actually includes part of my reply. the only thing in the original quote was the first sentence. >_<

11

:rolleyes:

Pot, kettle…ah, never mind.

Huh? (Small) mammals were definitely contemporaries, and likely even predessors to dinosaurs proper. I thought that was well established.

What Darwin may or may not have believed about cells is irrelevent, particularly in light of the fact that he wasn’t aware of the actual method of inheritance. It is surprising (and reassuring) that his speculations were reinforced by Mendel’s experiements and the much later exposure of DNA as the method for inheritance.

Um…lessee, quick example: red hair in homo sapiens.

Mutations in genetic code are regularly observed in viruses and bacteria that propagate in response to new antibiotics and vaccinations. This isn’t even in question.

As for transitional forms, it bears repeating (again and again and again) that all forms are transitional forms. There is no end result, no goal, to natural selection. Evolution is a continuing, ongoing process in which all lineages are constantly undergoing evolution. That we break things into taxinomic or cladestic groupings is for our own convenience, but every creature is unique and every offspring is another step in the process of selection. That we group some classes of life into phylum, family, species, et cetera is mostly arbitrary. The truth, if you could look at all creatures past and present as a gestalt, is that there is a continuum from one lineage to another.

Stranger

12

Nolies:

“NOT ONCE EVER has there been a fossil found that was a TRANSITIONAL life form”

Actually, as it turns out, the fossils that are missing are the one’s that AREN’T transitional.

All we ever find are those dang transitional fossils!

13

Why is it that so many people just know that they know more about science than the scientists do? I’m a scientist, I work on molecular genetics and evolution, and there are all of these non-scientists assuring me that everything I work on must be wrong. It’s like going up to a car mechanic and trying to convince him that there is no physical way a car engine can work, even if there is one running right next to both of you. Evolution is a fact. Things change; things have changed; things will change.

I’m getting sick of this idea that the only thing you need to be an expert or a pundit is an opinion.

14

How exactly did we jump in a flash from layers of sediment in the Grand Canyon to evolution? What is Nolies suggesting, that all the layers of sediment there were layed down at once? Why would there be layers if it happened that way?

15

hear
mother
fucking
HEAR

(is currently working on a microbiology degree, and sick to death of getting ‘the smirk’ from opinionated Christian family members)

16

That’s fascinating, and I thank the OP for giving me the opportunity to improve my understanding of evolution.

This paragraph from the link, though:

For some reason gives me an image of mammals bullseye-ing the dinos in their T-16s.

17

Nolies, please consider the notion that the more one learns about how beautiful, intricate and complex this world is, the more ones awe and wonder at and love of God can increase, rather than decrease. As a Christian, I am commanded to love God with all my mind. To reject the evidence He has set before me which supports evolution and say “No. My pastor said evolution is a lie” is to reject God in a way, at least to me. Christ didn’t encourage blind faith; instead, He preached in a way which forced people to think and come to their own conclusions.

We must have discussed this topic a hundred times here in GD. Each time, the side arguing against evolution and Young Earth Creationism has been defeated. We know the arguments and how weak they are. Please, consider the notion that God is just as capable of setting in motion the events that led to cells evolving into human beings as he is simply waving the equivalent of a divine magic wand. Also, please don’t talk to me about the perfection of the human body – I’ve got to go and take 600 mg of ibuprofen for a bad back! :frowning:

CJ

18

Species die out and other species which weren’t there before take their place, over millions of years.

Agree, Nolies? If so, congratulations. You accept the fact of evolution.

19

Two questions:

  1. Before we begin, can you confirm that you will be returning to this post? I would be a shame to start this in depth discussion if you aren’t going to read it.

  2. Because you raised so many different topics, can we start with just one? Your choice. Pick one.

20

He’s slowly but surely emerging from the Staff Reports thread as a Creationist who believes in a single, Noahic, global flood, and thus the layers would have come from receding flood waters.

He also believes, BTW, that there was no such thing as fermentation before the Flood, since Genesis 9 is the first time that “drunkenness” was mentioned in the Bible, and if the Bible doesn’t mention it before the Flood, then it must not have existed.

He maintains that oxygen levels were much higher before the Flood (thus leading to the rise of giant dragonflies and “flying dinosaurs”), and that the higher oxygen levels (which must have lasted through the entire Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods, apparently, since he believes that “flying dinosaurs” needed higher atmospheric pressure in order to fly [and yes, I explained about pterosaurs]) would have suppressed any naturally occurring fermentation, since (he believes) fermentation is anaerobic, and oxygen will prevent fermentation (and yes, I explained about fermentation and oxygen).

He has not yet responded to my questions about the apparent great age of homo sapiens, if indeed the Flood was what caused oxygen levels during the Permian and Triassic extinction events 200 million years ago to drop.

And yes, I’ve explained it all to him, with links and everything.

But.

He knows what he knows, is what he knows.

He didn’t post this as an invitation to “debate” evolution–he’s just witnessing, basically, because Dex told him twice to quit bringing up Jesus, in the other thread.