|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Exhibit A: Most (if not all) of the novel organisms that appear during the Cambrian explosion have no fossil ancestors. Sorry to deliver the depressing news. What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable? So, you've got nothing, that's what I figured. You are stuck in 1859. Most fossils have been discovered since then. Fiction never depresses me. I note you didn't answer any of my questions from Message 510.
Dredge writes: RAZD writes:
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence. Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?" Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along? Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent? How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science?
Dredge writes: This prediction is confirmed by the evidence. What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable? Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
As an atheist you must delude yourself that there is a scientific explanation for "problematic" evidence - the Cambrian explosion, for example. Well, almost correct. Unencumbered by the shackles of religious stupidity science can even explain all those things you consider "problematic". Of course none of it is problematic to science, only to the twisted uneducated religious minds that so fear the facts of reality. Science has no problem explaining the 30-50 million year run of the cambrian radiation from its pre-cambrian beginnings. Yes, there are pre-cambrian fossils. Look 'em up. Here, I'll help get you started. The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. The kid is counting begats? Really? And note that a lot of these begatters were 700, 800, 900 years old. And note that in all this begatting there were no women around. No wonder you see your god as so pissed at the humans. According to you the whole population was begat into existence by a bunch of really way-old faggots. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5
|
Dredge writes: Tangle writes:
Too easy! The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. Well now we have it. H. sapiens did not evolve, he was placed here whole by a (Christian) God. Great, now show your workings. So, Santa Claus fiction is your evidence. Your credibility just keeps dropping.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. You need to learn something about the Bible, not simply accept the tall tales that your religious leaders tell you. The books of the Old Testament were written down in the Persian Period starting in 538 BCE. Before then, it was primarily oral tradition, stories passed down from generation to generation. Furthermore, that oral tradition had just gone through half a century of the Babylonian Exile where it had been exposed to and influenced by foreign traditions (eg, the assimilation of elements of the Gilgamesh Epic into the Noachian Flood story). Note also the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE) which pre-dates Mosaic Law by a few centuries (estimates of when Moses was supposed to have been date to the 1500's BCE), yet Mosaic Law very strongly parallels Hammurabic Code (though Hammurabi was more lenient on some questions, such as the status of children of slaves and freemen). Please also note how much oral tradition can change in even a couple decades. One example is the old parlor game of "Telegraph" (AKA "Telephone") in which you line everybody up, give a message to the first person, have each person whisper the message to the next person, then compare the final version with the original -- they're usually wildly different. Another example is the fundamental conceit of Romanticism, which was that folk stories extended back many centuries into the past, whereas few were more than two or three generations old. Oral tradition is interesting, but its validity cannot be trusted, especially to the degree that you are assuming. Working through the chronology presented in the Old Testament yields a purported date for Creation of about 4185 BCE (see my page, ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?, which is a reposting of a YEC article). That date is 3647 years before the Old Testament started being written. We've seen how much that oral tradition changed in just half a century, but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to 3647 years of change -- assuming that the oral tradition had even been around that long and not simply 500 to 1000 years. Plus there's the trivial point that the word for such a period dominated by oral tradition is "prehistory." There can be no such thing as a prehistorical historical document. Now, if you want to see a historical genealogy, look to the complete genealogy of the Japanese Emperor which traces his ancestry directly all the way back to Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess. Every single ancestor in that line, generation after generation, is written down. Therefore, by your own logic, Shinto is the One True Faith, you barbarian heathen.
Tangle writes: Dredge writes:
And while you're at it, explain why H. Sapiens have been dated at c200,000 yo. Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago Homo sapiens have been dated as 200, 000 years old? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Deary me ... the delusions and nonsense you evolutionists are forced to come up with! So show us why that would be. Support your nonsense. Since you have now revealed that you are a YEC, I assume that you would use the human population growth claim, so just present it. Edited by dwise1, : Hammurabi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Oh, so you think I should place my trust in evolutionary scientists? That's HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA so funny!
Too bloody right we appeal to authority ! It’s a whole crap load better than an appeal to ignorance or delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The Cambrian explosion exists and is there for all to see - you have no excuse.
And you can't show us any of these miracles nor the imagined god that does them either. It's almost like they don't exist isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I realize that - like I said, a species from one genus evolved into a species of another genus.
Such classifications are basically arbitrary names used to identify the evidence. What is clearly documented is that the nomenclature was changed because the species was seen as sufficiently different from the original Pelycodus ralstoni species to warrant a new genus name There is nothing supernatural about human made name tags. Other examples of such naming changes are common in virtually all branches of the tree of life. For example walking stick insects in this pdf (download):Nature - Not Found .... Many different genera and species related by evolution from a common ancestor. That's just a small branch on the tree of life.
Hey, that's a very impressive graphic - but you forgot to mention that it's all based on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry - all those branches are inferred from a BELIEF, not fact. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
The OP asks for practical uses for the theory of common descent, not for ToE.
And the theory of evolution has myriad applications in science. (Sigh...) Once again, the YEC community has to be schooled on the difference between evidence and proof.
Thank you, but I'm aware that a scientific theory is not proven.
No on is trying to 'prove' that something happened. In this case, we simply know that it happened. The theory of evolution explains that transition.
1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case. 2. You cannot demonstrate (prove) that the inner-ear of a mammal is even capable of evolving from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. (This is like saying, "I know the Pope is controlled by aliens", but you can't so much as prove that aliens exist.) It seems to me that your claim to scientific knowledge consists of taking a gigantic gap in the fossil record and filling it in with your blind faith in evolution. 3. The fact of the matter is, you don't "KNOW" it happened - you merely BELIEVE it happened. 4. The only reason you claim to "KNOW" it happened is that you believe there is no other possible explanation - thus your claim to Knowledge is actually nothing more than an example of a Fallacy of the False Alternative. 5. What selection pressures could have possilbly caused the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a reptile and how did each evolutionary step (mutation) confer a survival advantage? Evolutionists can't even begin to answer such questions, of course; they simply do what they've always done ... pull out their "evolution done it (somehow)" card and bluff their way through. Is it any wonder increasing numbers of evolutionary theorists (such as Gerd Muller) are calling out current evolutionary theory for its lack of explanatory power viz-a-viz macroevolution? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Since there are different definitions of ToE, I hesitate to say that the Cambrian explosion contradicts it. Rather, I would say the Cambrian explosion contradicts the theory of common descent, which is included in some defintions of ToE. How does the Cambrian explosion contradict the theory of evolution? "... there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors. Even though conditions for the preservation of ancestral forms, whether soft-bodied or microscopic, are ideal (even sponge embryos are found in similar strata), the precursors are nowhere to be found. Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said in the film Icons of Evolution, “Darwinism is maybe only telling part of the story for evolution. Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way.” His colleague Zhou Qui Gin, a senior research fellow at the site, says (translated), “I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up. I think the animals suddenly appeared. Among the Chengyiang animals we have found 136 different kinds of animals. And they represent diversity in the level of phyla and classes. So their sudden appearance makes them very special.”Chinese Fossil Bed Astounds Paleontologists, freerepublic.com, 02/21/2003 Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists "On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Gnter Bechly, paleoentomologist and former curator for amber and fossil insects for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about evidence for macroevolution among insects. The fossil record is “saturated,” Bechly says. By that he doesn’t mean there aren’t new fossil forms to discover. Bechly himself has discovered several. He means we have an extensive enough sampling to confidently discern the major patterns of change and stasis in the history of life. And it shows no sign of insect evolution. It shows no transition from marine arthropods to terrestrial insects, none from wingless insects to winged insects, and no gradual evolution to insects (such as beetles and butterflies) that go through a metamorphosis that includes a pupal stage. And evidence for common ancestry is either contradictory or missing. In short, Bechly argues, the insect fossil record is much better explained by intelligent design than blind evolution."Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution, March 11, 2019 , discovery.org. Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution | ID the Future "The 1909 discovery of the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies provided the best fossil record of the Cambrian explosion until the 1984 discovery of the slightly older Maotianshan Shales in Chengjiang, China. Because of their excellent preservation, the Chengjiang fauna (many of which were soft-bodied) document the Cambrian explosion in exquisite detail, and J.-Y. Chen was the world expert.In his February (1999) lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla), whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution required by Darwin’s theory. Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution. When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.” ""In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude" "In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude | Evolution News Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I don't discuss YEC beliefs because I'm not a YEC.
you support YEC beliefs, yet you refuse to discuss them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes: Before you think of suggesting a logical fallacy, you should understand the fallacy. I suggest this site as a good primer.Fallacies - Nizkor This is the explanation there of appeal to authority ... Thank you for that explanation. This means that when an evolutionary scientist claims the theory of common descent is a fact, he has committed the fallacy of an appeal to authority, since an evolutionary scientist is not an authority on reality, but only an authority on evolutionary science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
No manipulation of words required ... and you're a bit late - I've already won the debate.
Again you think you can win the debate by manipulating words
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's interesting that even the many highly qualified scientists who doubt the claims of evolutionary science make the same complaint about evo' scientists - ie, ad hominem attacks.
I AM mightily impressed with how the brilliant scientists here so often prefer to give an empty ad hominem instead of a substantive answer to a substantive argument, which mine was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
I said, "all life shares a common ancestor"... which you've somehow twisted into "life comes from a common ancestor". Let me get this straight. You're saying you "don't have to accept that life comes from a common ancestor" by breeding a sheep dog from a wolf - proving that the sheep dog has a wolf as a common ancestor? I will reiterate: To say, "all life is connected", is to say that all life shares a common ancestor - a belief that has no practical use in applied science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
DWise1 writes: you support YEC beliefs, yet you refuse to discuss them. I don't discuss YEC beliefs because I'm not a YEC. Bullshit! You presented a YEC claim, so you are responsible for that claim.
Dredge writes: 1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event. That is a false YEC claim. I specifically called upon you to explain why you make such a false claim:
DWise1 writes: Please explain to us why you would think that that is what we should expect from evolution. Please explain to us what your special misunderstanding of evolution is. We really want to know how you misunderstand evolution so that we can understand how you could arrive at such a stupidly false conclusion. . . . So, what is your misunderstanding of evolution that led you to make the quoted statement? Instead, you went out of your way to avoid answering the question. Like a typical YEC. If you do not want to be seen as a YEC, then stop behaving like one. So answer the question!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024