Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Quite true. Because we lack sufficient fossils to show smooth transitions from one stage of an organism to the next we make inferences to bridge them. And because each stage can be shown to belong, sequentially, to a different era, that they evolved is far more reasonable than the creationist contention that in each era god made sure only one stage would make itself available in fossil form.

View attachment 34150
​

Of course not, because archeology doesn't lend itself to many repeatable experiments. To expect as much is like expecting history to be as exact as mathematics.,


And just to point out: Ever notice that creationists almost never argue for creation, but rather against evolution?

.

i would not exactly say that one cannot do experiments with fossils. One only has to consider what each model predicts and test for that. Take the horse fossils for example. For an evolving species one would expect to see specific fossils in specific layers. We would not expect to see a Miocene horse in the Pliocene and vice versa. Every new fossil find is a test of the theory. With millions upon millions of fossils we never find one seriously out of sequence. The classic example is the Precambrian Bunny Rabbit. There are no creation models that I know of, probably because creationists got gun shy, having had their false beliefs refuted so often. But with a creation model there is no need to preserve life in any special way, yet that is all we can see.

 

[Skwim]

i would not exactly say that one cannot do experiments with fossils.

Neither would I, which is why I said, "archeology doesn't lend itself to many repeatable experiments."

Take the horse fossils for example. For an evolving species one would expect to see specific fossils in specific layers. We would not expect to see a Miocene horse in the Pliocene and vice versa. Every new fossil find is a test of the theory. With millions upon millions of fossils we never find one seriously out of sequence. The classic example is the Precambrian Bunny Rabbit. There are no creation models that I know of, probably because creationists got gun shy, having had their false beliefs refuted so often. But with a creation model there is no need to preserve life in any special way, yet that is all we can see.

Speaking of bunny rabbits.

"The status of Lagomorpha [rabbits, hares etc], however, has not been without controversy. Some scientists suggest that it and Rodentia [rodents, squirrels, etc.] be combined under the cohort rank of Glires. Others dismiss this notion of close relationship and, in fact, see a similarity between the lagomorphs and members of Artiodactyla: the pigs, camels, and deer."
Source: Mortenson, Philip B.. This is not a Weasel: a Close Look at Natures Most Confusing Terms. New York ; John Wiley &Sons,. Inc. 185

.​

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an interesting new discovery, but it is not relevant to the origin of life.

Now that you mention it, humans thinking they evolved from a being of the great ape line, no one but God knows exactly how life originated. Not Darwin, not molecular scientists, not Michael Behe -- no one knows but God. And so now that I've learned as much as I can from pro-evolutionists, I am thinking to learn more about radiometric dating as soon as time permits. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

How did you screw up your links? The quote that you posted was from Recapitulation theory, which I already told you multiple times was shown to be incorrect. But recapitulation theory was only one attempt to explain evolution. Ironically the article that is linked by you had this to say about Haekel:

" Two of Haeckel's other ideas about the evolution of development have fared better than recapitulation: he argued in the 1870s that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and changes in the positioning within the body (heterotopy) of aspects of embryonic development would drive evolution by changing the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's. It took a century before these ideas were shown to be correct."

This is the article that you linked, by mistake:

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia

No one has been arguing that Recapitulation theory is accurate. You are trying to build a strawman. But you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot by trying to make your strawman. Your accidental link showed how Haekel was not entirely wrong, and that is what I have stated all along.

So again -- are you saying that every step of the evolutionary process is what the last and latest form goes through in the human womb?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again -- are you saying that every step of the evolutionary process is what the last and latest form goes through in the human womb?

No, that is recapitulation. Why do you think embryology is recapitulation? You are doing the same as someone that does not understand Christianity demanding that you believe Jesus was nailed to a tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that you mention it, humans thinking they evolved from a being of the great ape line, no one but God knows exactly how life originated. Not Darwin, not molecular scientists, not Michael Behe -- no one knows but God. And so now that I've learned as much as I can from pro-evolutionists, I am thinking to learn more about radiometric dating as soon as time permits. Thank you for the discussion.

You do realize that we knew the Earth was millions of years old before scientists developed radiometric dating, don't you?

 

[JasAnMa]

The "seven days" part can be assumed symbolic by context. The contradiction lies more in the implied sequence of events

I don't see how evening, morning, and day 1 can be assumed symbolic. The whole book of Genesis is recorded history... Why would chapter 1 be different. Hebrew symbols and poetry can be found in Psalms and none of the chapters resemble Genesis in the least... Grammatically speaking.

 

[JasAnMa]

You do realize that we knew the Earth was millions of years old before scientists developed radiometric dating, don't you?

That's quite remarkable. How could we "know" how old anything was before carbon dating. It's quite fishy that millions of years were asserted before before we had any way of knowing... Let alone proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how evening, morning, and day 1 can be assumed symbolic. The whole book of Genesis is recorded history... Why would chapter 1 be different. Hebrew symbols and poetry can be found in Psalms and none of the chapters resemble Genesis in the least... Grammatically speaking.

If you believe that then you also have to believe that God lies. I think that is a bigger contradiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is recapitulation. Why do you think embryology is recapitulation? You are doing the same as someone that does not understand Christianity demanding that you believe Jesus was nailed to a tree.

First, I don't think embryology is recapitulation. But isn't it possible that some people do think that? I mean, in the human womb, what stages of evolution do you think an embryo goes through?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's quite remarkable. How could we "know" how old anything was before carbon dating. It's quite fishy that millions of years were asserted before before we had any way of knowing... Let alone proven.

Radiometric dating (not "carbon dating" that is a very limited tool that only goes back 50,000 years at the most.) gives us a defininte age. Many layers of rocks have annual layers. Lake varves for example vary in coarseness from each year so that we can count annual layers. The Green River Formation alone has roughly 5 million annual layer. And that is not the only example:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

The icecaps at Antartica and Greenland have hundreds of thousands of layers, and please do not refer to the poor understanding of creationists that rely on ice at the margins. Ice on the western side of Greenland is rapidly deposited due to rising elevation causing more precipitation. Ice cores are taken from the interior where it is close to desert conditions. Almost all sedimentary rocks could not have been deposited rapidly. This was all discovered long before radiometric dating and even before Darwin.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that we knew the Earth was millions of years old before scientists developed radiometric dating, don't you?

I can't say we knew the earth was millions of years old. Which leads me to ask, when did we know that the earth was millions of years old? (Not saying it isn't...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, I don't think embryology is recapitulation. But isn't it possible that some people do think that? I mean, in the human womb, what stages of evolution do you think an embryo goes through?

Then why the confusion? Recapitulation has not been taught ever in schools and was refuted in the 1920's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't say we knew the earth was millions of years old. Which leads me to ask, when did we know that the earth was millions of years old? (Not saying it isn't...)

I know that you do not know. In the early 1800's the great age of the Earth was first being appreciated. Many of the early geologists were looking for evidence to support the flood of Noah, instead they refuted it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Radiometirc dating (not "carbon dating" that is a very limited tool that only goes back 50,000 years at the most.) gives us a defininte age. Many layers of rocks have annual layers. Lake varves for example vary in coarseness from each year so that we can count annual layers. The Green River Formation alone has roughly 5 million annual layer. And that is not the only example:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

The icecaps at Antartica and Greenland have hundreds of thousands of layers, and please do not refer to the poor understanding of creationists that rely on ice at the margins. Ice on the western side of Greenland is rapidly deposited due to rising elevation causing more precipitation. Ice cores are taken from the interior where it is close to desert conditions. Almost all sedimentary rocks could not have been deposited rapidly. This was all discovered long before radiometric dating and even before Darwin.

Well, I'm beginning to read about radiometric dating. Takes me back to my college days and I was an arts major -- not a science major -- glad all I had to do in high school chemistry was memorize formulas and what the textbook said. (Didn't have to understand it...) Einstein, on the other hand, kept thinking about how? how? how??? And, of course, we know he didn't want scientific medical measures to keep him alive. But that's neither here nor there. Meantime, I'm thinking about astronomers. Biologists obviously can do some good. But what difference to the human condition does exploring outer space make? I'm beginning to think lots of time wasted (except of course, when these brilliant people go to war and kill others). At least Einstein had the right view about political viewpoints not leading to peace. Good for him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then why the confusion? Recapitulation has not been taught ever in schools and was refuted in the 1920's.

So sorry, it was taught in school. Depends, I guess, on the school system. Oh, yes, and let me not forget that famous "March of Progress" that millions of people take for granted as true.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that you do not know. In the early 1800's the great age of the Earth was first being appreciated. Many of the early geologists were looking for evidence to support the flood of Noah, instead they refuted it.

OK, so it wasn't until the early 1800's you say that the great age of the earth was first being appreciated. OK. But then I wonder if many people believed at that time the earth (and the heavens) might have first been created/made/came into existence 6,000 years ago? Oh, well, that is perhaps for another time.

 

[JasAnMa]

How is that a rational response to the point I made?
Why would I have to make hydrogen atoms?

The word make was the point. If something is made, it must be compelled to do so since making or bringing something to a different form are both actions. Now this action has to come from either in the thing made, or outside of the thing made. Being made from the inside is impossible since a thing can't compel itself to do something, this it must be an external forced. Randomness breeds chaos so for something ordered to exist, the made thing must be forced to be made ordered. Since nature is an unintelligent, undirected force... It's hard to maintain that it could order anything.

 

[JasAnMa]

Radiometric dating (not "carbon dating" that is a very limited tool that only goes back 50,000 years at the most.) gives us a defininte age. Many layers of rocks have annual layers. Lake varves for example vary in coarseness from each year so that we can count annual layers. The Green River Formation alone has roughly 5 million annual layer. And that is not the only example:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

The icecaps at Antartica and Greenland have hundreds of thousands of layers, and please do not refer to the poor understanding of creationists that rely on ice at the margins. Ice on the western side of Greenland is rapidly deposited due to rising elevation causing more precipitation. Ice cores are taken from the interior where it is close to desert conditions. Almost all sedimentary rocks could not have been deposited rapidly. This was all discovered long before radiometric dating and even before Darwin.

According to mt saint Helen's, sedimentary layers are very easily formed rapidly. The hidden assumtion that annual layers have been laid down at exactly the same rate for billions of years is quite a rocky footing ya stands on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So sorry, it was taught in school. Depends, I guess, on the school system. Oh, yes, and let me not forget that famous "March of Progress" that millions of people take for granted as true.

Please support this claim. Using his images is not teaching recaptitulation. This is a claim that creationists often make but I have yet to see them support it.