Scientists find evolution of life

EurekAlert ^ | 10/30/03

[CobaltBlue]

I thought the scientist was just trying to demonstrate to God what the scientist thought God did when He created the evolving universe, and evolving life on earth. No?

We all know that science will never compare to God - but trying to understand God is a way of praising God. Sort of like your kids wanting to be like Daddy when they grow up.

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[gore3000]

There could have been no marine life - as we know there was (and as evolutionists themselves claim there was) if the oceans were covered with ice.-me-

Yes, we all know that when a lake freezes over in the winter, all life in the lake dies. (sheesh!)

Lakes do not freeze over for millions of years.

[Semper]

Can you answer my questions with your own words?

[balrog666]

There are over 40 phyla that arose during the Cambrian - none, zero, nada after it.

And you "know" this how?

For the record, we "know" of several surviving phyla that appear to have arsien long after the Cambrian. Also, we simply do not know how many "phyla" arose pre-Cambrian as we know only the survivors and those few that left unambiguous fossil records.

There may be many additional survivors we don't yet know about and almost certainly we will discover more pre-Cambiran phyla precursors that got edged out in the competition to survive.

[Ogmios]

totally frozen placemarker

[VadeRetro]

You have it backwards. The post did not address my refutation.

Your refutation does not address the article. I suggest reading it to see if any further objections on your part have been anticipated before making them.

In an ice covered sea, the life we know existed before the Cambrian would have been impossible.

What do you know about the viable temperature range of Spriggina? How about Cyclomedusa? What kind of animal is this?

If you know, please tell somebody, because nobody else does!

Could not have lasted a year. The whole article by unScientific American is thus utter nonsense.

Funny how they fool so many.

[balrog666]

Yes, we all know that when a lake freezes over in the winter, all life in the lake dies. (sheesh!)

Hey! You left off the "/sarcasm" - we can't always assume that people know that you can actually fish on frozen lakes in the winter. Or watch Nature TV shows. Or read books. Or ...

[gore3000]

such as the law "if a retroposon, pseudogene, etc, is found in both cows and whales, it will also be found in hippos" See fig.5

Oh please. A drawing is not evidence of anything. Further, there are no genes which are exactly the same in different species. Indeed most genes are not even exactly the same in different human beings, so your argument is false. There are no exact duplicates. There are indeed similar genes in many different species, but this is not to be wondered at, no reason why similar functions should not use similar genes. This is not proof of evolution.

Furthermore, if similarity of genes is proof of evolution kindly explain the fugu fish, whose genes are so similar to humans that they were able to find some 1200 previously unknown genes by examining the fugu fish genes. Proof that the fugu is man's ancestor not the apes???????????????

[gore3000]

There are over 40 phyla that arose during the Cambrian - none, zero, nada after it.-me-

And you "know" this how?

The way most people learn things. I read.

[JethroHathAWay]

knock knock

[Semper]

Would you know where this is from?

Yes, from the 19th Chaper of Job - the Old Testament. I prefer the truths of the New Testament - especially the words of Jesus.

[Ichneumon]

Evolutionists cannot find any evidence for their position

I'm confused -- if we "can't find any evidence" for our position, how do we keep posting the evidence? For example, I know we've posted this to you at least a dozen times now (in response to the many times you've asserted that there was "no" evidence): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

so they keep posting just so stories like this one that has no facts, no evidence, but says that evolution has been proven again.

Okay, I'll bite -- where does the above article "say that evolution has been proven again"?

Scientific predictions are made either about things which may occur in the future or things that have never been observed. This is neither, this is a story about something which has been observed and is already known. It is not a prediction, it is not science,

Where does it purport to be a "prediction"?

It's an announcement of a model which incorporates known processes and conditions to accurately match known historical transitions.

it is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Cambrian explosion completely destroys the theory of evolution as the evolutionists Gould and Eldredge claimed.

You're being unclear here -- are you claiming that Gould and Eldredge a) claimed that the Cambrian explosion destroys the theory of evolution, or b) their claims about the theory of evolution were allegedly destroyed by the Cambrian explosion?

Either way your claim would be incorrect, but I'd rather not spend time refuting the wrong one. So let me know which you meant and then I'll refute it.

[gore3000]

You have it backwards. The post did not address my refutation.-me-

Your refutation does not address the article.

As usual trying to put the burden of proof on the other person. It is up to you to show that life can continue to exist for hundreds of millions of years under ice. It cannot. Life needs sunlight to produce the food which all life needs. And do not talk to me about chemosynthesis, because the life that existed before the Cambrian was photosynthetic bacteria.

[f.Christian]

Basically free will for any one but a Christian is an illusion ... we are practically a whole planet of suckers --- pawns !

Jesus saves ... free will - enlightement --- follows !

That's the way God determines - runs things !

[gore3000]

It's an announcement of a model which incorporates known processes and conditions to accurately match known historical transitions.

To make up stories about something which is already known is not science. Computer models can prove anything and are thus not evidence. The article is nonsense.

As for the rest, you know exactly what I meant. Whether you try to refute it or not is your choice.

[VadeRetro]

As usual trying to put the burden of proof on the other person. It is up to you to show that life can continue to exist for hundreds of millions of years under ice.

There are whole ecosystems in the deep sea vents of the world's oceans now that don't depend upon photosynthesis, that live in total darkness, and that don't know or care whether the top of the ocean is frozen over. Also, some of the most extremophile life forms on earth are thought to be some of the earliest-appearing, the Archaea.

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know. I didn't give it that much thought. Just thought it was a funny story.

By the way, there was once these three guys who died and went to the Pearly Gates. St Peter says, y'all can come in, but be careful not to step on the ducks (there were fluffy little ducks running all over the place). The first guy comes in, steps on a duck and gets chained to an Amazon for eternity. The second guy steps on a duck and gets chained to a shrewish woman. The third guy sees all this and decides he's not going to step on any ducks, so he stands perfectly still. He ends up chained to a beautiful lady. He says to the lady, wow! What did I do to deserve this? She says, well, I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck.

[Ichneumon]

[The question becomes: how did God do it?]

Intelligence. Science is indeed about how did God do it. It has shown us quite well how many things were indeed done.

Yes, and science indicates that the way God did it was via evolution.

It is these laws, these predictable consequences of actions which should tell any unbiased person that the universe is not a place where randomness is the cause of all things.

Then it's a good thing that evolution does not proceed entirely by randomness.

[Semper]

Basically free will for any one but a Christian is an illusion

If a Christian has free will, does that mean evil is a possible choice and if not how can the choice be free?

Could it be that free will is an illusion for everyone?