Posted on 10/22/2009 2:44:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
--snip--
The picture painted by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Problem is that it’s not science without integrity in words and processes. The 2 main problems with evolution are the circular reasoning processes used time and again and ignorantly throwing out any contrary evidence (usually claiming them as statistical anomalies). The mathematics alone eliminate any truth for macro-evolution.
Are you even aware that there are over 100 natural clocks that do not conform to millions nor billions of years for the earth and universe?
OYG.....someone posited a theory......BLASPHEMER!!!!!!
Off with ‘is head!!!
Howl-at-the-moon crazy like believing that Man walked the Earth with vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex? THEN, with 100+ species of large carnivorous dinosaurs?
How do I curse my father? ‘Cause I’d LOVE for you to try and put me to death for it.
I am not aware of 100 natural clocks that conform to neither millions nor billions of years for the earth and universe.
DO tell....
PLEASE tell me that you aren't relying on the accumulation of moon-dust and oceanic mud.
You don’t even need to google this one - was a recent FR posting from this summer.
How do reconcile the Biblical description of dinosaurs in the book of Job with you hopes that the ages of the earth conform only to old-earth radio-isotope and solar dating theories?
You need to re-examine all the stuff evos tend to ignore and belittle rather than running with the crowd (consensus).
“You mean deep time similarly to the way God exists, by virtue of always existing. The scientific process with its trial and error, demands of proof, and centuries of scientists of all nationalities and philosophical backgrounds but whose results though incomplete still verifiably line up in the same real world direction would seem to have more rigorous standards of proof then “I am that I am”.”
I agree. I’m not arguing FOR the existence of God here. But yes, central to the Christian faith is the idea that God is eternal, timeless. I don’t know if we can say that “God exists BY VIRTUE of having always existed.” In any case, I don’t see how that belief impacts the credibility of evolutionary theory and its dependence of vast amounts of time. IOW, Christians don’t seek to prove or disprove their belief in God based on a time frame. (At least I don’t know any who do.) Evolutionary theory may be correct or incorrect, but if its credibility is based on the belief that an incomprehensible amount of time is necessary to make it happen, I remain a skeptic. Do you see that such a belief does, in fact, place the evoluntist in the “faith” category? The evolunionist does not know what sparked life. And it’s my contention that the need to believe in anything but a universal designer is what drives the evolutionary community to accept the idea that chance has brought it all about. Would a scientist approach any lab experiment in this way? Would she say, “I don’t know how this substance was formed, but I’m confident that over millions of years it would have formed on its own through the evolutionary process?” Of course not.
“I don’t really grasp why a clearer understanding of the material processes of HOW is any threat to the honestly religious minded.”
Again, I agree. It is no threat. But by the same token, then, why are critics or skeptics ridiculed within the evolutionary community? I’m simply saying that we don’t know what happened billions of years ago - we can’t know that. Yet, evolutionists say with certainty that their POV is the correct one. I’ll point to human generated global warming, which supposedly initially had virtually 100% support within the scientific community. Is global warming an accurate protrayal of current/future climate conditions? We can’t say with total accuracy one way or another - we haven’t even had the ability to accurately measure weather conditions long enough to tell - yet scientists jump on the bandwagon to support the idea. I’m not anti-science by any stretch of the imagination - I’m just pointing out that quite often the very community that supports inquiry and solid research is reluctant to challenge fiercely held ideas.
“It might be more pertinent to the overall question to simply say render unto science what is science’s, and unto philosophy what is philosophy’s. (ie- when you have a 200 million year old fossil, your planet is older then 6000 years).”
I guess there are some people of faith who insist on dating the earth. In my opinion that’s silly. But to advocate separating science and philosophy is to say that the two are mutually exclusive. If both cannot be “true,” then the universe is disjointed and ill-functioning - yes? :)
“As for dufus’, sometimes the shoe fits.”
Indeed. :)
New species of plants arise all the time and it has been observed both in nature and in the lab. New species of fruit flies have arisen in the laboratory setting that cannot reproduce with the ancestral strain.
However I fully expect you to move the goal posts from ‘Evolution cannot be shown in the lab’ to ‘evolution CAN be shown in the lab,but not speciation’ to a NEW location ‘it is STILL a fruit fly isn't it?’.
Why isn't there a detailed description of computers or the internet in the Bible?
I think you’re the one moving the goal posts. :)
Yes, intraspecies evolution has been demonstrated time after time - I recognize that and I think I said as much. Please forgive me if my vocabulary isn’t in line with correct scientific jargon - I’m not a scientist. But I think I have it right - What I mean is - yes, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. To the best of my knowledge, within an observable laboratory setting a fruit fly has never become a wasp, or a flower, or a rock.
So can you theorize that because intraspecies evolution occurs, then interspecies evolution must also occur? Is there evidence of that today? Wouldn’t that necessarily involve some “trial and error” on the part of the species? I mean, wouldn’t there be nonfuctioning, nonproductive evolution going on that would weed itself out by the natural selection process? I don’t understand how an “intermediate” species could exist long enough to evolve in an unproductive state. I’m sure this is explained in the theory, but I’m not up to speed on that. So input will be appreciated. (Keep in mind that I’m not a scientist. :))
DO tell of these supposed natural clocks that refute atomic ones. I've found is moon-dust and oceanic mud deposition...polonium halos...continental erosion.......and I get a nice laugh when reading about 'em.
Why is there a need to reconcile tales from a book with science-based dating methods?
If you wanna believe that "dinosaurs" are mentioned in Job, have at it. Yep.....Tyrannosaurus rex and 100+ other meat eating dinosaurs are represented in the Bible as grass-eating, bronze-boned behemoths.....that, of course, hide in the water under locust plants.
Sounds like a hippo-freakin'-potamus to me.....but since T. rex
was supposedly alive at the time of the Flood, why were there no T. rex pair on the Ark? They were represented by an iguana?
I wouldn't go telling others what they need to re-examine. I know....the Earth isn't 4-5 billion years old because the moon dust layer isn't as thick as YECers say it should be.
Evolution is a process observable in the lab. The rate of change observed generation to generation are both necessary and sufficient to explain the divergence between related species; much as the observed rates of erosion at the Grand Canyon are both necessary and sufficient to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon.
Speciation is a process that can be observed in the lab. A new species of fruit fly forming from an ancestral species of fruit fly IS inter-species evolution. There is an ancestral species and a new species that can no longer interbreed with the ancestral species; this is inter-species evolution.
Yes there is “trial and error”, why you think this is an insurmountable obstacle is beyond me. Albinism crops up all the time in wild populations, and 9999 out of 10000 it is an ‘error’; but when a species has moved down into a cave somewhere - suddenly that ‘trial’ is no longer an error but an energy saving advantage. Thus we see the trend for cave dwelling species to lose pigmentation.
You also seem to think that a new species must arise in a single individual, or that somehow a ‘transitional species’ must be somehow incomplete - this is simply not the case.
Australopithocine are ‘transitional’ between apes and humans. They existed longer than our own species. They were not ‘incomplete apes’ or ‘incomplete humans’ but a fully functional species for millions of years, doing what they did to survive - and doing it well.
A new species doesn't form from an old by a radical change in one generation; but through gradual selection of new ‘beneficial’ traits that arise or already existed within a population - while the definition of what was ‘beneficial’ changed over time as the population and/or environment changed.
LOL...I guess it only gets censored when I say it :o)
“Based on the mountains of evidence the evolutionary theory is the best explanation available. So it is not a matter of “believing” in evolution it is accepting or denying evolution. That is like not believing in gravity. Evolution happened, and continues to happen whether you choose to accept it or not.”
Well, I’ll agree that either evolution happened or it did not. The status of our belief does not impact the truth of it. But are you a believer just because evolution looks like the best theory available? Could it be that the real explanation for life simply hasn’t been uncovered yet? And, if this is so, it never will be uncovered as long as those who should be seeking the truth cling to the idea that evolution as we view it now is the last word. Is the case closed? It seems to me that there are too many “loose ends” for that to be the case. And the reliance on deep time is one of those loose ends.
Now, if the current evolutionary theory is indeed correct, and everyone is satisfied with it, where does this new “rock” theory come from? I have to admit that I find it ridiculous, but - what do I know? It could be correct. What does that do to the theory already in place and accepted universally? Does it mean that the theory is still in process? And, if so, why close the door on other ideas?
“As far as religion just how would you prove a religious belief to be untrue?”
I wouldn’t and couldn’t, unless the religion has as its focus something that is dependent on verification. For example, if I choose to worship a tree because the tree has special power, but that tree doesn’t exercise those special powers, I could say that my “religion” has been disproved, I guess. But typically, of course, religion is not subjected to the same type of lab tests that science projects are.
“theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”
OK - Note the word “can” here. But, what about the following:
“A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.”
I don’t see how interspecies evolution can be controlled, repeated, so, you’re saying it’s been rigorously verified, I guess. By the fossil record?
“The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena.”
Circular reasoning here - the theory explains the details that are part of the theory.
“In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution.”
Again, “A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.”
How can it be a fact, when a fact needs to be controlled and repeated within a regulated setting? Fossil record again? But that doesn’t involve experimentation, does it? the earth’s revolution is repeated over and over again. We experience it daily. It’s more than interpreting events from the past. Where is the evolutionary activity going on today?
I think I’ve asked already - How do explain the move from chaos to order? Does that ever happen in the scientific realm? Would you not be surprised it if did?
Granted, I was losing the term “theory” to mean “hypothesis” - my error....Still, I’m having trouble with the air of inerrancy inherent within the evolutionary mindset.
"Richard Dawkins is an idiot" -- Me
So what??
Elaine, you are right about the arrogance of the typical evolutionist. They truly believe that a person is a knuckle-dragger if that person does not believe in exactly the same things that they do. They also, for the most part, seem to not fully understand what they cite. Take for instance the link in the post to which I am replying. This is in the abstract ---- "Some of these common crossover points may represent common ancestry, but reasons are given for thinking that some may represent independent events occurring at recombinational hotspots." Which of course is the statement related to the horizontal transfer of genetic material. So what benefit is provided to the species sourcing the genetic material? And why are the points "common" crossover points? Aren't mutations supposed to be random?
“Speciation is a process that can be observed in the lab. A new species of fruit fly forming from an ancestral species of fruit fly IS inter-species evolution. There is an ancestral species and a new species that can no longer interbreed with the ancestral species; this is inter-species evolution.”
OK - but has the fruit fly evolved into something completely different - like a butterfly or an inch worm? If, indeed, it would take millions, billions of years for such a transformation to occur, I doubt that this could be replicated within a lab setting. And if it could be, why isn’t it? That would shut up all the skeptics right there, would it not?
“Yes there is “trial and error”, why you think this is an insurmountable obstacle is beyond me. Albinism crops up all the time in wild populations, and 9999 out of 10000 it is an ‘error’; but when a species has moved down into a cave somewhere - suddenly that ‘trial’ is no longer an error but an energy saving advantage. Thus we see the trend for cave dwelling species to lose pigmentation.”
Of course. But, although the species has changed, it is still the same species. Am I using the term incorrectly? Let’s try this: If it goes into the cave as a dog, it comes out as a dog. It doesn’t morph into something else. Correct? OR maybe it does. Maybe it becomes another type of entity best suited for living in caves. If so, how much time is necessary for that transformation to take place, and how many trials and errors have to happen before the transformation is complete?
I’ll use the giraffe as an example, although it may not be a good one. Anyway, as the giraffe was developing its long neck, it couldn’t function as it does now. Could it function as a giraffe during the time it was evolving? If it could function, why wasn’t it “rewarded” by survival at that stage? What prompted it to continue generating the long neck? On the other hand, if it couldn’t function, how did it exist long enough to cultivate the neck it has now.
That’s a very clumsy example, but I think you know what I mean. Changing color is one thing, but becoming a completely new entity is something else altogether. Has this ever taken place in an observalbe setting?
“Australopithocine are ‘transitional’ between apes and humans. They existed longer than our own species. They were not ‘incomplete apes’ or ‘incomplete humans’ but a fully functional species for millions of years, doing what they did to survive - and doing it well.”
OK - I’ll look into this. I don’t know anything about it.
“A new species doesn’t form from an old by a radical change in one generation; but through gradual selection of new ‘beneficial’ traits that arise or already existed within a population - while the definition of what was ‘beneficial’ changed over time as the population and/or environment changed.”
Doesn’t Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium address this? If I’m correct, he believed that perhaps there is a more rapid change that was once thought.
First it was evolution cannot be shown in the lab.
Of course evolution CAN be shown in the lab, so then your tact was that speciation (the formation of a new species) cannot be observed within our time frame or in the lab.
When it is pointed out to you that speciation CAN and HAS BEEN observed within our time frame as well as in the lab; your tact was EXACTLY as I predicted - ‘it is still a fruit fly.’.
Sure, but it is a NEW SPECIES of fruit fly and thus an example of interspecies evolution - exactly what you claimed could not be observed.
Perhaps what you mean is that common ancestry can be deduced, but not DIRECTLY observed in the laboratory setting? In other words, one can see the evidence that wolves and coyotes share a common ancestor but one cannot directly observe the changes that might have caused a common ancestor to evolve into the different lineages of wolves and coyote.
Similarly, one cannot directly observe every bit of erosion over the last million years that carved out a canyon, but one CAN see that the observed rate of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the geological formation.
A cave dwelling species that has lost their pigmentation, and often their vision, grown super long antennae, etc; is most assuredly NOT the same species as the ancestral population that first came into the cave. Major morphological and genetic changes within the population occur.
You seem to think evolution is some sort of process that has a definite beginning and an end, that a transformation can be “complete”. This is like asking when American English became distinct from British English and when will the ‘transformation’ of American English will be “complete”.
Your giraffe example is rather naive. The ancestral giraffe population with ‘short’ necks would be at no disadvantage to any other hoofed herbivorous mammal out in the African grasslands. The ‘transitional’ giraffe population with intermediate length necks would not be some sort of half put together incompetent - it would be a longer necked giraffe that could reach the higher leaves. Once the ‘arms race’ (or neck race) began amid the population, any variation that led to longer necks was favored until it reached 100% penetrance within the population for trait after trait; until you finally have what we have now... a species of very long necked giraffes. Nowhere along the continuum is there a reject giraffe that couldn't survive better the selective pressure to have a long neck than its ancestors.
Punctuated equilibrium still requires gradual change within a population, not a radical change within a single generation or individual. Anyone who actually understands punctuated equilibrium (like Gould and Eldridge) knows that it supports evolution through natural selection.
Well, I guess from your perspective the goal posts have been moved, but not from mine. This began as a thread about a rock as the “source” of life and evolution in its larger sense; I’ve been speaking of evolution not in the sense of fruit flies adapting to their environment but, rather, in the sense of different species, genera (?) - or whatever the correct term is - coming from the same source yet showing very different features, parts, qualities - or “outcomes,” if you will.
I’m gladly conceding that point of fruit fly and similar species adaptation. If this is what you mean by “evolution,” I guess we’re in agreement.
However:
“Perhaps what you mean is that common ancestry can be deduced, but not DIRECTLY observed in the laboratory setting?” That’s not what I meant, but I agree with the statement. But can you take the evidence from a lab setting and then reliably predict similar results on a scale as grand as the evolutionary one?
Re: the wolves and coyotes and dogs: I don’t believe dogs and wolves are different species. In fact, dogs are subspecies of wolves, correct? So - sure, I see the connection. Dogs are continuously bred to highlight some features and qualities and diminish others. It happens all the time.
“You seem to think evolution is some sort of process that has a definite beginning and an end, that a transformation can be “complete”.” I don’t think that. But I do think that evolution in its large sense (as in, all life originating from the same source and depending on random selection) requires some intermediate life forms. By intermediate I mean the evolving fish with ill-functioning appendages or lungs that is unable yet to walk on land and breathe. Would it’s underdeveloped legs not disappear through the evolutionary process of adaption or selection? it seems that a fish with legs would be less efficient and less able to adapt to its environment than one without. So unless the universe understood the aspirations of the fish, seems like the fish’s world would contract, not expand, in this situation. (Another bad example, I know, but I think you know what I’m saying here.)
“Similarly, one cannot directly observe every bit of erosion over the last million years that carved out a canyon, but one CAN see that the observed rate of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the geological formation.”
Of course.
“Your giraffe example is rather naive.” :) I realize this was not a good illustration and tried to say as much.
“Punctuated equilibrium still requires gradual change within a population, not a radical change within a single generation or individual. Anyone who actually understands punctuated equilibrium (like Gould and Eldridge) knows that it supports evolution through natural selection.”
I know Gould would be horrified (and was, in fact, horrified) to think that nonevolutionists found his punctuated equilibrium concept appealing. I would never make the mistake of assuming that he was anything other than a dedicated evolutionist - whatever that belief system entails. However, the PE concept did introduce or fortify the idea of abrupt appearances of new species and relative stability of species across the board - correct?
Yes, scientists CAN and DO use the measured rate of change generation to generation within a population and apply it to the observed change between species of known or suspected recent common ancestry. For example, we can use DNA analysis to not only show that Native Americans are descended from an Asiatic population - but get a good estimate of how long they have been separated - and the estimate corresponds well with when we see the earliest human habitation of the continent.
I said you seemed to think of evolution as a process with a beginning and an end because you asked when would the ‘transformation be complete’. DNA is never static, each population is undergoing constant ‘transformation’ of its DNA that is never “complete”.
Having whiffed the giraffe neck as a somehow incompatible with gradual transition, you now move on to fish with feet. Ever see a mud-skipper or a lungfish? Do you think they are at a survival disadvantage for having forelimbs capable of terrestrial movement?
As far as Punctuated Equilibrium, “abrupt” can mean over several thousands of years, and “stability” entails several millions of years. This theory gives no comfort to those who think that God had to “poof” animals into existence from nothing - which is the “abrupt” appearance that most creationists are apparently thinking of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.