Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

I certainly do see a trend. You don't offer proof. You offer what you accept as proof. I say, a fossil of a funny looking fish is proof that there were funny looking fish and you say it's proof that some fish evolved into mamals.

Mike, the problem is that you need to know what it is you’re looking at. If all you see is a funny-looking fish, then you need to learn a lot more anatomy before you make fun of that which you do not yet understand. Paleontologists look at more than the gross morphology of the funny-looking fish. There are entire phylogenies that have been constructed by just looking at the pectoral fins, or the vertebrae, or the eye orbit, or the gill arches, or the baso-cranial circulation. Then experts have compared these phylogenies and dealt with discrepancies using the best evidence available. That’s how it was done before electrophoresis, immunological distance analysis and gene sequencing were available.

How many generations must have existed in that transition from fish to mamal? How many are represented in the fossilt record. It seems to me that they are claiming to understand the nature of a chain that has almost countless links because they have what they think are a very few of those links. Then we have the obvious holes n the fossil record as illustrated by fish that they believed extinct for 65 million years or so (gone from the fossil record?) and then shows up alive and well.

Millions of generations. But when you look at the details of the component parts, the changes are rather clear. Finding relic populations of a fish species for which there has been no record for 65 million years, is not at all surprising to me and does not case any doubt on evolution.

DNA...now here's proof for you. Where is the surprise that all life shows some DNA similarities? Where the sirprise in the fact that animals that are different show differences in DNA? But then they try to use the DNA differences to indirectly measure the time since splitting from a common ancestor...the existance of which is assumed rather than proven by DNA. To make matters worse they calibrate the time inference based on what? The fossil record. ok so now they add short term change data from bacteria and insects. The problem is that data points over such a short time aren't suficient to calibrate such a measurement over such a long time. The fossil record seems to offer far too few data points over the whole range to be valid. Assumptions as to linierity? curve fitting? Backed by data? How about a good old fashioned guage R&R. We engineers don't even accept the output of a mic or a simple weight scale without that much. So the problem is two pronged...the calibration of the time inference and the lack of direct evidence that the event, from which they are measuring time lapsed, ever happened in the first place.

Forget for a minute the idea of relating DNA change to time-scale, to me that’s the least important thing anyway. There are many ways of analyzing DNA, indirect methods such as electrophoreses where you look at the proteins DNA produces or immunological distance studies where you prepare species specific anti-sera and them use the anti-sera to see how similar two other species are, and direct methods such as gene sequencing. The interesting thing is the consistency of results. All of these other techniques, which can be use to evolutionary “trees” that are time independent (they just describe who begat whom, so to speak), yield remarkably similar results, just as independent analysis of specified body parts has yielded remarkable similar results. An the clincher is that the all these independent methods: hard part analysis or many different specific structures, protein analysis, immunological distance analysis and gene sequencing yield evolutionary trees that are substantively the same. The evolutionary relationships have been confirmed so many different ways that the gross items are no longer even up for debate, and the fine items that have been carefully and exhaustively studied (e.g., primates) are also clearly defined.

I saw something cute that seems to illustrate it well.

Frog(t) = prince at t = instantaneous = fairytale
Frog(t) = prince at t = a very long time = science

Cute, like a pre-teen beauty queen, and just as fatuous.

 

[sandjeep]

Thalassamania said,

Get your facts straight, learn some history, don't make claims that can not be supported:

EDIT: Here you quoted me.

Originally Posted by sandjeep
Secular evidence for the existence of Jesus

I'm sorry but you seem to be mistaken. I said "Secular evidence for the existence of Jesus"

I did not say contemporaneous. However, since you insist in making this rather old argument, I want to know if CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITINGS is YOUR standard for all figures in history or is it just Jesus you have a problem with.

 

[agilis]

Kombiguy, just a couple of minor clarifications for the sake of accuracy. I did not intend to suggest that Aquinas originated either the Prime Mover concept or medieval Christianity. I think I wrote that the Prime Mover notion was his starting point.
Aristotle, of course, was the absolute authority about nearly everything concerning physics and the laws of nature for the Church throughout most of its existence. The geocentric perception of the universe is Aristotelian, and arguing against it got people like Copernicus and Galileo into difficulty.
I absolutely did not claim that Aquinas originated medieval Christianity. That bizarre package of recycled European paganism and Middle Eastern foolishness had evolved over many centuries. Aquinas attempted to defend its structure and content by reasoning forward from more basic concepts, many of which originated in the Hellenic world.

 

[Rick Murchison]

... you need to learn a lot more anatomy before you make fun of that which you do not yet understand...

Don't we all? Most of us understand that the more we understand the more we know we don't understand. That continuous revelation of wonder and mystery is one of the chief attractions of science to me.
In the very early 50's many scientists were convinced they "fully understood" cancer and would have a cure within months, at the most within a year or two. They were quite adamant about it.
There is great temptation to think our knowledge is great, our theories fact, our understanding of certain things complete, and amazingly we continue to refresh the delusion even as our "new" discoveries refine, revamp and redefine "truth." In the grand scheme of things we are nothing but arrogant little pissants on a flyspeck of a planet near a mediocre star in a smallish galaxy in a vast universe that may or may not be a large part of all creation. It is comforting to me to know that in all that vastness, there is a God big enough and loving enough to reassure me that as small and insignificant as I am, I matter to Him. And that, my friends, is far more important than being "right" about how we got here or where we're going in the physical universe.
Rick

 

[Thalassamania]

"Secular evidence for the existence of Jesus"

This is a meaningless concept. As I pointed out earlier there is far more "secular" evidence for the actual existence of Herakles, Son of God than there is for Jesus, Son of God. By your standards we should all be making sacrifice to him on the weekend. Or that what the American mania for BBQ is really about?<G>

I did not say contemporaneous. However, since you insist in making this rather old argument, I want to know if CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITINGS is YOUR standard for all figures in history or is it just Jesus you have a problem with.

Your knowledge of standard research procedures in history seems to be conveniently and confidently inadequate (even though it&#8217;s such an old argument). Since it&#8217;s such an old argument you must know that two contemporaneous cross-references is not MY standard (I'm not enough of a historian to have my own standard), it is simply the conventional historical research standard that is applied when attempting to demonstrate that someone actually lived. If point of fact, if you&#8217;d read the thread you find that mentioned several times.

Yes, it's an old argument. Tried, true and never refuted Your duplicitous introduction of the red herring of making it MY standard (in as much as you admit to &#8220;knowing better,&#8221; or at least to having &#8220;should have know better&#8221 suggest to me that this represents desperation to make a case at any cost, regardless of the facts, rather than a seeking of truth.

 

[Thalassamania]

In the grand scheme of things we are nothing but arrogant little pissants on a flyspeck of a planet near a mediocre star in a smallish galaxy in a vast universe that may or may not be a large part of all creation. It is comforting to me to know that in all that vastness, there is a God big enough and loving enough to reassure me that as small and insignificant as I am, I matter to Him. And that, my friends, is far more important than being "right" about how we got here or where we're going in the physical universe.
Rick

I’m with you half way but I end that paragraph a but differently: I am continuously amazed at the human ego, a delusion so overarching that it drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing God who is concerned about them and with whom they communicate on a regular basis.

 

[H2Andy]

I say, a fossil of a funny looking fish is proof that there were funny looking fish and you say it's proof that some fish evolved into mamals.

because you're not looking at it in context and i am

context is everything

now, while i firmly believe that my interpretation is correct, i also firmly respect your right to make your own interpretation.

ultimately, you're the one who has to decide what you believe, and i can't argue with that.

I am continuously amazed at the human ego, a delusion so overarching that it drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing God who is concerned about them and with whom they communicate on a regular basis.

that is the ultimate in arrogance, isn't it?

and i mean that in the best way possible. we're all desperate to be told we are important, and that we matter, and that it's all more than just chance

alas... the truth is harsh

 

[mislav]

alas... the truth is harsh

Amen to that.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I’m with you half way but I end that paragraph a but differently: I am continuously amazed at the human ego, a delusion so overarching that it drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing God who is concerned about them and with whom they communicate on a regular basis.

Ah, yes, and I am equally if not more amazed in the human ego that drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is no God. I'm fairly certain the sun will still be shining tomorrow. I am absolutely certain of the ultimate future, and it is with God and it is grand. The certain thing is that I'll see you there and we'll have a good laugh at us both
Rick

 

[redacted]

I&#8217;m with you half way but I end that paragraph a but differently: I am continuously amazed at the human ego, a delusion so overarching that it drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing God who is concerned about them and with whom they communicate on a regular basis.

We seem to have many ways to relieve ourselves of an unpleasant reality. Many have reliable adverse side effects. I don't think I'd call it arrogance as much as a long established human shortcoming. It's not arrogance until you decide that your deception is better than everyone elses and act that way.