Darwin's theory

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.

The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnousPXHi-4

Where have you been? This thread has needed some of your.....

...whatever it is....

....for a while now. Surprised it took you this long to find it!

Duggy747

Well, this thread has certainly made for a depressing interesting read.

Vivisectus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.

Unlike creationists, who have staunchly retained astro-physics, biology and geology from the bronze age and see no reason to let actual observation change this tried and tested conceptual framework.

But let us not forget: it is scientists who are dogmatic and unwilling to entertain new concepts.

The Corinthian

Vivisectus wrote: »

Unlike creationists, who have staunchly retained astro-physics, biology and geology from the bronze age and see no reason to let actual observation change this tried and tested conceptual framework.

That's a porkie, I'm afraid (unless you meant staunchly retained bronze age astrophysics). Creationists have been unable to convincingly rationalize how light that we can demonstrably show has traveled millions of light years could be younger than 10,000 years old.

But let us not forget: it is scientists who are dogmatic and unwilling to entertain new concepts.

Just because you want people to accept your concepts, doesn't mean you've made a case why they should. Don't confuse your own failure as being the intransigence of another.

marieholmfan

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a porkie, I'm afraid (unless you meant staunchly retained bronze age astrophysics). Creationists have been unable to convincingly rationalize how light that we can demonstrably show has traveled millions of light years could be younger than 10,000 years old.

Just because you want people to accept your concepts, doesn't mean you've made a case why they should. Don't confuse your own failure as being the intransigence of another.

Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).

endacl

marieholmfan wrote: »

Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).

Why not? When evidence is not important the time scale is immaterial. I could argue as JC et al have, and claim creation took place a fortnight last Friday. I'd be just as wrong, but that wouldn't matter as I wouldn't care about the evidence.

Vivisectus

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a porkie, I'm afraid (unless you meant staunchly retained bronze age astrophysics).

Well, yes I do? Say what you want about creationists: once they find an idea they like, they hang on to it come hell or high water (haha) no matter what you can actually observe in reality.

Creationists have been unable to convincingly rationalize how light that we can demonstrably show has traveled millions of light years could be younger than 10,000 years old.

JC explains that it is so God can show us how awesome all this universe he created wayyy beyond what we would be able to observe in a 10k year old universe actually is. My take-away from that is: if God spent so much effort to fake evidence to suggest the universe is much older, I ought to oblige Him and believe it is older. I mean, he obviously wants me to: why else create all that fake evidence?

Just because you want people to accept your concepts, doesn't mean you've made a case why they should. Don't confuse your own failure as being the intransigence of another.

Naaa - as a resident creationist explains: it is just that astrophysicists do not spend enough time studying the universe as if only what is in the Bible could possibly be true.

Vivisectus

marieholmfan wrote: »

Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).

So would there be a different apparent age of the universe to, say, cuttlefish?

Pherekydes

Vivisectus wrote: »

So would there be a different apparent age of the universe to, say, cuttlefish?

Well, dogs have calculated the age of the universe to be approximately 98 billion years.

And this has been confirmed by the one true dog.

catallus

Wibbs wrote: »

The ark. Bloody hell. OK let's imagine the story is true - and bypass the black morality of a supposed loving deity that destroys 99% of its creation - before the ark you would have had these other humans, proto humans. Where did they come in? How did they come about if it was Adam and Eve and their kids and grandkids practising wholesale incest?

The proto-humans were under the water, obviously!

The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.

As for the morality or otherwise of God's decision, well:

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

It's pretty straightforward stuff, wibbs, come on! :rolleyes:

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.

That would be some pretty selective weathering. Can reduce the size of the skull without breaking it and leaving the eye sockets the correct size for the eyeballs. Then leaving the rest of the body intact. God works in mysterious ways.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Didn't anyone ever tell god that violence begets violence.

PopePalpatine

ScumLord wrote: »

Didn't anyone ever tell god that violence begets violence.

Indeed, I wonder how many violent criminals were victims of the regime of clerical abuse in this country.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

The proto-humans were under the water, obviously!

I'm truly not sure if you're being serious... I hope you're not.

The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.

Eh... firstly as ScumLord notes how did the compression keep all the structures intact? Never mind that some of these folks may have been deliberately buried by their group/family. Kinda hard to do if you're under thousands of feet of water. Never mind that corpses of animals that drift down to the deepest parts of the ocean today don't distort. Did this water pressure make the skulls thicker too? Decrease the size of the brain cavity? Grow the size of the teeth? Change the makeup of the dental profile itself? Increase the size of the eye orbits? Increase the size of the nasal cavity? Shorten some limb bones, lengthen others? Remove chins? And do this consistently in some groups and not in others?

As I say I do hope you're not being serious here. Though having engaged with creationists before I suspect you might be. I have found their knowledge of basic science around this area to be scarily lacking. Hence so called "experts" can make up theories that sound plausible to them.

As for the morality or otherwise of God's decision, well:

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Going by the story A) he created that life and that environment. he knew beforehand that this would be how it would have turned out. C) Knowing beforehand and allowing that environment to take shape he purposely condemned millions of his beloved humans, men women and children to death(then again he's a prolific enough child killer so...). Never mind all the animals who would be innocents in this. Even to a six year old that's gobsmackingly immoral.

14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

And fill it with enough breeding stock to cover every single animal and plant species(never mind microscopic life) on the planet. To save the ecosystem of just the Phoenix park in Dublin would require a vessel at least the size of the largest oil tanker in the world today and you couldn't make it from "gopher wood".

It's pretty straightforward stuff, wibbs, come on! :rolleyes:

Observable reality is significantly more so.

catallus

Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.

If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.

This has gone really OT, but the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

Skylinehead

catallus wrote: »

If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.

Eh? I find that ships with holes in them tend not to float.

And skulls don't float.

robinph

So your proof of the flood actually being a real event is that they made a film about it?

DeadHand

catallus wrote: »

Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.

Tchaikovsky directed a film last year? How'd he do that? Through a medium?

endacl

catallus wrote: »

Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.

If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.

This has gone really OT, but the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

I'm just going to stick you on 'ignore' for the moment. No offence. I'll take you back off once this thread has run its course. Your messing is usually quite funny, but you're just kind of firing out silliness for the sake of silliness at this stage. It's not even trolling. I'd suggest others do the same. They've their hands full dealing with the redoubtable JC, who actually appears to believe that kinda cr4p. Likewise, mickrock appears to be waving his copy of Creationism for Dummies around. You're just getting a bit annoying now.

SaveOurLyric

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

Tordelback

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

You make an hypothesis about the past, based on existing data. You uncover new data or proxy data (in this case fossils, tools, environmental evidence etc.), or re-analyse existing data, and you see if they fit your hypothesis. If they don't, your hypothesis would be wrong, and you would have to make a new hypothesis. Thus your hypothesis about the past is testable.

Surely they teach this in Junior Cert Science?

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 1 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

That's the thing about established facts. They're true whether or not you accept them.

Your questions are based around fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved. No answer given by somebody who understands the processes and methodologies involved would give you a satisfactory answer.

So, the question in response might be 'what have you done to try to understand the processes you question, under the terms that they are generally understood and explained by those you are questioning'?

Thargor

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

SaveOurLyric, all your issues in this thread are rooted in your complete and utter ignorance and the bizarre pride you seem to take in that ignorance. Read a book thats not the bible or a pamphlet you found in a church and take your head out of your ass.

Also the evidence doesnt care what what an ignoramus like you accepts or doesn't accept, evidence is evidence.

endacl

Polite, patient version:

endacl wrote: »

That's the thing about established facts. They're true whether or not you accept them.

Your questions are based around fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved. No answer given by somebody who understands the processes and methodologies involved would give you a satisfactory answer.

So, the question in response might be 'what have you done to try to understand the processes you question, under the terms that they are generally understood and explained by those you are questioning'?

Just stop asking stupid questions if your not going to pay attention to the answers version:

Thargor wrote: »

SaveOurLyric, all your issues in this thread are rooted in your complete and utter ignorance and the bizarre pride you seem to take in that ignorance. Read a book thats not the bible or a pamphlet you found in a church and take your head out of your ass.

Also the evidence doesnt care what what an ignoramus like you accepts or doesn't accept, evidence is evidence.

Nice one Thargor. I think we've covered all the bases there!

The Corinthian

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Other than fossil evidence that shows different but clearly related species changing over the course of millennia, natural selection in action is actually quite easy to observe in very short time spans.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anatomical and genetic homology between humans and apes.

And as we all know now, it was the empirical testing of that homology that resulted in the HIV virus to jump to humans.

Thargor

endacl wrote: »

Polite, patient version:



Just stop asking stupid questions if your not going to pay attention to the answers version:



Nice one Thargor. I think we've covered all the bases there!

Ha, never even saw your post. I have low patience because I sit beside one of these people in work, they're always trying to show me things on websites that look like they were optimized for Netscape Navigator.

endacl

Thargor wrote: »

Ha, never even saw your post. I have low patience because I sit beside one of these people in work, they're always trying to show me things on websites that look like they were optimized for Netscape Navigator.

Zero tolerance. Document the interruptions. Send it on to HR. You might tolerate his interruptions. You shouldn't have to endure his stupidity.

ScumLord

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of how evolution works. That's like saying about baking, take this carrot cake and turn it into chocolate log and then I'll believe in baking.

endacl

ScumLord wrote: »

You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of how evolution works. That's like saying about baking, take this carrot cake and turn it into chocolate log and then I'll believe in baking.

You might want to edit that. Every carrot cake I've ever eaten has turned into a chocolate log. Nothing to do with baking.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Yes, it's that compelling. If you are genuinely interested in understanding why it's that compelling, I suggest reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. It in my view is the greatest book ever written on giving the evidence in support of why evolution by natural selection is a fact.

Something tells me however that you don't wish for it to be true. As if it is true, then you might have to re-adjust your religious views.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future).

Do you see what you are doing? At first, you're questioning the available evidence in favour of evolution. You're then in your next sentence asking if the evidence is really just a cunning ploy by a God to try and trick scientists 4.54 billion years down the line after creating Earth. Do you see why such an idea is absurd?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

Let's compare it to a murder scene. Absent of actually being there to witness the event, how do we establish who the culprit is? In the case of Colin Pitchfork, who raped and murdered two 15 year old girls and almost got away with it - He was caught through screening of DNA. Had it not been the case, a 17 year old guy Richard Buckland would have spent the rest of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. And much like a murder case, DNA is a powerful tool in determining relationships in the past between any two animals.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event?

Through phylogenetics, we can use DNA to establish how close or distant a relationship is between any two species. In the case of humans and chimps (our closest relative), the DNA shared between is closer than that shared between a mouse and a rat, or even a chimp and a gorilla.

What this means is that in the very recent past (6 million years ago), the last common ancestor between chimps and humans diverged into two different groups. One group eventually evolved into the line of apes that gave rise to today's chimps and bonobos, while the other group gave rise to the homo genus (which includes humans, and neanderthal, along with some others like homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis).

So in the case of humans - we have an array of fossils showing the physical progression of man's early ancestor's to today's humans. We also have DNA to establish relationships between today's animals (and a few recently extinct like Neanderthal). Through a combination of both, we get to paint a pretty vivid picture about the past.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

You see, that's now how evolution works. Evolution is an extremely slow process when natural selection is involved. We couldn't just sit down one day, and in the space of a few years force chimps to evolve into humans. Remember, the amount of time that it took humans to evolve from a tree-dwelling ape, to today's walking-talking humans was millions of years. There is no way to ever replicate that in a lab.

We have however used artificial selection to sway evolution in certain directions. One example is the Silver Fox experiments in Russia. Their goal was to try and understand how Wolves evolved into today's domestic dogs. Wolves are naturally aggressive, more territorial and far less approachable than dogs.

In the fox experiment - they allowed only the most tame and approachable foxes to breed over the course of a number of generations. The result was the foxes became more tame, and even "dog like". Their physical appearance changed, as did their mannerisms - which made them more approachable.

If we were to try an experiment, where we allowed only the most intelligent chimps to breed through artificial selection, we may after 1000 years be able to produce a new line of Chimps that are perhaps on average 10% more intelligent than standard chimps. But they will never become humans, because humans did not evolve from chimps or any of today's apes.

If there is anything about evolution in specific you don't understand, just ask. I think you have issues understanding what evolution is, and what the operating mechanics of it are (in particular natural selection).

Wibbs

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

Here's one nature made earlier

As you can see we have a clear progression from "ape" to the hominid family over the course of 5 million years. You can see the basic similarities, but also the differences.

Check out this comparison to classic Neandertals. They show a more obvious morphological debt to Erectus.

Now of course it wasn't as simple as all this. It wasn't a "clean" A to B progression. It never is, it's fuzzy lines of back and forth adaptation and evolution and interbreeding. EG Neandertals weren't our direct ancestors, both us and they were evolved from local populations of Homo Erectus. Think of both of us like Erectus version 2.0. They were the V 2.0 that came up in Europe, we were V 2.0 that came up in Africa. Indeed at first we don't look so different to more lightly built later Neandertals(Wiki at one point had a pic of a supposed archaic modern from North Africa that was actually a French Neandertal skull). We had brow ridges, less of a chin, bigger teeth etc. Our main difference was in the overall shape of the skull, ours were more rounded, ball like, theirs were more elongated, rugby ball like, our cheekbones were different too. Even within these different peoples we see changes over time. Both us and the Neandertals became less robust, brow ridges got smaller, they even got chins which no other archaic human had(other than us). By the end of their time on earth Neandertals themselves started to look more "modern", though still far outside the morphology of today's peoples. As I said you couldn't shave one and stick him in a suit, he would be spotted as very odd looking straight away.

Actually on that score and IMHO, current mainstream science has swung the pendulum away from showing them as "apemen" and now try hard to make them look like the hairy bloke in the pub. Too hard. Their eyes were noticeably larger than our own yet current reconstructions don't show this. They also had huge noses and again this is played down, to the point where the reconstructed noses lay inside the original skulls nasal cavity. The reconstruction of the female Neandertal is almost entirely conjecture and a lash up of male bones "feminised" for the purpose. The blue eyes and blondish hair is frankly risible IMHO.


Anyway, when creationists claim there are no fossils that show a slow progression they must not have looked at the evolution of humans, because it's pretty damned clear.