On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:27:03 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:52:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>>>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>>>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>>>micro-evolution.
>>
>>Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
>>generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>>
>Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
>species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
>the source species.
That is called speciation. It has been observed occuring through natural
processes. Plants have even more fun. Speciation in animals is almost
always a result of isolated populations drifting apart. There is nothing
special that happens to turn this variation into speciation, it's just
one step further.
>Micro-evolution is much less complex, and is what we observe in our
>domestic animal selective breeding and in things like SARS drug
>resistant bacteria. For example, a Siberian Husky dog and a Border
>Collie dog both came from the same ancestral roots, and are still the
>same species, but they are significantly different in many respects.
And, under natural cir***stances, some of the breeds of dogs would not
be interbreeding and thus considered separate species. Species do not
interbreed both for genetic and behavioral reasons.
>Gordon
>>
>>>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>>>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>>>rested after His creation work."
>>
>>If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
>>don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>>
>That is my point, too. There is no CLEAR evidence but there seems to
>be some reasonable connection or some very phenomenal chance involved
>in the writings of the Biblical passages on the creation.
I don't see that at all. The stories in the Bible are consistent with
stories that were told by other pre-scientific tribes explaining their
universe.
> My purpose
>for opening this thread was to encourage cross-talk with others who
>might be able to shed some light on the subject. I'm searching for
>answers, not caustic arguments, but for some reason a great many
>atheists seem to take my questions as a challenge of their position
>and therefore they respond very caustically. Maybe they really are
>very insecure...who knows???
It depends on how the questions are posed. When they appear to be
rhetorical insults to science, those who understand science are hardly
likely to be happy with something that appears to be a studied insult.
>I'm not stating that I KNOW that God used some form of evolution to
>create the creatures of this planet, but at the same time I can't
>argue that He did not. What we see in the paleontological/geological
>records and interpret as a 10-20 million year process of evolutionary
>development may have happened in an instant, and may have been
>accomplished by means other than the Darwinian evolutionary process.
There are examples of other times that there was a large change in the
biome after dieoffs. The Cambrian is not unique as you imply.
>The jury is still out on this, so to speak, and I'm not willing to
>cross either option off the list until I learn a LOT more about the
>whole scenario.
The jury isn't out on ID/creationism. They have lost. They have nothing
to do with science. They offer no scientific explanations. Read the
Kitzmiller decision to see how dishonest the ID/Creationists are.
>The thing that blocks me from accepting the Darwinian Evolution
>explanation is that what ever it was that progressed so vigorously
>during the Cambrian Explosion seems to have halted entirely at the end
>of this 10 - 20 million year interval and has remained halted during
>the 520 million years since.
Your understanding of evolution is erroneous. Of course, it doesn't make
sense to throw science away completely just because you don't understand
what science has discovered.
>On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis
>story about God having created the creatures then He rested seems to
>fit amazingly well. Gordon
No. You are fitting a story to some of the evidence and ignoring the
rest.
>>>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>>>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>>>completely, afterward? Gordon
>>
>>Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
>>evidentiary sup****t that there is something different about
>>'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
>>observed.
>Google macro evolution or micro evolution. There are many very well
>presented sites on these subjects. Here's a link to one such site;
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
That is a terrible explanation. Variations are variations. None are
defined as the kind that automatically confer speciation. The author
lied about the facts. There are facts that strongly sup****t common
ancestry. Here are some of the lines of evidence that force scientists
to conclude that evolution has happened and continues to happen:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
The three critical flaws that the sermonizer wrote are all flaws in his
understanding of science. Not one of them is valid. Sure, many
variations cause an organism to become less fit for the niche and die
out, but once they are dead, the variations don't matter. The argument
about incremental variations shows a lack of understanding of
developmental biology. People with small variations, either genetically
or developmentally, do not add half a finger, they get a whole new one.
Some have fingers that are all useful. Some do not, but the development
of a sixth finger is not the collection of a lot of different genetic
changes. Its relatively simple. Bats also had relatively simple changes
and there are intermediate forms that are useful.
The claim "Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could
possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living
thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump." is
unsup****ted by any reference to any article, popular or scientific that
Stephen Jay Gould wrote. I don't know if the writer made this up or read
what was written out of context. Either way, the author is
misrepresenting science. Since Gould didn't say what the author claims,
his attack on it must be dismissed. Lamarck was demonstrated to be wrong
a century ago.
For item two, the writer does not understand the role that chromosomes
or genes play nor how variation is introduced into the genetic material.
Quoting a convicted criminal who has no scientific background and
garbles what he is talking about does not persuade me that the author of
the sermon you chose knows what he is talking about or is even capable
of separating knowledge from nonsense. The rock pigeon example is not an
example of a failure of evolution. The author and Colson, presumably,
confuse the inherent available variability within a population with the
variation that happens over time when new alleles are introduced.
"No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to
the genetic material."
That claim is flat out wrong. Every imperfect replication adds such
information. Some is useful. Some is culled.
The discussion of hybrids again shows a confusion about the difference
between currently available alleles and new alleles that arise from
imperfect replication.
The Dawkins story is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The
explanation of adaptive bacteria is just wrong. The bacteria that are
immune are not necessarily weaker as your author claims.
Natural selection does cull. New variation does add.
Your author needs to learn about science before he writes his next
science-ba****ng sermon.
His conclusion about 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' is false
because it is drawn on mistaken understanding of science and the
evidence about evolution. He is the one who refused to engage in
critical analysis. He is the one who misrepresents what has happened.
>There is indeed an enormous difference between macro and
>micro-evolution. We can produce micro-evolution quite easily, and it
>doesn't even require a sophisticated lab setup. Domestic animal
>selective breeding is a micro-evolution example.
Not really, but the definition of micro-evolution and the definition of
macro-evolution need to be tied down much better than they are before I
am able to point out why this is nonsense. The author of the sermon you
recommended appears to have ****fting definitions within the article.
>But, macro-evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab, and no
>paleontologic/geologic evidence has ever been found indicating that
>macro-evolution has happened since the end of the Cambrian Explosion
>of animal life on this planet. Maybe the Cambrian Explosion was the
>result of this planet having been "seeded" by aliens or some such. ;-)
>What ever the case, there are far more questions to be answered than
>there are existing answers. To duck behind Darwinian Evolution and
>conclude that this explains it all is a VERY serious mistake. Gordon
Nonsense. You don't have an explanation and your claims about the lack
of evidence are just retreads of the tire old lies of creationists.
Until you know enough science to offer a valid scientific critique of
evolution (at which time you will understand why your current criticisms
are worthless) you are doing nothing but parroting creationist lies.
>>>>>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable,
and
>>>>>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>>>>>biologists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this
very
>>>>>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into
existence
>>>>>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>>>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How does it do that, moron?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working,
even
>>>>>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
>>>>
>>>>Your question assumes facts that are contrary to the evidence.
Evolution
>>>>has not stopped working.
>>>>
>>>There are two levels of evolution...micro and macro.
>>
>>Please define.
>>
>>>We have verified
>>>micro-evolution in our domestic animals. That is, by selective
>>>breeding we have produced a very large number of variations in our
>>>domestic animals. This micro-evolution process also continues in
>>>nature, without human intervention. So, yes, this aspect of Darwinian
>>>evolution is still working.
>>
>>That's evolution.
>>
>>>But, macro-evolution seems to have ceased and we have not been able to
>>>revitalize or demonstrate it at all. Not one new phyla has come into
>>>existence since the end of the Cambrian Explosion, some 520 million
>>>years ago.
>>
>>What op****tunity would there be for new phyla?
>>
>This is a very prudent question. I simply do not have the insights
>that would enable me to determine what would be needed or what would
>instill a new phylum.
Then why do you claim that new phyla should have continued to arise?
>As a crude guess, just to illustrate what I'm
>talking about, perhaps some life forms based upon silica instead of
>carbon might be possible. Please note that I am not suggesting that
>this is possible. I am just using this bit of fiction to express the
>idea that I'm talking about. The main thing is that I can't accept
>that the present 7 or 8 phyla are all that have room to exist on this
>planet. Something like 28 phyla existed during the Cambrian Explosion,
>but most of them died off, later. Gordon
The success of humans has endangered thousands of species. Is that an
argument against evolution? How?
>>>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>>>above.
>>>>
>>>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>>>
>>>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>>>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
>>
>>Why do you think that matters?
>>
>I'm not saying that it matters, it you mean by "matters," that the
>earth could not have been workable with any different sequence of
>events. All I'm saying here is that it whets my curiosity. Why did the
>Bible describe a creature creation sequence that fits so harmoniously
>with the paleontologic/geologic records that are attributed to
>Darwinian Natural Selection evolution? Gordon
The Bible describes nothing. The theory of evolution by variation and
natural selection is consistent with all of the evidence and takes it
into account. The stories told by herders does neither.
>>>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>>>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>>>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>>>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>>>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>>>light. And so on through the entire process.
>>
>>I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
>>itself doesn't really fit.
>>
>I disagree here. I think the Genesis story fits amazingly well with
>the science we know, and as we gain more insights into science I
>expect we will find an even more exact match. God created the entire
>multiverse, including all the natural laws. Why would He have used
>something "outside" these natural laws to do all this?
Then you don't really understand science well enough to have an opinion
worth listening to. The Genesis stories are all wrong as science. The
order of creation is wrong -- in both creation stories. The Flood story
is wrong. The Babel story is wrong. The Exodus story is wrong. The
evidence shows that they are all wrong. Nothing in Genesis is
scientifically accurate.
>The Genesis story was given to us in a very primitive
>language/communication style, and this was done so the earliest people
>who received this information could grasp the core meaning and
>understand all that they needed to know.
Not at all.
>Then, 3500 years later, as humanity advanced into the age of science,
>and we are motivated to search for greater in-depth understanding, we
>are still able to read those ancient writings and fit them into the
>science we now understand.
You have to twist those stories until they scream to get them to fit
modern scientific discoveries. Of course, you cannot do that, the
stories are screaming and you are still making excuses for why you
reject some of the scientific evidence.
>We find that science corroborates the Bible and the Bible corroborates
>science. No one at any time was at an advantage or a disadvantage
>because of their social structure and level of scientific
>understanding. All could read and glean the necessary information from
>those ancient writings. Gordon
Not even close. The Bible is wrong when it comes to science.
|
