• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Evolution or Creation?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
lvbuckeye;1455679; said:
let's see, take the Cambrian explosion for example. numerous phyla, appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no precursory forms, which maintain stasis, and with no transitional forms. the fossil record is so incomplete (from a Darwinian perspective) that evolutionists had to invent punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it away.
Click to expand...
I have never understood this assertion. There have been many "transitional forms" found in the fossil record. The best-known is probably Archaeopteryx: Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lvbuckeye;1455679; said:
it's not observable. it's not testable. it's not falsifiable. it's not science.
Click to expand...
1. It (evolution) is observable, most directly via the fossil record.

2. It is testable, and in fact some neat genomic research has been done on testing evolution through reversing it via genetic manipulation: To Test Evolution, Press the 'Undo' Button - The New York Times

3. What "falsifiability" is, I don't understand, so I can't respond.

4. Evolutionary science clearly abides by the following definition of the scientific method:

scientific method

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses ? generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.

The American Heritage? New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright ? 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1456808; said:
Max:

What makes something a transitional form instead of say an animal all its own? I've never asked nor understood the characterization.
Click to expand...
I think I will leave the answer to this up to the Creationist wing, since it's not my term. I guess it means a critter that transitions from one kingdom, phylum or class to another, but perhaps lv or buckeyegrad will chime in to enlighten us.
 
Upvote 0
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin's finches
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.

Conducted by Sarah Voytek, Ph.D., a recent graduate of the Scripps Research Kellogg School of Science and Technology, the work is intended to advance understanding of Darwinian evolution. Using molecules rather than living species offers a robust way to do this because it allows the forces of evolution to work over the course of mere days, with a trillion molecules in a test tube replicating every few minutes.
...
For several years, Joyce has been experimenting with a particular type of enzymatic RNA molecule that can continuously evolve in the test tube. The basis of this evolution comes from the fact that each time one of the molecules replicates, there is a chance it will mutate — typically about once per round of replication — so the population can acquire new traits over time.

Two years ago, Voytek managed to develop a second, unrelated enzymatic RNA molecule that also can continuously evolve. This allowed her to set the two RNAs in evolutionary motion within the same pot, forcing them to compete for common resources, just like two species of finches on an island in the Galapagos.

In the new study, the key resource or "food" was a supply of molecules necessary for each RNA's replication. The RNAs will only replicate if they have catalyzed attachment of themselves to these food molecules. So long as the RNAs have ample food, they will replicate, and as they replicate, they will mutate. Over time, as these mutations accumulate, new forms emerge — some fitter than others.

When Voytek and Joyce pitted the two RNA molecules in a head-to-head competition for a single food source, they found that the molecules that were better adapted to use a particular food won out. The less fit RNA disappeared over time. Then they placed the two RNA molecules together in a pot with five different food sources, none of which they had encountered previously. At the beginning of the experiment each RNA could utilize all five types of food — but none of these were utilized particularly well. After hundreds of generations of evolution, however, the two molecules each became independently adapted to use a different one of the five food sources. Their preferences were mutually exclusive — each highly preferred its own food source and shunned the other molecule's food source.

In the process, the molecules evolved different evolutionary approaches to achieving their ends. One became super efficient at gobbling up its food, doing so at a rate that was about a hundred times faster than the other. The other was slower at acquiring food, but produced about three times more progeny per generation. These are both examples of classic evolutionary strategies for survival, says Joyce.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
The evidence supporting evolution keeps on growing.....

The discovery of an incredibly well preserved transitional fossil was announced today linking prosimians with anthropoids. A nearly complete fossil like this is a once in a lifetime find and is priceless in the world of paleontology.

Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates? 'Extraordinary' Fossil Is 47 Million Years Old
Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates? 'Extraordinary' Fossil Is 47 Million Years Old

ScienceDaily (May 19, 2009) ? Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

Known as ?Ida,? the fossil is a transitional species ? it shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans). At 95% complete, the fossil provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of any Eocene primate so far discovered.
.
.
.
090519104643-large.jpg

.
.
.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1469039; said:
Mostly yawn, but I'm really supposed to believe that a 57 million year old fossil would have soft tissue content (stomach content)?
Click to expand...
Well if you can't recognize the significance of this find then I'm not sure if you really understand how rare fossils are to begin with, and how extremely rare nearly complete individuals are. And this is one of those "missing link" species that Creationists say don't exist. And it's 47 million years old, not 57. And the soft body outline was preserved and internal stomach contents were fossilized, kind of like what happens when leaves are fossilzed:
080211-leaf-fossil-vmed-3p.widec.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus said:
Well if you can't recognize the significance of this find then I'm not sure if you really understand how rare fossils are to begin with, and how extremely rare nearly complete individuals are. And this is one of those "missing link" species that Creationists say don't exist. And it's 47 million years old, not 57. And the soft body outline was preserved and internal stomach contents were fossilized, kind of like what happens when leaves are fossilzed:
080211-leaf-fossil-vmed-3p.widec.jpg
Click to expand...
Tis why I said mostly, obviously the find is pretty cool, but your "missing link" is basically a lemur. I realize its not actually a lemur, but we're not talking to far off. I'm just not impressed with that part.
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;1469047; said:
Well if you can't recognize the significance of this find then I'm not sure if you really understand how rare fossils are to begin with, and how extremely rare nearly complete individuals are. And this is one of those "missing link" species that Creationists say don't exist. And it's 47 million years old, not 57.
Click to expand...

Creationism is a story dependent on faith. Evolution is a collection of fossils whose linkage also relies on faith, of a different sort. The theory of evolution is exactly that - a theory. They can't prove that a 47 million year old fossil links to anything alive today without making some assumptions to bridge the gaps along the way.

The funny thing is, evolutionists can get just as defensive of their beliefs as creationists can about theirs, yet neither crowd can conclusively prove their theories.

The fact is there are certain things that are beyond our comprehension - we don't know. God, religion, creation, evolution - we can't prove any of them. They are all theories based on varying amounts of evidence, yet billions of people across the world refuse to accept that reality. They choose to rely on faith to lead them to the outcome they want to believe is true, be they religious, atheistic, or scientific.

We don't know, and I'm okay with it until someone can conclusively PROVE one of these theories.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1455708; said:
This statement is nothing more than a perfect example of how this thread seems incapable of evolving.

If there was a true conversation occurring here it would evolve in one of two ways: 1) people who disagree, although they would remain in disagreement would at least begin to appreciate the other person's position; 2) the arguments on both sides would become more nuanced and sophisticated. As your post demonstrates, there is neither appreciation in disagreement or sophistication of argument.
Click to expand...

I don't see that at all. Perhaps a non-hyperbole example about a hypothetical discussion between Jeffcat and Gatorubet::paranoid:

I could say, "I think that the Boy Scouts are a good program to mold boys into men with character." Jeffcat could say, "I think that young boys should be killed by pouring acid into their gouged out eye sockets after you rape them - because they are evil robots created by the pumpkin demon sitting on my neighbor's lawnchair..."

Here, we have two seemingly diametrically opposed views. And, while people could say about the two different views, "Well people do disagree, and although they will remain in disagreement they should at least begin to appreciate the other person's position!", it is perhaps more accurate to say that some positions - no matter how sincere or forceful the proposer of those positions - contain content that is so inherently deficient that to even move toward validating the other position is to abandon one's use of logic and reason.

Now, the real rub is to find a situation where everyone agrees on the parameters and definition of what is reason and what is logic. Much of that is culturally based. While military people being, how do I put this, "Not pro-gay" as a demographic, the elite military of the Sacred Band of Thebes would be perplexed at that concept.

So, while I am not trying to be offensive, the Bible as Science crowd has none of my respect intellectually, as it is not only Faith Based origin of the species theory that they attempt to make me swallow, but Faith Based Astronomy, Faith Based Geology, Faith Based Paleontology, Faith Based Physics, etc. that I have to embrace in lieu of the science in those respective disciplines. And it is clear that the large and overwhelming majority of the Great Minds in each of those fields do not have an agenda that compels them to their separate conclusions. The same cannot be said for the religion as science fact crowd. They HAVE to have the conclusion fit the Bible. It is a predicate to any study or experiment that they do. If the Bible is infallible, and the experiment result does not fit the Bible's story (i.e., the earth circles the Sun, unlike the Christian world insisting the Sun goes around the Earth), then the result CANNOT be accepted - at least until the discrepency is resolved by saying the Bible was misinterpreted - for any other possibility is not in accordance with God's word, which is Truth, and therefore the problem must be in the researcher or the data, or in misinterpreting data.

So when the Scientific Method is abandoned, then purported Science is not real Science, but something else. Now, that does not mean that all who think that the world is 6K old are mouth breathing dullards, not at all. I know many very intelligent people who feel that the Bible is the source of all truth, and that the Adam and Eve story is as true as Noah and the Ark and the rest of the stories of the Bible.

It is true that since the source of their belief system is a religious one, then the value we place on one's right to express their beliefs, Freedom of Religion, requires us to at least let that view be heard. But allowing that view to be heard is not the same as "appreciating the other's opinion."

I mean, Orangeroughy has a view about the Fighting Zooker's chances of winning the Big Ten, but that does not mean that anyone who is a student of college football has to lend any credence to his posts and opinions. Many of us think that the value of the content of the Creationsism theory is zilch, nada, naught, zero, Kyle in a Tuxedo, unpossible.

So please, try not to be offended when what you or IV say about science as controlled by Biblical teaching is not taken seriously. The point is not that we have never heard any of this. The point is we have considered it and rejected it totally. In that way we are very similar. If ten slightly different primate carcasses were found in different sediment layers, each one more modern than the other and stretching from five hundred thousand years back until cro magnon, it would not convince you. First, you would think it impossible for the world to be that old. Second, the Bible does not say that we evolved from a common mammal ancestor, so even a thousand monkeys stretching from two million years ago to Richrod's current wife would not move you - and for the same reasons.

So it is OK to hold different beliefs and opinions, but it is really asking too much to ask for the other guy to "appreciate" an opinion that seems palpably ridiculous. And all I can say is, this lack of open mindedness works both ways. But all in all, I'd still rather hear about the other theories than you quit explaining them. Because I also know one of life's true secrets: that it is not unusual for the persons who are the surest and most smug about something to know the least about something, myself included of course. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top