Age of the Earth and Evolution

[Dan123]

Of course there isn’t if you automatically dismiss anything that is presented.

Even more so if someone uses their own definition for empirical.

 

[tafan2]

Why is the fossil ecord not empirical evidence?

 

[steve-b]

Measures can be erroneous. I am open to the age of the universe being incorrect based on our current knowledge and methods of dating.

Say some hypothetical alien captured a man who was 50 years old and weighed 175 pounds. After a year, he weighed 176 pounds, and the year after that, 177. If they deduced that the man was 177 years old because he gained a pound per year, obviously they would be incorrect since human beings gain weight at a much faster rate when very young.

Likewise, forces currently unknown to us may have exponentially aged the material universe very quickly at the dawn of creation. In the meantime, the generally accepted age of the natural universe should not be outright rejected by any means, but must be seen within a bigger picture of theological time juxtaposed with natural time.

I’m thinking back to my college yrs back in the 60’s

scientifically speaking, in even current times

When the subject of creation comes up, how often, given all the persuasions within the scientific community, does science even reference God?

 

[Inquiry]

It is. It is even empirical evidence for macro-evolution as @buffalo defined it. It is not empirical evidence for macro-evolution as I’ve seen it defined elsewhere because fossils can’t provide any evidence for how structures develop, only that they exist.

Vagueness of terminology is why these kind of discussions so often go nowhere.

 

[buffalo]

From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution.

Yeah yeah, evo has no direction, however, deleterious changes that
result in loss of function or features and result in extinction is devolution.

 

[buffalo]

It is. It is even empirical evidence for macro-evolution as @buffalo defined it. It is not empirical evidence for macro-evolution as I’ve seen it defined elsewhere because fossils can’t provide any evidence for how structures develop, only that they exist.

Hmmmm - one time historical events do not fall under empirical. When a fossil is attempted to be placed to show a continuous record accurate dating is necessary. It can just as well be placed in a timeline that is showing a loss of a feature. We have a great many fossil frauds and some that have been overturned when we find a fossil that supposedly is older than its ancestor. The fossil record is not neat and orderly as some like to think.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s explore the DNA code for a minute.

We now understand that “junk DNA” is not leftover evo junk.

The DNA is complex and has nested coding which is a hallmark of a designing agent. This was an ID prediction that has turned out to be true. Randomly mutating the nested codes would affect much more than just one function, destroying one of the codes completely.

 

[Inquiry]

Correct. The fossil record is a fundamentally compromised piece of evidence because we are limited to what survived. It is the hardest type of evidence to work with because we can’t guarantee repeatability. It can provide evidence for the existence of a structure, it can sometimes provide limited evidence of the large scale changes that led up to that structure, but it cannot provide evidence of how those changes happened.

However, if you describe macro evolution as just the overall change from molecules to man, well the fossil record does show that changes happened and continued to happen. That’s repeated, observable evidence. You say there’s no evidence but the way you’ve defined your terms there is. That is why you are getting pushback.

 

[buffalo]

Scientific Method – Why is it important?
The scientific method can be divided into two primary categories: (1) empirical science and (2) historical science. Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. It finds its implementation in such disciplines as immunology, rocket science, molecular biology, etc. Historical science involves the interpretation of evidence and the deduction of past occurrences, which is normally based upon an underlying supportive paradigm. Scientific Method

 

[buffalo]

However, if you describe macro evolution as just the overall change from molecules to man, well the fossil record does show that changes happened and continued to happen. That’s repeated, observable evidence. You say there’s no evidence but the way you’ve defined your terms there is. That’s is why you are getting pushback.

I do not argue that the fossil record shows change. The question is how far can you push it. It does not show macro-evolution.

Moving forward to the current time, we can see the results of modern experimentation that is showing the limits of “evolution”. The direction is devolution or degradation.

 

[Inquiry]

Then you need to define macro-evolution more specifically to make it clear that it is not about the change, it is about the form of the change. You’d be better off dropping the overall timeline and focusing on specific developments.

 

[buffalo]

Then you need to define macro-evolution more specifically to make it clear that it is not about the change, it is about the form of the change. You’d be better off dropping the overall timeline and focusing on specific developments.

When asked I replied:

Molecules to man. In other words through blind unguided chance operation greater and greater complexity and new novel features emerge.

how else could one argue this unless trying to fit on a timeline?

 

[PickyPicky]

Molecules to man. In other words through blind unguided chance operation

I think evolutionary biologists usually deal with blind guided chance. By selective process.

 

[rossum]

Lineage splitting (aka speciation) is devolution.

Lineage splitting (aka speciation) is the appearance of a new species derived from an earlier species. That is by definition macroevolution.

Thank you for confirming that your earlier claim about there being no evidence for macroevolution was incorrect. Macroevolution = speciation; speciation = macroevolution. We have ample evidence for macroevolution.

 

[buffalo]

I think evolutionary biologists usually deal with blind guided chance. By selective process.

I will refer you back to the Royal Socisty roundtable audio, when Leland was being asked if natural selection is an intelligent agent?

 

[buffalo]

Lineage splitting (aka speciation) is the appearance of a new species derived from an earlier species. That is by definition macroevolution.

Thank you for confirming that your earlier claim about there being no evidence for macroevolution was incorrect. Macroevolution = speciation; speciation = macroevolution. We have ample evidence for macroevolution.

If we want to agree that this is macro-evoluton that results in loss of function once had without new and novel features or new information, I can be OK with that. Perhaps we agree more than I thought.

 

[rossum]

Molecules to man. In other words through blind unguided chance* operation greater and greater complexity and new novel features emerge. (emphasis added)

Which is where you are incorrect, buffalo. Natural selection is not a chance process. It eliminates deleterious variations and helps spread beneficial variations through the population. The great majority of YEC or ID probability calculations omit the effect of natural selection, and hence do not correctly model evolution. Evolution is a combination or random mutation and natural selection. If you only model random mutation then you are not modelling evolution, because you have omitted half of the process. Hence those calculations are not relevant to evolution.

 

[whatistrue]

Well, if you are just going to throw away accepted terminology and make up your definitions, there is nothing further to say. Speciation doesn’t automatically result in extinction, so your definition doesn’t hold anyway.

ETA: Speciation also does not necessarily mean loss of function or no new features or information.

 

[buffalo]

Which is where you are incorrect, buffalo. Natural selection is not a chance process. It eliminates deleterious variations and helps spread beneficial variations through the population. The great majority of YEC or ID probability calculations omit the effect of natural selection, and hence do not correctly model evolution. Evolution is a combination or random mutation and natural selection. If you only model random mutation then you are not modelling evolution, because you have omitted half of the process. Hence those calculations are not relevant to evolution.

Duh. In the past we thought NS was a creative process and could produce novelty and new function. We now know it is a conservative process, limiting the organism to a limited range of change.

 

[buffalo]

Well, if you are just going to throw away accepted terminology and make up your definitions, there is nothing further to say. Speciation doesn’t automatically result in extinction, so your definition doesn’t hold anyway.

ETA: Speciation also does not necessarily mean loss of function or no new features or information.

Will you be more comfortable with degradation instead of devolution?

Lineage splitting (speciation) results in reporudctive isolation. Not every species goes extinct, but so many do, as their fitness decreases,