Evidence for Evolution

[Thing]

(Barbarian offers to show more transitional forms of cynodont therapsids)

Hmm… I know almost nothing at all about fossil flamingos, (interesting name, Presbyornis “old bird”)

But, I know a bit about the origin of Phenocopteris plasticus. Learn about it here:
geocities.com/neander97/features/flamingo-C.html

Oh, and if you’re determined to worry about fossil flamingos, try this:
sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Paleobiology/pdf_hi/SCtP-0062.pdf

Pages 9 and 10.

And while a backwards-operating knee would be a challenge for evolutionary theory, in the absence of evidence for a rotation at the hip, never fear; the “knee” of the flamingo is really the ankle; the knee is further up, on the relatively shortened femur.

http://www.geocities.com/neander97/features/flamingos/Flamingos-stop.gif

Very informative. But its not really Phenocopteris plasticus or even charlie the duck that got my interest. Its just the flamingo nesting sites around fossil lake. Why? - you say, and well may you ask. Its - because no-one will tell me. And I cannot find out! Why the secrecy?..
You never know, it might just be important to know the duration of nesting times on that primitive shore and just exactly how many nesting site layers are there in 160 meters of vertical rock.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I thought that Sungenis had an answer for all of these arguments; that is to say that physical models could be constructed either way. The gyroscope effect of the moving universe handles your tides and Barbarian’s equatorial launch boost. I don’t say that heliocentrism doesn’t work, and isn’t “'more likely” based on Newton’s physics, but it isn’t impossible to explain it the other way,

It doesn’t handle the tides. Why does the rotation of the universe seem to slow down and speed up with the tides?

Isn’t observing what God did do (and retrospectively attributing it to Him) as valid (logically) as looking at what is and ascribing it to evolution?

It’s as valid logically. It’s not as valid scientifically.

I’ve seen models with a very high R squared value that had no practical relevance in the end. Been driving us crazy trying to measure nitrate concentration using ion specific electron probes. You really have to understand the significance of all the variables.

You do, yes. However a model with more degrees of freedom and the same mean-squared error is always preferred to one with less. You don’t just willy-nilly add in covariates. You have to justify their inclusion by a sufficient increase in the goodness of fit.

That he could have was my only point. As to how well it works, good point, but now you’re arguing as “non-scientifically” as I am. Of course I like it better. Hey, hey made some of us near sighted. Who’s to know why?

I’m still arguing from the basis of likelihood of the data.

God didn’t make us near-sighted, nor did He create us with Down’s syndrome. These things arise from contingent processes in a non-perfect world. Theologians would call it His permissive will.

So then God put in motion, to work out to a particular end?

You know human babies especially are so frail. It seems to me we had to start out whole and be taught from the beginning. We really aren’t well suited to this natural world.

And why aren’t we well suited to it? Evolution has an answer because it puts constraints on how we could be.

 

[mapleoak]

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/Images/Cynognathidae1.gif
Picture of Cynognathus skull from palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/410.300.html.

rossum

Yet another fully functional creature that once lived some point in time. This type of thing does little to convince anyone that this animal was derived and developed from something preceding it nor that it developed into another creature.
It is also interesting how domesticated animals, after all these years haven’t developed into totally different creatures. Their needs, abilities, and survival criteria are influenced by the barn yard management and are subject to totally different environmental conditions than their wild counterparts. Yet a horse remains a horse, a cow a cow, and a sheep remains a sheep.

It would be a pretty old textbook you were using; recapitulation was refuted in the 1800s.

And tomorrow your textbook will also be pretty old, outdated, and refuted.

True. But the scientific question is what is more likely based on the data. It’s also possible we were created by space aliens.

No it isn’t possible. That would be a contradiction of Church teaching.

God could also have created everyone last Tuesday with intact memories so as to have only the appearance of history

No He couldn’t because that would be to deny the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Resurrection, which occured at a definite point in time.

 

[rossum]

Yet another fully functional creature that once lived some point in time.

Every transitional is a fully functional organism. If it were not then it could not survive long enough to reproduce. Every one of yout ancestors back to the very first lived long enough to reproduce. There is not organism in your chain of ancestors that failed to reproduce - they were all “fully functional”.

This type of thing does little to convince anyone that this animal was derived and developed from something preceding it nor that it developed into another creature.

Are you identical to your parents? No, you are similar but not identical - at the very least you are a different sex to one of your parents. Similarly, this animal was different to its parents. You are not the same as your children, they are different from you. Similarly this animal was different from its cubs. Individual organisms do not change, populations change over time. Cynognathus is a snapshot of what a population looked like at one time. Over time that population (or one very like it) changed and became something that we would classify as a mammal. It is part of a series, but I did not have space to post pictures of all the skulls we have. I can show a series of jawbones:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Cynognathus is part of a series, and we have fossils of a reasonable number of members of the series.

It is also interesting how domesticated animals, after all these years haven’t developed into totally different creatures. Their needs, abilities, and survival criteria are influenced by the barn yard management and are subject to totally different environmental conditions than their wild counterparts. Yet a horse remains a horse, a cow a cow, and a sheep remains a sheep.

You misunderstand the nature of the nested hierarchy. We are descended from a small left-right symmetric worm - a bilaterian. We are still classified as a bilaterian because we still have the characteristics of bilateralia. We are still left-right symmetric and we still have a three-layered embryo. Sheep will always be sheep, but wild sheep and domestic sheep are different. Similarly wild corn and domestic corn are different. Wild horses have 66 chromosomes while domesticated horses only have 64. There are differences, it is just that we use the same word “sheep” to describe a number of different species. Some wild sheep are closer to our domestic goats than to our domestic sheep.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on the assertion that recapitulation was in a textbook:
It would be a pretty old textbook you were using; recapitulation was refuted in the 1800s.

And tomorrow your textbook will also be pretty old, outdated, and refuted.

It’s a common complaint that science’s habit of modifying theories to fit new evidence is somehow “cheating.”

But it’s a very realistic and effective way of continuing to learn about the universe. While Haeckel’s theory is gone, it’s good to note that Darwin’s four basic predictions of evolution are still valid.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Very informative. But its not really Phenocopteris plasticus or even charlie the duck that got my interest. Its just the flamingo nesting sites around fossil lake. Why? - you say, and well may you ask. Its - because no-one will tell me. And I cannot find out! Why the secrecy?..
You never know, it might just be important to know the duration of nesting times on that primitive shore and just exactly how many nesting site layers are there in 160 meters of vertical rock.

Sounds like an interesting question. Do you have any specifics?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I thought that Sungenis had an answer for all of these arguments; that is to say that physical models could be constructed either way. The gyroscope effect of the moving universe handles your tides and Barbarian’s equatorial launch boost.

Sounds…remarkable. Let’s see your figures on that one.

I don’t say that heliocentrism doesn’t work, and isn’t “'more likely” based on Newton’s physics, but it isn’t impossible to explain it the other way,

For example, one can hypothesize a “gyroscopic effect” or “geocentrism fairies.” However, parsimony dictates that unknown effects and magic are not good answers.

 

[buffalo]

As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

.

The appendix serves as a repository for good bacteria.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Here is my view on this.

If we read what’s written in Job, it clearly describes two types of dinasaurs, like they are common place, that they lived at the same time as man, yet scientists insist that this is not true, this stuff is literally written down for all to read, and was done so long before the concept of evolution was even thought up.

Now, here is my argument that can be tested “scientifically” take two fish from the petstore, make sure they are young so have plenty of time to grow. Place one in a 10 gallon tank, the other in a 20 gallon tank. Both fish should be of the same age and exactly the same species. The one in the smaller tank will be smaller then the one in the larger one, it always will be smaller, there is no reason for it since it’s of the same gentic make up.

Now, what this does is prove that they are pre-destined to adapt to the differing enviroments, that there is a divine hand in the original formation of their gentic code, evolutionists always point out how species change over thousands and millions of years, how can this happen within one fishes life span according to them then? You look at the vast diversity of life on this planet, some of these creatures are so very specialized, to such extreem levels, there is just no way it could be random chance, for the earth, and the universe for that matter simply did not exist long enough according to mainstream science to accomodate those odds.

Where the main argument lies is in regards to random odds or divine intervention from the beginning, that God pre-programmed the genetic code for all living things upon their very creation, knowing full well they are to adapt to the changing enviroment, for if he didn’t, most, if not all species would go extinct everytime the planet changed it’s weather and enviromental patterns.

We go back to the fish tank experiement, this time we switch the two around, now the smaller one is growing larger then the larger one, and the larger one may even shrink in size to boot. We then compare this to the fossle records, of which I just proved carbon dating has it’s limitations big time, and take note of the big gaps between records. They account for it as that we simply haven’t discovered the missing links, but there are way too many of them for this to happen, the odds are against it from happening on all accounts, the fish experiement proved how these gaps, or leaps forward occure.

We then can open up a whole new avenue of genetic science, having a new understanding that there is more written into the genetic code of all things then previously known, that there are secrets hidden within them only God knows about because he programmed them in, in the first place. We are missing out on a whole new world of science entirely due to the backwards, moderan day observation of the fossle records, thinking that genetic code evolves, when it’s not changing it’s nature, it’s simply showing different traits based upon the enviromental conditions that exist at the time of the living things existance.

You can back this up with the creatures that formed into one pattern, or design, and never changed from that form, not needing to since they reached the optimal stage of growth’/pattern, or I hate to use this word, evolution. Now, according to evolution itself, how it’s traditionally thought of, wouldn’t these creatures be forced to change simply over time just like with the rest of the species? Why wouldn’t they simply evolve into different creatures to fill up the expanding nitches that exist? Afterall, that’s how it’s supposed to work with traditional thinking. You then look to species that are not native to one particular area, and when introduced to them, hae devastating results to the ecosystem. Shouldn’t there already have been some creature or plant in place to keep everything in check regardless already? Why would one creature/plant have such a huge advantage in that type of a scenereo? It’s because natural selection is flawed, there are nitches not yet filled in, in those particular areas, yet things remain balanced regardless. Again, more intellegent design at play here.

So, yeah, I have something to counter those that are against creationism and know the flaw’s with evolution, so there is something to counter with these guys and not look like I’m coming from the dark ages…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

The appendix serves as a repository for good bacteria.

Hardly. It often becomes infected with bad ones, and when it bursts will cause a fatal peritonitis unless quickly removed. The large intestine maintains a large culture of useful bacteria, and people without an appendix do not lack for them.

The reason it often becomes infected is that it is relatively small and can easily be blocked. In other animals, it is larger and less likely to do so.

But as you learned, the reason it is vestigial is that it no longer serves the original function.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

Hardly. It often becomes infected with bad ones, and when it bursts will cause a fatal peritonitis unless quickly removed. The large intestine maintains a large culture of useful bacteria, and people without an appendix do not lack for them.

The reason it often becomes infected is that it is relatively small and can easily be blocked. In other animals, it is larger and less likely to do so.

But as you learned, the reason it is vestigial is that it no longer serves the original function.

And exactly what function do you think it “was” for? Why would something evolve an entire organ, then decide it was no longer needed? It makes not sense at all, unless it’s pre-defined from the creator to have some function that we presently don’t know about, or need yet, or have needed.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If we read what’s written in Job, it clearly describes two types of dinasaurs, like they are common place, that they lived at the same time as man, yet scientists insist that this is not true, this stuff is literally written down for all to read, and was done so long before the concept of evolution was even thought up.

Odd that no one else thought to mention them. And they aren’t dinosaurs. Reptiles to not have external testes, yet the description specifically mentions them.

Now, here is my argument that can be tested “scientifically” take two fish from the petstore, make sure they are young so have plenty of time to grow. Place one in a 10 gallon tank, the other in a 20 gallon tank. Both fish should be of the same age and exactly the same species. The one in the smaller tank will be smaller then the one in the larger one, it always will be smaller, there is no reason for it since it’s of the same gentic make up.

It’s the way living things work. Environment can affect growth. No suprise there.

Now, what this does is prove that they are pre-destined to adapt to the differing enviroments, that there is a divine hand in the original formation of their gentic code,

Evidence is that such an adaptation is useful, and therefore evolves. God’s hand is in every particle of everything in the physical universe, but He acts this out in a consistent and predictable way. It’s why we can do science.

evolutionists always point out how species change over thousands and millions of years, how can this happen within one fishes life span according to them then?

It doesn’t. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. It doesn’t happen to individuals.

You look at the vast diversity of life on this planet, some of these creatures are so very specialized, to such extreem levels, there is just no way it could be random chance,

Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t by chance.

We then compare this to the fossle records, of which I just proved carbon dating has it’s limitations big time,

As you learned earlier, your beliefs about C-14 dating were misunderstandings about the way it works.

Now, according to evolution itself, how it’s traditionally thought of, wouldn’t these creatures be forced to change simply over time just like with the rest of the species? Why wouldn’t they simply evolve into different creatures to fill up the expanding nitches that exist?

That’s what we observe, yes. But populations evolve. Individuals don’t.

Afterall, that’s how it’s supposed to work with traditional thinking. You then look to species that are not native to one particular area, and when introduced to them, hae devastating results to the ecosystem. Shouldn’t there already have been some creature or plant in place to keep everything in check regardless already?

If it was designed, it should be so. But it’s evolved, so it has to happen gradually.

And that’s what we see happen.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that the appendix is vestigial in humans (no longer has the original function)

And exactly what function do you think it “was” for?

Digestion. In some primates, the caecum is quite large, and the appendix absent or nearly so. These are primates whose diet is primarily vegetation, and they need that enlarged caecum to properly digest leaves, grass, etc. We don’t, and it is accordingly quite small.

 

[Brian_Millar]

We still traditionally are designed to have similar diets to primates, be it, with our abilities for more rich of a venue because of our big brains. Your logic here is going in circles, you still assume too much, such as the nature of dinasours for example. Some say they were warm blooded and some even had feathers instead of scales. There is too much science hasn’t proven with even their own discoveries to assume they have the difinitiave answers for all things, which means you are making speculation and calling it a fact.

You are still not even willing to entertain the concept, that all things may have been created whole, as is from the beginning, and that all we can do as man is observe what God has set forth from the beginning. We are only looking onto the outside, trying to make sense of it all and trying to formulate some theory that seems plausable. The problem with this, is that too many “theories” have been disproven regardless of how accepted they are in mainstream science. I take scientific understanding in line with the times we live in, knowing full well, centuries from now, the community will look back at what we think we know and laugh. Look to history as to what was supposed to be “cutting edge” of the times, and we too laugh in the process, knowing what we do now.

My position is one of scientific advancement, and the accumulation of knowledge without being held back by what’s considered mainstream. I have another field that I’ve been researching and experiementing with for 28 years, and still, I’m largely alone with my theories. The difference here is, I have a working model in the physical real world, those that tell me it’s not possible, or not logical refuse to even look at my perspective since again, like evolution, they are stuck with an outdated understanding of things, which means we are held back.

There is a movie Ben Stein created, it’s due to release soon, and he clearly explains that if you are a scientist and you do not believe in darwinism, that you are ostrasized from the scientific community, you are denied grants and denied jobs, especially at univerisities. This is pretty much the norm as to our so called “open minded” scientific community. The point I’m making here, we are holding ourselves back because we refuse to explore all options and perspectives, we are looking at things with tunnel vision and this is the reason why things progress so slowly and why things we considered upsurd now, was perfectly accepted in it’s day.

 

[reggieM]

We still traditionally are designed to have similar diets to primates, be it, with our abilities for more rich of a venue because of our big brains. Your logic here is going in circles, you still assume too much, such as the nature of dinasours for example. Some say they were warm blooded and some even had feathers instead of scales. There is too much science hasn’t proven with even their own discoveries to assume they have the difinitiave answers for all things, which means you are making speculation and calling it a fact.

You are still not even willing to entertain the concept, that all things may have been created whole, as is from the beginning, and that all we can do as man is observe what God has set forth from the beginning. We are only looking onto the outside, trying to make sense of it all and trying to formulate some theory that seems plausable. The problem with this, is that too many “theories” have been disproven regardless of how accepted they are in mainstream science. I take scientific understanding in line with the times we live in, knowing full well, centuries from now, the community will look back at what we think we know and laugh. Look to history as to what was supposed to be “cutting edge” of the times, and we too laugh in the process, knowing what we do now.

My position is one of scientific advancement, and the accumulation of knowledge without being held back by what’s considered mainstream. I have another field that I’ve been researching and experiementing with for 28 years, and still, I’m largely alone with my theories. The difference here is, I have a working model in the physical real world, those that tell me it’s not possible, or not logical refuse to even look at my perspective since again, like evolution, they are stuck with an outdated understanding of things, which means we are held back.

There is a movie Ben Stein created, it’s due to release soon, and he clearly explains that if you are a scientist and you do not believe in darwinism, that you are ostrasized from the scientific community, you are denied grants and denied jobs, especially at univerisities. This is pretty much the norm as to our so called “open minded” scientific community. The point I’m making here, we are holding ourselves back because we refuse to explore all options and perspectives, we are looking at things with tunnel vision and this is the reason why things progress so slowly and why things we considered upsurd now, was perfectly accepted in it’s day.

All good points and I agree.

I notice that you’re a new member. Don’t let the Catholic Darwinists here discourage your investigations on this topic.

 

[mulligan59]

It doesn’t handle the tides. Why does the rotation of the universe seem to slow down and speed up with the tides?

I didn’t know it did. You’re apparently saying that the world slows down and speeds up with them? I thought it was the moon.

It’s as valid logically. It’s not as valid scientifically.

Says you. But science has to first be logical for its conclusions to be useful.

You do, yes. However a model with more degrees of freedom and the same mean-squared error is always preferred to one with less. You don’t just willy-nilly add in covariates. You have to justify their inclusion by a sufficient increase in the goodness of fit.

OK. I’ll agree that statistical probabilities can be a dangerous thing from which to draw conclusions. Of course you don’t willy nilly add in covariates. The trick is to know which covariates that might be influencing your result are unaccounted for or indeed unknown.

I’m still arguing from the basis of likelihood of the data.

No, you’re thinking for God. Otherwise you can’t frame a notion of likelihood.

God didn’t make us near-sighted, nor did He create us with Down’s syndrome. These things arise from contingent processes in a non-perfect world. Theologians would call it His permissive will.

Christ said that a swallow doesn’t fall from the sky which escapes his attention. If He “makes” me nearsighted (and by the way I’m not) or if He allows me to remain nearsighted, isn’t this the distinction without a difference?

And why aren’t we well suited to it? Evolution has an answer because it puts constraints on how we could be.

Huh? Maybe I’m stupid here. Try spending a night naked in the woods, not even in the dead of winter, but perhaps spring. My cognitively challenged, elderly beagle would fair better than I. But we evolved because of survival of the fittest? This is a simple example of why it doesn;t work for me.

 

[mapleoak]

Are you identical to your parents? No, you are similar but not identical - at the very least you are a different sex to one of your parents. Similarly, this animal was different to its parents. You are not the same as your children, they are different from you.

But after hundreds and thousands of generations, we don’t see races of people with three arms and extra elbows.

Similarly this animal was different from its cubs. Individual organisms do not change, populations change over time. Cynognathus is a snapshot of what a population looked like at one time. Over time that population (or one very like it) changed and became something that we would classify as a mammal.

But it can’t account for why a platypus was smarter than than the animal it is puported to be descended from.

You misunderstand the nature of the nested hierarchy. We are descended from a small left-right symmetric worm

Now that is funny.

Sorry, it just is. No offense.

 

[Brian_Millar]

All good points and I agree.

I notice that you’re a new member. Don’t let the Catholic Darwinists here discourage your investigations on this topic.

Thanks, I’m finding when you look to scientific evidence correlated to our modern understandings in the bible, things really start to make sense as to what God’s words are about in regards to things like this. That we had the knowledge long before it was “discovered” it’s only up to us to read what it has to say, and with the case of the dinasaurs, I’m rather floored we have the biblical reference long before the theory of evolution was even created, much less our undersanding from the fossle records that these creatures existed.

I guess it’s because I’ve gone toe to toe with many athiests, and they always bring up things like this, trying to make us Christians look bad, or backwards, when it’s in fact, the other way around. In this case, the starting point comes from the very beginning, and it’s a yes or no answer, did God “create” man or not, plain and simple, it sais nothing about did God evolve man from a single cell organism, and it’s clearly stated how man is not the same as the animals, that we were “created” in his image, if we were merely evolved apes, he wouldn’t make that distinction.

 

[mapleoak]

Thanks, I’m finding when you look to scientific evidence correlated to our modern understandings in the bible, things really start to make sense as to what God’s words are about in regards to things like this. That we had the knowledge long before it was “discovered” it’s only up to us to read what it has to say, and with the case of the dinasaurs, I’m rather floored we have the biblical reference long before the theory of evolution was even created, much less our undersanding from the fossle records that these creatures existed.

The more and more I have studied evolution, the more and more doubtful and contradictory it became.

I guess it’s because I’ve gone toe to toe with many athiests, and they always bring up things like this, trying to make us Christians look bad, or backwards, when it’s in fact, the other way around. In this case, the starting point comes from the very beginning, and it’s a yes or no answer, did God “create” man or not, plain and simple, it sais nothing about did God evolve man from a single cell organism, and it’s clearly stated how man is not the same as the animals, that we were “created” in his image, if we were merely evolved apes, he wouldn’t make that distinction.

What about the worm?

 

[Nullasalus]

it sais nothing about did God evolve man from a single cell organism, and it’s clearly stated how man is not the same as the animals, that we were “created” in his image, if we were merely evolved apes, he wouldn’t make that distinction.

Frankly, I would think it would be stated clearly how man is not the same as the animals and created in His image especially in an evolution scenario.

We’re not ‘merely evolved apes’ even if evolution is utterly true. The distinction between man and ape has nothing to do with biological ancestry, and everything to do with our rational faculties, our soul (itself a tough thing to define), our capabilities, and our destiny.

If we took the creation stories literally, our last ancestor would be earth. Mud/clay. If that does not impugn on us why would our evolution from a primate ancestor? To say ‘we’re merely molded dirt’ would be to miss the point every bit as much as ‘we’re merely evolved primates’.