Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[rossum]

I find the evidence for bone evolution to be very frustrating. They generally describe bones, but not the details of how they evolved.

Then try the evolution of the ear ossicles.

 

[Buzzard3]

So? Or are you claiming that we had already found every single early vertebrate fossil? Evolution says that every living organism except the very first had earlier ancestors. All you have here is a new pair of earlier ancestors which evolution predicted but which had not yet been found. Your sources are lying to you if they told you that these new discoveries were a ‘problem’ for evolution.

Darwinists have long-claimed that the first vertebrates didn’t evolve until the Ordovician Period, and evolved from invertebrate chordates, which appeared about 50 million years earlier in the Lower Cambrian. However, the discovery a few years ago of four different, fully-formed vertebrate organisms in the Lower Cambrian destroys this theory. It also means fully-formed vertebrates appeared suddenly and without any fossil evidence of evolutionary antecedents.

And you think this doesn’t present a problem for Darwinism?

 

[Buzzard3]

Then try the evolution of the ear ossicles .

There is no way to verify what process was responsible for any example of evolution - natural or supernatural.

 

[Buzzard3]

I find the evidence for bone evolution to be very frustrating. They generally describe bones, but not the details of how they evolved.

Darwinists can only guess how anything evolved, and none of those guesses can be tested, which means said guesses don’t even qualify as science. Most of Darwinist folklore is nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-scientific stories.

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Dr. Collin Patterson)

 

[rossum]

And you think this doesn’t present a problem for Darwinism?

No it does not. Science is well aware that it does not have complete information, and has methods to adjust when new information is discovered. Wollemi pines were once thought extinct, then living specimens were discovered. Science merely noted the new information and updated the textbooks.

There is no way to verify what process was responsible for any example of evolution - natural or supernatural.

So you have no evidence that Loki-Trickster is not trying to fool us by creating things just to make it look as if they evolved.

Or do you have ironclad evidence that it was Hanuman, not Loki-Trickster?

Occam’s Razor is a problem for your hypothesis here.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Science is well aware that it does not have complete information, and has methods to adjust when new information is discovered.

And in that light, we can look at the ToE as interesting,but wait for a more convincing theory.

Wollemi pines were once thought extinct, then living specimens were discovered. Science merely noted the new information and updated the textbooks.

That amounts to a complete U turn; and the unmistakable evidence is visible today. The evidence from hundreds or billions of years ago is not in good condition; and it needs lots of assumptions to make the theory work.

Or do you have ironclad evidence that it was Hanuman, not Loki-Trickster?

I can call you Bob or Jill or Bill, that does not change who your are. God the creator of all that is seen and unseen; cannot be changed merely by calling him different names.

Occam’s Razor is a problem for your hypothesis here.

For instance, the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne, in a 2010 paper, deployed Occam’s razor when he suggested that God is the simplest explanation for the universe, because God is a single thing. “ God did it” is certainly simpler to say than “the universe emerged from quantum fluctuations in space-time”

 

[rossum]

And in that light, we can look at the ToE as interesting,but wait for a more convincing theory.

Again, you misunderstand science. It never waits for a better theory. It works with what we currently have. Yes, it will update what we currently have when necessary, but it will always work with what we have.

“Can you build a bridge across this river.”

“No, because a better theory of gravity might turn up in 200 years time.”

If science waited for perfect theories then nothing would ever get done. We already know that our present theory of gravity is not completely correct; a better theory is being worked on. Until that better theory arrives then science sill work with the current theory.

That amounts to a complete U turn;

No. The theory of evolution has always known that species go extinct and that our knowledge of the world is incomplete. No U-turn at all, just a readjustment in the textbooks.

Christianity has made U-turns on killing witches and slavery. A great many human ideas make some U-turns.

because God is a single thing

I thought God was a Trinity, which is a sort of triple thing, not a single thing. The Jewish and Muslim versions could well be singular, but not the Christian version.

 

[stoplooklisten]

…you misunderstand science. It never waits for a better theory. It works with what we currently have. Yes, it will update what we currently have when necessary, but it will always work with what we have.

I do wish that were always true.

When science doesn’t have good evidence for how comets form, it imagines and invents like the imaginary “Oort Cloud” as a source of comets. Comets dissipate as they throw off dry ice and rock dust. Many comets have become extinct.

Science as the search for truth of the ultimate causes of natural phenomenon should not preclude any possible explanation of natural phenomenon. In geology, if the evidence concerning sedimentary layers points towards catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism, then catastrophism should be investigated even if the pattern of catastrophic events resemble something like Noah’s flood.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

When science doesn’t have good evidence for how comets form,

It does, but go off I guess.

it imagines and invents like the imaginary “Oort Cloud”

Which is regularly observed…

Comets dissipate as they throw off dry ice and rock dust. Many comets have become extinct.

And there are a whole lot of comets, which take a long time to fully dissipate.

You really have no idea what you’re talking about. This is pretty basic astronomy.

 

[rossum]

Many comets have become extinct.

How many? How do you know that those comets we only see once are not on 150,000 year orbits? And as Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman pointed out, the Oort Cloud has been observed. The reason your sources argue against its existence is that it defeats their “proof” of a young universe using the assumed lifetime of comets.

if the pattern of catastrophic events resemble something like Noah’s flood.

It has been investigated and it in no way resembles a worldwide flood. We do have evidence of many local floods of many different dates, just as we have evidence of many local deserts and local droughts.

We have absolutely zero evidence of a universal genetic bottleneck sometime in the last 6,000 years affecting all land animal species. Given that lack of evidence than a recent worldwide flood can be ruled out.

Even the evidence of evolution shows that the flood did not happen as described. There has not been enough time for the present number of different species of rats to evolve in the available time. Or is your God surreptitiously speeding up evolution?

 

[stoplooklisten]

stoplooklisten:

it imagines and invents like the imaginary “Oort Cloud”

Which is regularly observed…

The Oort cloud, sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud, first described in 1950 by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 au (0.03 to 3.2 light-years).

Astronomers conjecture that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets.

Source: Oort cloud - Wikipedia

 

[stoplooklisten]

stoplooklisten:

Many comets have become extinct.

How many?

Eight suspected or theoretical extinct comets are listed here: Extinct comet - Wikipedia

The reason your sources argue against its existence is that it defeats their “proof” of a young universe using the assumed lifetime of comets.

How do you know?

Can you read the hearts and minds of “my sources”?

Only Almighty God can read hearts and minds.

“I the LORD search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.” - The Holy Bible, Jeremiah 17:10

 

[stoplooklisten]

Mutation and natural selection will tweak the arrangement to suit the prevailing environment.

That genetic mutations cause genetic diseases like cancer is a known fact.

That genetic mutations cause new types of phyla in plants and animals is an unproven theory.

Cancer is a genetic disease —that is, cancer is caused by certain changes to genes that control the way our cells function, especially how they grow and divide.

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer. It is caused by genetic mutations that can kill quickly.

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

Source: 25 shocking facts about skin cancer

 

[Buzzard3]

Adam is a figure of death for all. Christ is a figure of life for all. Both were real historical persons. Common descent from Adam is affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Common descent from Adam is affirmed in Romans 5:12-14.

I agree with you. I am not a theistic evolutionist – although I accept that life on earth could be millions-billions of years old, I also accept that Adam and Eve were real, historical people and that God created them instantly from “clay” (“clay” refers to inanimate matter, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility that “clay” could be the DNA taken from a pre-existing organism).

The offspring of Adam and Eve did not interbreed with “soul-less” humans … which is the absurd (not to mention, repugnant) claim made by theistic evolutions. Theistic evolutionists - deceived by the pseudo-scientific fairy tale of Darwinism and misled by their own herd-instinct - attempt to somehow squeeze Darwinism into the historical (ie, post-Adam) narrative presented in scripture … and fail miserably.

 

[rossum]

That genetic mutations cause new types of phyla in plants and animals is an unproven theory.

False. Your sources are lying to you again. See Tauber and Tauber (1975) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci. That is observed evidence of speciation caused by three mutations.

Most mutations are neutral, not having any real effect. The majority, but not all, of the rest are deleterious, as with your cancer example. The remaining few are beneficial. Some of those few beneficial mutations can cause speciation. The first observed example was de Vries in 1905. Your sources are 115 years behind the times.

You need to find more up to date sources.

 

[stoplooklisten]

False. Your sources are lying to you again. See Tauber and Tauber (1975) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci . That is observed evidence of speciation caused by three mutations.

Hi @rossum. I am learning some biology from you. Thank you.

I found an abstract at your link but did not find a way to view the article without a subscription. It seems to me that it may be stretching a bit to say that three mutations would cause a new species. A new species within a phyla or type would still be microevolution. A new phyla or type would be another matter.

I do have some new sources in recent months. But, I also think for myself.

 

[rossum]

A new species within a phyla or type would still be microevolution.

No.

To give you a little bit of history. Originally, after Darwin conservative Christianity denied the possibility of evolution. Species were fixed by God and did not change. Hence the Tennessee law against teaching evolution, as in the Scopes Trial.

Eventually the evidence that species changed grew too much to deny, and the conservative Christian position changed. They latched onto the marcoevolution/microevolution difference and allowed that microevolution might happen, but not macroevolution. At that time, the definition was that micro- was within a species and macro- was a new species or higher clade. Hence creationists denied that new species could evolve, equating biological species to Biblical kind.

Since then evidence has been found for the evolution of species, so conservative creationists switched to Biblical kinds, which can now contain more than one species: horses and donkeys for example or dogs and wolves. Some use “kind” in this sense; others use macroevolution to mean evolution between kinds, which is not the scientific definition. The scientific definition has remained unchanged: new species or higher clade.

Macroevolution (scientific definition) has been observed many times. Macroevolution (YEC definition) has never been observed because there is no agreed objective definition for the boundaries between kinds.

The paper I referred to gave three changes, one change altered the camouflage pattern, so the mutant was more suited to a different environment. The other two changes altered the breeding season, which reduced the chance of crossbreeds, which were not well camouflaged in either environment. All three mutations were beneficial, enabling colonisation of a new environment.

 

[o_mlly]

The scientific definition has remained unchanged: new species …

Uhh, at last count, the evos have about 26 different definitions of “species”.

Species Concepts | Scientific American

The species concept “problem” has pervaded for many years and will not be resolved anytime soon, if ever. The problem, of course, being that no two scientists will agree on universal definitions of what the darn things are! Taxonomist are exceptional argumentative and someone will undoubtedly disagree with everything in this article!

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The paper I referred to gave three changes, one change altered the camouflage pattern, so the mutant was more suited to a different environment. The other two changes altered the breeding season, which reduced the chance of crossbreeds, which were not well camouflaged in either environment. All three mutations were beneficial, enabling colonisation of a new environment.

This explains very little. It is just like a black African moving to the UK, the skin colour will change over many generations.

Now if you could explain how fish moving say from the Atlantic to the Pacific; could evolve a skeletal system; that would be of interest.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Now if you could explain how fish moving say from the Atlantic to the Pacific; could evolve a skeletal system; that would be of interest.

Well that would be impossible, because that’s not how skeletons were evolved. Atlantic and Pacific did not exist at that time in history.