[_ Old Earth _] An analogy for the no transitional fossils arg

[SyntaxVorlon]

If I were to take a polaroid picture of a clock at 12:00 and a YE creationist who argues that transition can't be shown arrives at 12:30, logically she argues that there is no connection can be shown between the clock at noon and the clock now, they are two different things. For this picture to be evidence that the clock was ever at 12:00 there would have to be transitional pictures of the clock.
If I point to pictures of the clock at 10 minute intervals, the creationist who holds to this argument would still argue that no transition has been shown to occur, they could be three separately different clocks created by god for me to photograph and show to her in order to test her faith.
If I point to how the second hand just ticked forward, she'll reply that that's no reason to believe that the pictures we have in any way show that entire half hours can actually go by, that's 'micro-time.'

I defy people who defend the no transitional fossils argument to actually show how this is not analogous to the situation.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

I defy people who defend the no transitional fossils argument to actually show how this is not analogous to the situation.

I like it and I hate analogies. I even hate the word ‘analogies.’ It’s a very good explanation of how such discrepancies and deficiencies could occur and someone had to come up with it. You should be hailed as the prophet of the evolutionary ‘missing link’ revelation. I am genuinely impressed that I heard it first right here.

Too bad it could only serve to propagate the lie that is evolution.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

I defy people who defend the no transitional fossils argument to actually show how this is not analogous to the situation.

I like it and I hate analogies. I even hate the word ‘analogies.’ It’s a very good explanation of how such discrepancies and deficiencies could occur and someone had to come up with it. You should be hailed as the prophet of the evolutionary ‘missing link’ revelation. I am genuinely impressed that I heard it first right here.

Too bad it could only serve to propagate the lie that is evolution.

So you...disagree with clocks telling time on philosophical grounds?

 

[Barbarian]

The analogy remarkable for its clarity, but it's hardly a new argument. Syntax just found a way to show it so simply that the logic cannot be denied.

Nice work, Syntax.

 

[Asimov]

Too bad it could only serve to propagate the lie that is evolution.

Which you have so adequately and logically destroyed.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

So you...disagree with clocks telling time on philosophical grounds?

I don’t have a problem with clocks telling time. On further thought given to your analogy, I would say that at 12:30 you may be able to convince me that the clock actually said 12:00 thirty minutes ago, and the picture of the clock is an accurate representation of the earlier clock, yet at a different phase, but you are trying to say the picture of the clock was taken at 12:00 some 50,000,000 years ago and it’s still ticking. Not only that but you want me to believe that the clock is accurate even though every clock in your house tells a different time. And you probably want me to believe that your clock assembled itself from highly specialized spoons and forks that evolved from pins and needles without the aid of a clockmaker. Heh heh…sorry… I couldn’t resist… that is what happens to all my analogies and that’s why I hate them. :wink:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

So you...disagree with clocks telling time on philosophical grounds?

I don’t have a problem with clocks telling time. On further thought given to your analogy, I would say that at 12:30 you may be able to convince me that the clock actually said 12:00 thirty minutes ago, and the picture of the clock is an accurate representation of the earlier clock, yet at a different phase, but you are trying to say the picture of the clock was taken at 12:00 some 50,000,000 years ago and it’s still ticking. Not only that but you want me to believe that the clock is accurate even though every clock in your house tells a different time.

How is this analogous? Are you positing that there are serious discrepencies in the geologic and fossil record that show things happening at vastly different times?

And you probably want me to believe that your clock assembled itself from highly specialized spoons and forks that evolved from pins and needles without the aid of a clockmaker. Heh heh…sorry… I couldn’t resist… that is what happens to all my analogies and that’s why I hate them. :wink:

Yes, you obviously don't get it at all. The analogy is with how creationists who posit that there are no transitional fossils approach the fossil record. They are being skeptical well past the point of reasonable doubts about the general meaning of the entire thing.
The fact of the matter is that the clock on the wall did say 12:00 30 minutes ago, we have proof that it did. But creationists who argue along these lines will become blue in the face before they'll admit that it's the same clock that we're looking at. They'll also argue that the second hand ticking doesn't show that the clock could even go from being 12:00 to 12:30.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Oh, and just to clarify, this is an argument that was first made by one Wicked Pilot, and I did ask to use this on this board.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Yes, you obviously don't get it at all. The analogy is with how creationists who posit that there are no transitional fossils approach the fossil record. They are being skeptical well past the point of reasonable doubts about the general meaning of the entire thing.
The fact of the matter is that the clock on the wall did say 12:00 30 minutes ago, we have proof that it did. But creationists who argue along these lines will become blue in the face before they'll admit that it's the same clock that we're looking at. They'll also argue that the second hand ticking doesn't show that the clock could even go from being 12:00 to 12:30.

I do get it but I wanted to show why I hate analogies. No matter how carefully you construct one, someone can twist it inside out and take it to another point you were not even talking about. By the time you untangle it, it’s always way past midnight. :wink:

As for the transitional fossils, I don’t expect you will find a whole lot of them anyway since I believe that if there have been transitions between what we call kinds today, it happened in a relatively short period of time, say, hundreds of years, not millions. The changes are natural built-in characteristics that are accentuated until a new species has developed, caused by separations in the populations of the species. Evolution actually helps explain the lesser number of ‘kinds’ taken on the ark. I’m not so much against evolution as a process as I am against evolution as a theory that includes millions of years and excludes God as the designer. I do not see man as part of the evolutionary plan for preserving the animal kingdom nor do I believe we evolved from a common ape like ancestor. All humans living are descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Yes, you obviously don't get it at all. The analogy is with how creationists who posit that there are no transitional fossils approach the fossil record. They are being skeptical well past the point of reasonable doubts about the general meaning of the entire thing.
The fact of the matter is that the clock on the wall did say 12:00 30 minutes ago, we have proof that it did. But creationists who argue along these lines will become blue in the face before they'll admit that it's the same clock that we're looking at. They'll also argue that the second hand ticking doesn't show that the clock could even go from being 12:00 to 12:30.

I do get it but I wanted to show why I hate analogies. No matter how carefully you construct one, someone can twist it inside out and take it to another point you were not even talking about. By the time you untangle it, it’s always way past midnight. :wink:

haha

The point of analogies isn't for people to start working out various and sundry other points that could possibly be extrapolated from a blatant misunderstanding. The point is to give an argument that shows how the logic used by another person is applied by giving another example.

As for the transitional fossils, I don’t expect you will find a whole lot of them anyway since I believe that if there have been transitions between what we call kinds today, it happened in a relatively short period of time, say, hundreds of years, not millions. The changes are natural built-in characteristics that are accentuated until a new species has developed, caused by separations in the populations of the species. Evolution actually helps explain the lesser number of ‘kinds’ taken on the ark. I’m not so much against evolution as a process as I am against evolution as a theory that includes millions of years and excludes God as the designer. I do not see man as part of the evolutionary plan for preserving the animal kingdom nor do I believe we evolved from a common ape like ancestor. All humans living are descendants of Adam and Eve.

HA!!!
Wow, you think evolution can work on a scale of hundreds of years to produce the variety of life we have today AND that genetics can allow two people to begin the human species? You certainly don't understand evolution or genetics, evolution happens to populations, not individuals, it would have to in your cartoon natural history.
The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't exclude god, it's just showing what happened. It doesn't require there to be a god to work, but it doesn't exclude any diety from doing dirty work.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

HA!!!
Wow, you think evolution can work on a scale of hundreds of years to produce the variety of life we have today
.

Was that an argument from incredulity? First, let me assure you I don’t accept evolution of single cells evolving all the way up to apes. As for transitions, I don’t think birds came from dinosaurs. They just are similarly designed. Some birds may have had serrated type bills and some dinosaurs could fly, no doubt. I think God created at least a male and female of the basic kinds of animals and they evolved from there. Birds probably were divided into a few families of each genetic kind, and the same goes for lizards, dogs, cattle, insects, fish, cats, rodents, apes, etc. The evolutionary process was designed to produce species that would continue to display new and varied characteristics by the separation of a small populace from the original generic kind, that were created with the genetic possibilities built in. Naturally it wouldn‘t happen to individuals but by constant interbreeding within an isolated population over the course of a few hundred years. You can take a few thousand years if you want. Animals have a much faster reproduction rate than people. It shouldn’t take long to produce a species that is so specialized that it looks entirely different from it’s cousins on another continent. I would imagine diet and the abundance or lack of food would have some impact as well.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

genetics can allow two people to begin the human species? You certainly don't understand evolution or genetics, evolution happens to populations, not individuals, it would have to in your cartoon natural history.

Actually, if you do the math, the population favors the Noah’s flood scenario. No need to go all the way back to Adam since only 8 survived the flood.


SyntaxVorlon wrote:

The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't exclude god, it's just showing what happened. It doesn't require there to be a god to work, but it doesn't exclude any diety from doing dirty work

Well, it’s always convenient to have a someone with big shoulders to blame all the evil of the world on, isn't it?

 

[Asimov]

so do the math, show us.

 

[unred typo]

No problem. I'd be happy to. I do own a calculator and if I don't get too dyslexic, I can probably type that up for you. The current population of the world is somewhere around 6,439,732,376. Starting with Noah’s 3 sons and their wives, and calculating 4 children born to each couple and reducing that by ¼ to allow for premature death before producing offspring, that gave me an average of 3 surviving children. That sounded like a reasonable expectation for an average family. Then I simply multiplied until I came up to the 6 billion figures. It was too many too fast so I went back and whacked off a third of the populace every 5 generations. I still came up with more than the current population in less than 2400 years even figuring a hundred years for a generation, which I think is more than adequate. So you can monkey with the figures all you want but I think I have shown it was not only consistent with the Bible’s account but that a starting point of a million years ago will be quite ridiculous. Would you like to multiply those numbers for us?
Here are my figures if you would like to check them and your calculator is out of batteries:
3x3=9
9 x 3 = 27
27 x 3 = 81
81 x 3 = 243
243 x 3 = 729
Adjustment for major catastrophe and the remainder divided into couples:
729 - 243 = 486
486/2 = 243

243 x 3 = 729
729 x 3 = 2,187
2,187 x 3 = 6,561
6,561 x 3 = 19,683
19,683 x 3 = 59,049
Adjustment for major catastrophe and the remainder divided into couples:
59,049 - 19,683 = 39,366
39,366/2 = 19,683

19,683 x 3 = 59,049
59,049 x 3 = 177,147
177,147 x 3 = 531,441
531,441 x 3 = 1,594,323
1,594,323 x 3 = 4,782,969
Adjustment for major catastrophe and the remainder divided into couples:
4,782,969 - 1,594,323 = 3,188,646
3,188,646/2 = 1,594,323

1,594,323 x 3 = 4,782,969
4,782,969 x 3 = 14,348,907
14,348,907 x 3 = 43,046,721
43,046,721 x 3 = 129,140,163
129,140,163 x 3 = 387,420,489
387,420,489 - 129,140,163 = 258,280,326
258,280,326/2 = 129,140,163
129,140,163 x 3 = 387,420,489
387,420,489 x 3 = 1,162,261,467
1,162,261,467 x 3 = 3,486,784,401
3,486,784,401 x 3 = 10,460,353,203 Are we there yet? Oops…over again…maybe Noah’s sons only had 2 children that lived to produce children…. How many did Neanderthal man have and for how long did they inhabit the planet? :-D

 

[Barbarian]

I just used your method and discovered that two flies, mating 3 years ago, should now have progeny whose combined mass outweighs that of the Earth.

I think there's something wrong with your assumptions.

 

[unred typo]

So? The implication was that there would not be enough people starting with just Noah's family a short 4500 years ago. Obviously, there is no problem.

 

[unred typo]

I just used your method and discovered that two flies, mating 3 years ago, should now have progeny whose combined mass outweighs that of the Earth.

I'd like to see your figures.

 

[Asimov]

Interesting....

I noticed that you didn't account for death rate. Considering the average lifespan of the people at the time of 4500 years ago.

 

[Asimov]

A single female fly can have an entire generation of flies in one lay.

It takes a day for maggots to hatch, then 36 hours later the females are ready for mating.

2 flies: 500 eggs

Reduce by 1/4

500-125 = 375 flies per batch.

375/2 = 187 (rounded down)

187*375 = 70,125
70,125*375 = 26,296,875
26,296,875*375 = 9,861,328,125
= 3,697,998,046,875
= 1,386,749,267,578,125

1,386,749,267,578,125 - 462,249,755,859,375 = 924,499,511,718,750

/2= 462,249,755,859,375

Next 5 Gens:
112,326,690,673,828,125 - 37,442,230,224,609,375
=
74884460449218750/2 = 37,442,230,224,609,375

Next 5 Gens:
9098461944580078125 - 3032820648193359375 =

6065641296386718750 Flies

(Mass so far of flies = 72,787,695,556,640 Kg (rounded down)

Mass of a fly: 0.000012 Kg
Mass of the Earth: 597,000,000,000 Kg

 

[unred typo]

Interesting....
I noticed that you didn't account for death rate. Considering the average lifespan of the people at the time of 4500 years ago.

While it is true that Noah’s sons lived to be a couple of hundred years old, the average life span was reduced to 70 by God sometime after the flood. From the time line I made from Jasher, (Excuse the caps, I’m not retyping all those names) SHEM BEGAT ARPHAXAD, ARPHAXAD BEGAT SHELACH, SHELACH BEGAT EBER, EBER BEGAT PELEG, PELEG BEGAT REU, REU BEGAT SERUG, SERUG BEGAT NAHOR, NAHOR BEGAT TERAH who was the father of Abraham. Peleg died at 239 when Abraham was 48 years old. While most of these men were just dying off at the time of Abraham’s birth, I didn’t add them to the population since it was not a factor after the first few centuries anyways. A hundred years is sufficient time to eliminate the previous generation. If you want to change it to fifty, or a hundred and twenty, that would be fine with me. If you reduce the number then you will have to account somehow for the extra people by adding them in to the children and then making some kind of allowance for when they die which is unnecessary for our purposes here. Like I said, you can monkey with the figures all you want, I just wanted to demonstrate how possible it was. Some people seemed to think starting with only 3 couples would not give us the population we have today. I think I have demonstrated that the problem is that we have to kill off all the extras, not scrounge to make up the difference. Good luck doing that for a million years worth of people. :-D

 

[unred typo]

A single female fly can have an entire generation of flies in one lay.
It takes a day for maggots to hatch, then 36 hours later the females are ready for mating.
2 flies: 500 eggs
Reduce by 1/4
500-125 = 375 flies per batch.375/2 = 187 (rounded down) 187*375 = 70,125 70,125*375 = 26,296,875 26,296,875*375 = 9,861,328,125 = 3,697,998,046,875 = 1,386,749,267,578,125 1,386,749,267,578,125 - 462,249,755,859,375 = 924,499,511,718,750 /2= 462,249,755,859,375 Next 5 Gens: 112,326,690,673,828,125 - 37,442,230,224,609,375 = 74884460449218750/2 = 37,442,230,224,609,375 Next 5 Gens:9098461944580078125 - 3032820648193359375 = 6065641296386718750 Flies
(Mass so far of flies = 72,787,695,556,640 Kg (rounded down)
Mass of a fly: 0.000012 Kg
Mass of the Earth: 597,000,000,000 Kg

: I’m sorry I doubted you. That’s amazing. :o I guess it doesn’t work for flies. I think that’s why God made birds that eat their weight in them every day before they can cover the world in fly poop. Makes me marvel at what a fine job He did keeping every little thing in balance and getting the bugs out of our system down here. If birds all got sick of eating flies for a week or two, we’d look like one of the plagues of Egypt, wouldn’t we?

Maybe that’s what happened to your other planets with life possibilities on them. The flies evolved before the birds and no one ate the little buggers and they suffocated out all other life on the planet. :wink: