[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Adam]

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the Genesis discription of Cosmic Evolution from a beginning which formed the Heavens and all that is now in it, except that the writers did not tag the concept The Big Bang.

Neither our present cosmology nor Genesis tells us why oir even how the appearance of the universe we now observe occurred, only stating the fact that the ancients were wrong thinking it had always been there.

Then we read in Genesis a second act thereafter was to light up the Cosmos with visible light, paralleling what we found to be true.
A Cosmic Dark Age had existed after the Big Bang for 400 million years 8ntil the Stars formed.

The high energy photons in the previous super heated Universe were well above the wave lengths of visible light.

The tale continues to parallel Science in describing the formation of one singular body of water we call the Panthalassic Ocean which surroind just one massive land mass called Rodinia or Pangea, or whatever.

Both science and Genesis tells us the first life appeared and from it the Plant Kingdom came into being, followed second and later by the appearance of Animals and all the members of that kingdom.

Last, man appears.

Whether the priocess used was supernatural magic of evolution seems irrelevent to th two vert similar tales found in two different disciplines, Theology and science.

Forgive me, but who taught you this?

The bible says nothing about "visible light". When God said "let there be light" there wasn't any special provision for only certain types of light.

And your inability or apathy regarding the distinction of Pangea and Rodinia clearly says that you aren't interested in the facts of what happened, not to mention that neither of these were the first land masses. Your concept of a single ocean is not only extremely over-simplictic, it's patently wrong.

And Animals preceded plants. That's a scientific fact. Science does not tell us otherwise.


I'm not really interested in talking about where science and the bible agree unless you get the science right, first. AND the scripture.

 

[spartakis]

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the Genesis discription of Cosmic Evolution from a beginning which formed the Heavens and all that is now in it, except that the writers did not tag the concept The Big Bang.

Neither our present cosmology nor Genesis tells us why oir even how the appearance of the universe we now observe occurred, only stating the fact that the ancients were wrong thinking it had always been there.

Then we read in Genesis a second act thereafter was to light up the Cosmos with visible light, paralleling what we found to be true.
A Cosmic Dark Age had existed after the Big Bang for 400 million years 8ntil the Stars formed.

The high energy photons in the previous super heated Universe were well above the wave lengths of visible light.

The tale continues to parallel Science in describing the formation of one singular body of water we call the Panthalassic Ocean which surroind just one massive land mass called Rodinia or Pangea, or whatever.

Both science and Genesis tells us the first life appeared and from it the Plant Kingdom came into being, followed second and later by the appearance of Animals and all the members of that kingdom.

Last, man appears.

Whether the priocess used was supernatural magic of evolution seems irrelevent to th two vert similar tales found in two different disciplines, Theology and science.

Dave I will post this again for you. Barbarian just ignores it and states evolution does not conflict with the Bible. Well lets take a look.
Genesis/ Evolution
Birds before insects/ Insects millions of years before birds
Bird and fish created simultaneously/ Fish millions of years before birds
vegetation before the sun/ Sun before any life
God made man directly from dust/ Man evolved from ape like creature
Women from mans side/ Evolved simultaneously
Ocean before land/ land before ocean
light before suns and stars/ opposite order
whales before creeping things/ opposite order
death came from sin/ Man came from millions of years of death and suffering.

Could go on and on, but you should get the point. Genesis does not fit into evolution. That is why those that believe in evolution say you can not take the Bible literal. But we know the Bible was meant to be taken literal. Jesus himself says if you can't believe the words of Moses how can you believe him?

 

[Barbarian]

Dave I will post this again for you. Barbarian just ignores it and states evolution does not conflict with the Bible.

If you were honest, you'd admit that I showed you that your literal re-interpretation doesn't hold up. It supposes, for example that there were mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. This is why early Christians concluded it wasn't a literal history.

But we know the Bible was meant to be taken literal.

Christians disagree with you. There have always been some, and when YE was invented by the Seventh-Day adventists, there have been a lot more. But that's very recent. As you know, Spurgeon rejected a young earth, and the creationism presented at the scopes trial, was the non-Adventist, old Earth variety.

Jesus himself says if you can't believe the words of Moses how can you believe him?

It's one reason YE has problems. The "Life ex Nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is contrary to God's word in Genesis.

 

[spartakis]

Polydactyly is surprisingly common in humans, and is the norm in some large dog breeds. It's not genetically determined. Would you like to learn how it works?

Oh that's your excuse 8 to 5 like that.
I believe other evolutionist are still looking for more transitional links. Cause it still don't add up. I won't get to the other issues trying to enjoy my holiday weekend and like I told you before its off topic, not here to discuss the fossil record.

Professor Louis T. More, a vocal evolutionist states, " The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone" ( The dogma of evolution page 160)

As you learned, there is no conflict between Genesis and evolution. Why does it bother you so that God chose to do it this way?

Well that would make God a liar, cause that is not how he said he done it. You calling God a liar? Oh no that's right you just don't believe the Bible as literal word of God. As you have learned many problems with Genesis and evolution.

So you're argument is that protons don't exist because God didn't tell us about them?

There you go putting words and arguments in my mouth again. God told us how he created the earth and everything in it.

I asked a question, and you declined to answer. Are you willing to answer now? I'll ask again, in case you forgot:
So tell me, is Icthyostega a fish or an amphibian, and comparing it to Acanthostega, tell me how you know.

Most likely amphibian. How do you know? I am not here to write a paper on fish fossils. If you would like to read up on it
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html

You wanted a transitional between sharks and more primitive fish. And I gave you one. With a cite.

No I believe we was talking about missing links in the fish fossil record ( in all fossil record) and you told me to pick a fish and you would show me all the links. Still missing a lot links for the shark, or should I wait for you to show me?

Of course they believed in creation. But YE creationism hadn't been invented yet, so they weren't YE creationists. Even if some of them thought the world was young. Historically, YE wasn't the norm. The great Baptist minister Charles Spurgeon acknowledged the fact:

"In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion."
-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Sermon delivered on Sunday, June 17, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel.

They believed in young earth and creation. That would be young earth creation would it not. And like I said I provided links proving this back to 160AD. Also we have went over the Spurgeon already. And the links I provided even stated in that same time frame is where people stopped believing in young earth creation because of geology finds. We have went over all this already, how much time can you waste of every body going over this again.

Sir Gavin says that there is no doubt whatever that the forelimb in the newt and the lizard and the arm of man are strictly homologous,inherited with modification from the pectoral fin of fishes 500 million years ago. The elbow and wrist joints are identical,and their hands end in five fingers. The bones and muscles also correspond. The shock comes when a careful study of their comparative anatomy reveals that they do not occupy the same positions in the body. "The limbs of vertebrates are always formed from material that is contributed from several adjacent segments of the trunk. In the newt,the forelimb is formed from trunk segments 2,3,4,and 5; in the lizard from 6,7,8,and 9; in man from trunk segments 13 to 18 inclusive." He explains how this is determined embryologically and anatomically.

Not surprising. The addition or deletion of body segments in chordates is well-known. Humans and horses, for example, may have one, giving them an extra pair of ribs. What's even more interesting, is the sorting of this order fits the evolutionary tree derived from several other sources of information. I'm surprised people are still trotting out that old misunderstanding.

DeBeer's stories were written in the early 70s, when we couldn't directly test for genes. As I mentioned before, much of this can be made clear to you, if you'd read something a bit more up to date:
Carroll, Sean B. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: W. W. Norton

One thing genetic analysis has demonstrated, is that tissues arise from generalized embyonic structures through signalling chemicals. If the chemical is expressed in a different location, then the expected structure develops from there.



DeBeers assumed that they weren't. But recent research, showing the actual genes involved, demonstrates that they do.

It might help you, if you looked at some of the research in the last twenty or thirty years. What was a mystery in the Nixon administration, is often clearly understood today. Just saying...

Read Carroll's book and come on back, and we'll talk about it.

Well like I said I was at work and didn't have time to explain problems with homology trying to prove evolution so I found some quick articles for you. Didn't have time to read that much of them first. Don't have time now to write an article for you. But there are no overlapping in classes of species and natures order is not sequential. Too many missing links however you classify your groups. Too many missing links in the fossil record, and living. You have wasted a lot of time with taking things off topic and then switching to another topic once your topic has been answered. Your arguments are fallacies.

Back to topic. You keep dodging. Your answer is niche filled? Once again I am not talking about seeing a living link in my lifetime, but in the documented life of man and animals. I don't have any time to keep all your other topics going so keep on topic. Will be traveling for business after holiday so might take awhile to get back to thread. Don't have any time for off topic discussion.

 

[spartakis]

If you were honest, you'd admit that I showed you that your literal re-interpretation doesn't hold up. It supposes, for example that there were mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. This is why early Christians concluded it wasn't a literal history.

Okay off topic again, and have been here more than once with you.
I am honest. The Bible don't hold up? Can God not declare mornings or evening without the sun even though he had light.
Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I showed you with links that early Christians did believe young earth creation. I guess the Hebrew calender is nothing.

Christians disagree with you. There have always been some, and when YE was invented by the Seventh-Day adventists, there have been a lot more. But that's very recent. As you know, Spurgeon rejected a young earth, and the creationism presented at the scopes trial, was the non-Adventist, old Earth variety.

Went over this more than once. Christians disagree with you also. And the Christians that disagree with me don't take the Bible literal, add things to it and have pretty sad theology and take things like the scripture for the judgments of the nations after the tribulation as scripture that shows saved by works instead of trusting in Christ and grace through faith.

It's one reason YE has problems. The "Life ex Nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is contrary to God's word in Genesis.

Okay so your saying believing what God says and how he created life don't go along with Genesis because it would be believing God created life out of nothing. You make no since.

 

[zeke]

It supposes, for example that there were mornings and evenings with no Sun t
o have them. This is why early Christians concluded it wasn't a literal history.

Augustine believed Genesis to be chronologically literal stating that 6,000 years had passed since the creation of man...

“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man."​

The fact remains - Augustine was not on your side - he does not support the notion of the billions of years required for Darwinian mythology. Where does that leave you?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sorry I feel I treated your post unfairly mostly because I let my self get frustrated with things on this thread of people going off topic, and telling me my theology is wrong when..... ( won't go there). I should have not done that but I am not perfect, so I will try and explain a little more of what I am getting at.
Thats not my only argument if you have read my previous post or even just post 292. The problem I have is there is a huge number of fossils. But they are missing a huge number of links to show evolution. I believe the fossil records shows creation. Similar animals weather homology, or analogy just show similar creation.
Can you say this actually proves evolution. With all the links needed missing with a fossil record of over 200 million

The principle of homology: The biological derivation relationship (shown by colors) of the various bones in the forelimbs of four vertebrates is known as homology and was one of Darwin’s arguments in favor of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

I'll go ahead and explain some things.

To understand why homology is so important in the study of evolution, you must understand the studies of phylogenetic classifications, inherited genetics, and natural selection.

These 3 areas together are main points of the theory of evolution.
Homology is used to study similar structures. By using phylogenetic we can group all the organisms that have these similar structures together. Then with inherited genetics we can then separated the organisms into lineages. With natural selection we can then see where the structures have changed.

Now why do we use these methods? Because the 3 fields have been observed and correct each other.

Through studying genetics biologists have been able to figure out what genes do what, and what combination of genes do what. Also in genetics, we understand that our individual genomes are the combined inherited genomes of our parents. So we can track our lineage backwards in our families.

We observe natural selection by seeing what traits favor an organism in their ecosystem.

Biologists then takes these understandings and apply it to all organisms. We can then create and understand organism diversity.

Well genetic information does not show evolution either but common design. Every animal needs DNA should it surprise us some are similar. With just a 5% difference it could account to 150 million base pairs. If you are taught from your youth evolution is a true fact, or had a teacher teach you its fact, I guess you will look at similarities as proof but I don't. When I started looking and studying I was a lost sinner ( 5 years ago I trusted Christ as my saviour), no one I knew was church going people. When someone tells me something I study it out ( except the obvious like the sky is blue today and etc...). I came to the conclusion that the evidence presented on both sides looked like intelligent design by our creator. I am now a sinner saved by grace. And have been intrigued with Gods creations and the more I learn the more I see we are more then a random mutation.

I don't think you understand. The reason why the assertion that organisms have similar DNA because they were created that way makes no sense with the current understanding of genetics. There is not observed events where an organism appeared with a genetic code that was similar to another organism, but didn't inherit their genetics through their parent.

Biologists understand that the only observed cases of genetic inheritance is from lineages. That is why genetics is so strong in the theory of evolution. There has never been an observed case of a gene that exists in another organism spontaneously surfacing in another organism. Genes have always been observed to be inherited from the parents.

Actually Creation makes more since.

Creationism is an assertion that a higher power created the universe and life. The problem is that it doesn't explain how. Its just an assertion.

Now, a person can be a creationist and then apply scientific studies to their worldview. As many have here, such as Barbarian and Free. Creationism isn't a scientific explanation, but a bias applied on top of the studies. I have no problem with that, but by itself, creationism dosen't make sense without theories like evoltuion, Genetics, etc to explain the functions of the universe.

You can believe what you want also, I am fine with that. I understand the process they call evolution, but don't believe it is possible to get what we see out of it. The beauty of the world alone is enough for some to see it is more then accidental random mutation along with natural selection. I looked deeper and got the same conclusion, so do many others.

You do not understand the theory of evolution, and this is because of your comment about "the world isn't just a Random Mutation". That is not evolution.

Evolution is observed phenomenon of how organisms adapt and change based on their environment. That is not a "random Mutation". Natural selection weeds out mutations that don't work in the ecosystem.

The biggest part of this I want you to understand is that you are a product of your parents' combined DNA and you have multiple mutations yourself. The mutations by themselves don't define you, but are just an aspect of you.

No it should not be a problem. Since you have so many missing problems in the fossil record it will not help your argument any. I am not looking for assumptions of the fossil record, heard them all. I am more interest in the science of the matter and how people believe in evolution after studying it.
Science is knowledge from testing, experimenting on things that can be observed correct. I understand the mechanisms in which evolutionist state evolution took place, but do not think it is possible for land animals to become whales by natural selection and mutations, the things that would have to occur are huge and can not be observed in any species today, with natural selection or mutations. And the odds can be shown to be logical with what we can test and observe.

This here is confusing to read because I think you think you know more about evolution then you really do. I need to know how long have you studied evolution? What books have you read on evolution? What papers have you read on evolution? What is the highest level of Biology you have taken? What studies have you kept up on that has to do with evolutionary Biology.

I'm not dodging your question, its just frustrating because you claim to know about genetics, evolution, phylogeny, epigenetics, homology, etc., but your comments show otherwise.

If you haven't explored these areas deeply, or taken some intense college courses on many of these subjects, most of the information won't make sense. Especially the genetics side of this.


The lineage of whale evolution has been compiled based on the Genetic information of Whales combined with the fossil findings of ancestral whales.

The reason why the fossils are considered ancestral is because they fit into our modern understanding or Genetics and phylogeny and also fit into how we understand the mechanics.

I understand you don't believe the theory of evolution and how it applies to whale evolution. That means that it would probably be best for you to get a hold of the papers that explains the findings of whale evolution. read the papers. read the comments by the scientist. Learn why they state what they state. Your lack of understanding does not disprove their claims.

I understand the time frame but even then does not really help. Do others believe it yes, Why? Because they can't and do not want to comprehend God as an almighty creature ( theological topic not getting into).

No. What you just said is an assumption and a projection. Read the actual papers of why the scientist claim what they claim. This will enlighten you as to why. Don't assume why people do what they do. Ask and learn. Go to the sources.

The scientific evidence just does not come close to prove evolution, and yes I have heard all explanations. Now I have seen many species of fish but never have we seen one grow or produce anything to change into a land animal.

What you have personally seen dose not impact the theory of evolution. That statement makes me reask, what have you read and studied on the topic of evolution?

All species are what they are.

This what exactly? Define your stance, back up your stance. Use theories to explain your stance.

What we should see is a fish species that has no legs, produce legs, produce fur (optional) produce different organs, start walking on land and become something else.

What part of phylogeny, the theory of evolution, and Genetics, says we should see this?

I have never seen a fish in this process. Yes as you claim it would take some time, but as evolution claim this earth is very old and if this is what occurs we should be able to see some point of this.

Evolution does not claim the Earth is old. Evolution only deals with living organisms. I have also never claimed in this thread that the Earth is old. What the theory of evolution, Genetics, and Phylogenetic states is that all organisms are related. So all we have to do is find organism that fits into the understood limits of evolution, genetics, and phyla. That is it. We don't have to find your fish to show anything. We just have to find organism that fit the theory.

Instead all fish are fish. Now look at the same thing now we have land animals and a deer like creature evolved into a whale. So you have a land animal that would have to start to learn how to hold its breathe, learn how to swim, then would have to develop dorsal fins, bony tail change into a cartilaginous fluke, teeth develop into a huge baleen filter, hair would have to disappear and change into blubber, nostrils would have to move from the tip of the nose to the top of the head disconnecting from the mouth passage, and forming a strong flap to close the blow hole, front legs into fins, increase from around 150lbs to 360,000lbs, external ears disappear and develop to handle pressure to dive 1640 ft deep. back legs disappear all by random chance and mutation. Now have we ever seen a dear like creature that did not have any of these developments start swimming and start to develop.

Yes, there are tons of studies, papers, etc. explaining the findings on whale evolution. Your ignorance of it dose not discredit it.

Even the how long it would take excuse like I said should not hold up. For all species have a lot of time according to those who believe this happened, and we should see a creature in the process of this transition. What do we see? All deer like creatures as dear like creatures. We could go into more then that but I hope you get my point. Now please don't go into changes of bacteria, salamanders, birds or etc... They are still bacteria, salamanders and birds and etc... If one evolves into a something else let me know.

The point I'm getting here is that you are claiming to have studied evolution, and then you show that you haven't. This is evident by your constant misunderstandings of genetics, whale evolution, etc.

I would love to try and teach you, but I would first have to know where you are academically on your studies of biology. Until then, I have no idea where to start and don't feel like continuing a discussion if you won't understand or accept anything I say in the first place. I don't want to waste my time and yours if I'm just going to be arguing with someone who dosen't care.

 

[zeke]

Evolution does not claim the Earth is old. Evolution only deals with living organisms. I have also never claimed in this thread that the Earth is old.

But evolutionism requires billions of years for life on Earth to arise from non-life via chance and become you.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, you seem to want Barbarian to comment on a specific spider species, but you admit to not knot its origins.

Sorry?

You made up a proto version of the Bell spider

I made up nothing. That is a very serious and false accusation, and I call Free's attention to the charge.

If you care to look up the bell spider on google, you will find exactly the facts I recited.

and claim that Barbarian needs to account for your made up spider to the Bell Spider.

Free, this person has made the same charge again, and I object to the charge of lying.

Instead, shouldn't we look at the closest relatives of the Bell Spider and then track back ancestral spider species? This way we can possibly see what traits arose during the lineage of Bell Spiders that specialized the spider for its environment. We would need to study this first before jumping to conclusions.

There are no ancestral spider species, first. Second, the Bell spider has no close relatives - it is absolutely unique.Third, the oldest spider fossils are identifiably spider fossils, and you should really look the matter up before parading this nonsense.

Here is one of the oldest fossil spiders found. You will note that it is identifiably a spider, and has undergone no substantial changes which would make us suppose that it is an 'ancestor' of spiders.

View attachment 2422

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...r-found-shines-a-light-on-arachnid-evolution/
​

Also, instinct arises from our brain biochemistry that is a byproduct of how are brains form, which is a byproduct of natural selection.

Excuse me. This is the type of nonsense Barbarian is particularly fond of.

First assume something, then use it as fact, and finally derive the wrong conclusions from it: which is hardly surprising since the whole premise is wrong in the first place.

Instinct does not arise from 'brain biochemistry'. You've got that the wrong way round. 'Brain biochemistry' arises from the need for the instinct to manifest itself.

Using the example of the spider above. The spider's little brain's biochemistry IMPLEMENTS the instructions provided by the instinct, to produce the bell.

Without the instinct, all the brain biochemistry in the world is useless, since the biochemistry cannot direct itself to produce a bell.

The concept of instinct dosen't pop out of no where, but the materials that give the ability for instincts to develop arise from evolution.

You are begging the question again.

I asked,

a. How did the instinct arise and

b. How did it enter the genome?

Since we are arguing about whether evolution did or did not take place, the onus is on you to show that it did in this case at least.

Can you answer either or both questions without question-begging?

 

[Barbarian]

I am honest.

If so, you wouldn't have claimed I ignored youir argument, when you knew I had addressed it. Shame on you.

The Bible don't hold up? Can God not declare mornings or evening without the sun even though he had light.

Instead of declaring God asserted a logical impossibility, you could just accept that it was an allegory, not a literal history.

I showed you with links that early Christians did believe young earth creation.

Since YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the first half of the 1900s, that's not possible. Some did believe some things that YE creationists later believed, but as you learned, many, including the greatest among them, did not.

I guess the Hebrew calender is nothing.

As you learned there has not been a consensus among Jewish theologians on the issue of the age of the Earth.

Christians disagree with you. There have always been some, and when YE was invented by the Seventh-Day adventists, there have been a lot more. But that's very recent. As you know, Spurgeon rejected a young earth, and the creationism presented at the scopes trial, was the non-Adventist, old Earth variety.

Went over this more than once.

It's still true. Your modern revision of Christianity remains a modern revision.

Christians disagree with you also.

A minority. The vast majority of the world's Christians belong to sects that accept Genesis and evolution as compatible.

And the Christians that disagree with me don't take the Bible literal, add things to it

Notice how many who agree with you have added ideas like living things reproducing according to kind and "life ex nihilo". You have that completely backwards.

and have pretty sad theology and take things like the scripture for the judgments of the nations after the tribulation as scripture that shows saved by works instead of trusting in Christ and grace through faith.

Sorry no bunny trails. However, if you want to start a new thread, I'll show you where Jesus says that you works decide where you spend eternity.

Barbarian observes:
It's one reason YE has problems. The "Life ex Nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is contrary to God's word in Genesis.

Okay so your saying believing what God says and how he created life don't go along with Genesis

No, I'm pointing out that YE creationists add things to Genesis to make it more acceptable to them.

because it would be believing God created life out of nothing. You make no since.

God didn't make life out of nothing. That's what I'm telling you. It's what you added to Genesis to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[Barbarian]

But evolutionism requires billions of years for life on Earth to arise from non-life via chance and become you.

Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by chance. A lot of the issues between YE creationists and science would go away, if they learned a little about it.

 

[Asyncritus]

BTW, Spartakis, I looked up your reference to the devonian times.

Here is the most sneaky, and stupid statement in the article. Notice the glib way a monumental problem is glossed over:

The ability to breath air would come in useful when shallow waters became stagnant,

Yes, of course it would. Any fool can see that. But that is a monumental problem! How does a fish, breathing with gills, DEVELOP lung breathing?

Did it sneak out on to the shore - and die of asphyxiation?

Or did it sneak out, and the air flowing over its gills (and drying them out!) somehow, magically, turn them into lungs over millions of years? Maybe that's why there are millions of dead fish fossils! They all died trying to develop lungs!

Oh yes, here comes the plaintive bleat: What about the lungfishes?

Well, what about them? They've been here for over 200 million years, are still lungfish, and haven't changed one bit.

So where did they get their lungs from? Not evolution, that's for sure, since they're pretty much the same then as now!!

And since they haven't changed, that means that they aren't the ancestors of anything! (Like tetrapods!)

Oh yeah. That reminds me of the coelacanth.

That was heavily touted as the ancestor of the tetrapods - until they found a pile of them alive and well in the Indian Ocean, showing not the slightest intention of walking out on land, since they live at a depth of about 180 metres!

And look! They have a shoulder joint - like ours!Maybe they really are our ancestors!!

The lobed fins found on the Coelacanth are remarkably mobile. This fish can rotate its fins through 100 degrees, and since the lobes are fleshy each of the fins can be used like a small paddle.

And here's another little quote you might like from the devonian times:

"Fishapod" from the North!

Gaps in the fossil record are diminishing.

The dramatic discovery of Tiktaalik roseae has provided an impressive and informative transitional form between lobe-fin fishes and early tetrapods. Dubbed a "fishapod", Tiktaalik is one of several recent discoveries that have greatly enhanced our understanding of the evolution of the first tetrapods.

Alas, alack! Woe is them! They found (Jan 2010, Nature magazine) tetrapod tracks 18 MILLION years older that Tiktaalik!

:toofunny
​

When Barbarian can manage to get a fish out of the water and surviving, we may have something to discuss - particularly the instincts required to power that transition from water to air-breathing.

I eagerly await.

In the meantime, here's some really good reading:

http://theunjustmedia.com/Darwinism%20Refuted/Darwinism%20Refuted/True%20natural%20history%20I.htm

 

[Adam]

How does a fish, breathing with gills, DEVELOP lung breathing?

In human embryos, the lungs develop independently of their gill slits.

They are actually 2 different structures. Lungs are not derived from gills. The question "how is lung breathing developed?" is quite fascinating. But we don't necessarily need to consider that a species already has gills as an obstacle to lung development.

It's like asking why a species would develop teeth since it already has a stomach.

 

[Adam]

What about the lungfishes?

Well, what about them? They've been here for over 200 million years, are still lungfish, and haven't changed one bit.

So where did they get their lungs from? Not evolution, that's for sure, since they're pretty much the same then as now!!

And since they haven't changed, that means that they aren't the ancestors of anything! (Like tetrapods!)

This is basically a rehash of the "why are there still monkeys?" fallacy.

 

[Barbarian]

Here is the most sneaky, and stupid statement in the article. Notice the glib way a monumental problem is glossed over:

The ability to breath air would come in useful when shallow waters became stagnant,

Yes, of course it would. Any fool can see that. But that is a monumental problem! How does a fish, breathing with gills, DEVELOP lung breathing?

By modifying something already there. Perhaps you've noticed a goldfish kept in an inadequate contrainer, gulping air. What is does, is swallow the air, and absorb the oxygen in the throat. Fish with larger surface areas in the throat, tend to survive better. So that easily leads to invaginations of the throat.

Not surprisingly, embryology shows that lungs develop from the throat.
The embryonic phase of lung development begins with the formation of a groove in the ventral lower pharynx, the sulcus laryngotrachealis (stage 10, ca. 28 days, 10
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/rrespiratory/phasen02.html

Did it sneak out on to the shore - and die of asphyxiation?

The truth is much more interesting than your straw fairy tale.

Or did it sneak out, and the air flowing over its gills (and drying them out!) somehow, magically, turn them into lungs over millions of years? Maybe that's why there are millions of dead fish fossils! They all died trying to develop lungs!

Surprise.

Oh yes, here comes the plaintive bleat: What about the lungfishes?

What about them?

They've been here for over 200 million years, are still lungfish, and haven't changed one bit.

You've been badly misled about that. The dipnomorpha share many homologies with lungfish, but are intermediate between them and more primitive Rhipidista. And there are a variety of lungfish in the fossil record, quite different from the present-day ones.

So where did they get their lungs from? Not evolution, that's for sure,

See above. Lungs evolved in fish before the lungfish. Surprise, again.

since they're pretty much the same then as now!!

Lots of surprises for you, today.

And since they haven't changed, that means that they aren't the ancestors of anything! (Like tetrapods!)

They evolved their own way. Genetic analysis, however shows that lungfish are more closely related to us than to other fish. And we know this works, because the method can be tested on organisms of known descent.

Oh yeah. That reminds me of the coelacanth.

Pretty much the same thing. Modern lungfish are very different from the ancient ones, which were mostly small, and mostly freshwater fish. Even the genus of the modern ones is unknown in the fossil record.

That was heavily touted as the ancestor of the tetrapods

Show us that, from a checkable scientific paper. All the ones I've seen say that coelacanths are close to the line of lob-finned fish that led to the dipnomorpha.

And look! They have a shoulder joint - like ours!Maybe they really are our ancestors!!

Or, as the evidence shows, they share a common ancestor with us. The shoulder joint predates Coelacanths.

Gaps in the fossil record are diminishing.

Alas, alack! Woe is them! They found (Jan 2010, Nature magazine) tetrapod tracks 18 MILLION years older that Tiktaalik!

But they already knew that Tiktaalik was a fairly advanced member of the group. So it's not surprising that there were earlier ones. Didn't you read the research papers? No, I suppose you didn't.

When Barbarian can manage to get a fish out of the water and surviving, we may have something to discuss

How about walking and climbing trees?

particularly the instincts required to power that transition from water to air-breathing.

As you just learned, air-breathing is a common behavior for fish, even those without legs. In fact,the swim bladder is a modified lung. And the evidence, such as for Acanthostega, shows that legs were first used for walking on bottoms of ponds before they were used on land.

I eagerly await.

Surprise.

In the meantime, here's some really good reading:

Sorry, no fairy tales. But if you think there's anything worth discussing in there, put it on the table, and we'll talk.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sorry?

You are forgiven.

I made up nothing. That is a very serious and false accusation, and I call Free's attention to the charge.

In your post, you defined a spider that you want barbarian to find. You created a proto Bell Spider that you would accept as evidence.

If you care to look up the bell spider on google, you will find exactly the facts I recited.
Free, this person has made the same charge again, and I object to the charge of lying.

Did you not give Barbarian criteria that you would accept as a proto Bell Spider?

There are no ancestral spider species, first.

Except the very one you posted and linked a blog site to.

Second, the Bell spider has no close relatives - it is absolutely unique.

Accept for this entire classification of Arachnids and other spiders.

Third, the oldest spider fossils are identifiably spider fossils, and you should really look the matter up before parading this nonsense.

Well, if a biologist is calling a spider fossil a spider fossil, I would expect the fossil to be a fossil of a spider.



What is your background in Biology please?

Here is one of the oldest fossil spiders found. You will note that it is identifiably a spider, and has undergone no substantial changes which would make us suppose that it is an 'ancestor' of spiders.

View attachment 2868

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...r-found-shines-a-light-on-arachnid-evolution/​

You claim there are no substantial differences between the fossil and modern spiders. The article you linked us to says quite the opposite. Sorry, I actually click on the source links.


​

Excuse me. This is the type of nonsense Barbarian is particularly fond of.

First assume something, then use it as fact, and finally derive the wrong conclusions from it: which is hardly surprising since the whole premise is wrong in the first place.

My assumption is based on my understanding of neuro Science and development.

Instinct does not arise from 'brain biochemistry'. You've got that the wrong way round. 'Brain biochemistry' arises from the need for the instinct to manifest itself.

You are aware that brain chemistry is the functioning of the brain right? Instincts are functions of our brain. Brain chemistry is the explanation of the functions.

Using the example of the spider above. The spider's little brain's biochemistry IMPLEMENTS the instructions provided by the instinct, to produce the bell.

So you agree with me and disagree with me at the same time?

Without the instinct, all the brain biochemistry in the world is useless, since the biochemistry cannot direct itself to produce a bell.

I don't think you understand what an instinct is. Instincts can't exist without a brain to tell the spider what to do.

I asked,

a. How did the instinct arise and

b. How did it enter the genome?

You never asked me this question. I personally don't know how instincts pass on from one generation to another. I plan to read some studies on the subject matter though, so I can understand what the people studying this phenomenon have found out.

Since we are arguing about whether evolution did or did not take place, the onus is on you to show that it did in this case at least.

What would you accept as evidence of evolution?

Can you answer either or both questions without question-begging?

Can you answer me what level of biology education you have so I can then asses how to answer your question?

 

[Milk-Drops]

But evolutionism requires billions of years for life on Earth to arise from non-life via chance and become you.

....... ok, and that isn't what I'm saying so I'll move on then. ;)

 

[spartakis]

Meatball I do understand evolution and it is a slow random process. This may be a waste of time for both of us, I am willing to learn but just because someone assumes something does not make it truth. Homology does not prove evolution happened but is only a piece you can use for a theory for common decent. It is still open to other views that the evidence can fit. Maybe you do not understand what I am saying because I am not taking my time explaining myself. I am extremely busy and most of my posting come from my cell phone ( not easy.) I am also not the most elegant writer. I have not had any college courses. Just years of reading. And since most of the topics on this thread or off topic I do not want to spend to much time on them. I will take a little time this morning to hopefully explain so thing a little better.

Barbarian. You are cherry picking my post and trying to use it to attack my character. You are calling me dishonest but it is you who only quoted half of what I said and made it out to be a lie. I said you ignore the problems I present with evolution and the Genesis and just say you can not take Genesis literal. That is what you have done, you have not addressed each problem separate. You bunch all into one and state can't take it literal which even if you make it allegory it would be the worse on ever seen and way off. Which the Bible is meant to taken literal it does not say Genesis is a parable or an allegory. Jesus took it pretty serious about not believing it saying if you do not believe it you can not believe him. And you are right the minority of those professing Christians are not born again trusting in Christ. Then you have been skipping my on topic points on my last post which only keeps the thread off topic. And since your theology is vital to your salvation I will open another thread on salvation and look for you there . Will not have a lot of time to bounce from both threads though. Shame on you.

I am not denying change in species of things like fish, birds, dogs, and etc... But the fact that macroevolution brought them about from one common ancestor.
Natural selection can not add nothing that is not there, we have both agreed on this I believe. So that means mutation is left. Which is a slow random blind process as Jacques Monod put it. I know we inherit our traits from our parents but acquired characteristics does not happen. So once again we are left with mutations to add organs and other body parts. Even though animals can breed and capable of a considerable degree of change, it also produces a distinct limit. And in breeding can not add DNA that was not there. Now Darwin even had and admitted problems with his theory. He knew problems with intermediates missing was a huge problem, and with perfected organs like the eye having evolved from mutations is staggering to anyone. I have read what scientist think of evolution of the eye from a light sensitive pigment of skin and to me and many others the probability of this process is very doubtful. Same with whale evolution, and just about everything else.

If evolution truly took place with the mechanisms you claim we should see the following. A and B being species and I being mutation. A I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 B
Instead you see big gaps. This should apply back to genus, family,to order.
All classes are divided and not overlapping as you should see. And for the platypus excuse, it has always been just that, no facts of anything else. And you see mammalian features as fully mammalian, and reptilian features fully reptilian, no proof of any transition. I wish I had more time to get into evolution in general but I don't.

What I started this thread for is a living observable intermediate, with proof that it came from another with the A to B discussed above. Not that I would see it take place but that through the history of man. We should see intermediates without such a huge gap/jump. That is what I am looking for, if no explanation then just say so and lets move on. Darwin admitted when he had no explanation, or a problem. That is the biggest problem with evolution. The slow process should show multiple intermediates not big gaps.

Mods if the cherry picking, off topic, and character problems continue feel free to just stop the thread, no one has time to waste on these things.

 

[Barbarian]

Meatball I do understand evolution and it is a slow random process.

Darwin showed that it isn't random.

This may be a waste of time for both of us, I am willing to learn but just because someone assumes something does not make it truth. Homology does not prove evolution happened but is only a piece you can use for a theory for common decent. It is still open to other views that the evidence can fit.

So far, no one has done that. Want to give it a shot?

Barbarian. You are cherry picking my post and trying to use it to attack my character.

Misrepresenting what other people say is the quickest way to get yourself in trouble. Learn from it and go on. It's not good for you to conflate your personal interpretation of Genesis with the beliefs of Christians in general, either.

I am not denying change in species of things like fish, birds, dogs, and etc... But the fact that macroevolution brought them about from one common ancestor.

Natural selection can not add nothing that is not there, we have both agreed on this I believe.

As you learned, there is nothing in living things that does not derive from something pre-existing. Lungs, for example, formed from the upper digestive system. A creationist calls it new, while a scientist notes that it's a modification of something that was already there. Every structure is like that.

So that means mutation is left.

By definition, mutation can only modify things. Are you beginning to get the idea of what goes on?

Which is a slow random blind process as Jacques Monod put it. I know we inherit our traits from our parents but acquired characteristics does not happen. So once again we are left with mutations to add organs and other body parts.

Hence, in the case of fish, any mutation that slightly increased the area of the throat increased the likelihood of survival. And from that, lungs evolved.

Even though animals can breed and capable of a considerable degree of change, it also produces a distinct limit.

Show us that. What organism is at a "limit" so that it can't change any further? And show your evidence. That "limit" is just a fairy tale.

Now Darwin even had and admitted problems with his theory. He knew problems with intermediates missing was a huge problem, and with perfected organs like the eye having evolved from mutations is staggering to anyone.

I'm surprised anyone still uses that hoax. Dishonest creationists "quote" Darwin as seeing it as an overwhelming problem, but they trimmed the quote to make it seem that he thought so:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
(Darwin 1872, 143-144)

The part in red is the part dishonest creationists cut away to make it appear Darwin thought it was a serious problem with his theory.

I have read what scientist think of evolution of the eye from a light sensitive pigment of skin and to me and many others the probability of this process is very doubtful.

We can show this process in the living members of several phyla. Would you like to see that?

Same with whale evolution, and just about everything else.

It comes down to evidence. Disbelief is irrelevant.

If evolution truly took place with the mechanisms you claim we should see the following. A and B being species and I being mutation. A I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 B
Instead you see big gaps.

Wrong. Whenever the fossil record is complete (which isn't common) we see a long, gradual change. If I could show you a fossil series in which adjacent changes are less than the variation we see in many living species today, would you admit the fact?

And for the platypus excuse, it has always been just that, no facts of anything else. And you see mammalian features as fully mammalian, and reptilian features fully reptilian, no proof of any transition.

The platypus has a reptilian skeleton in the most part, including the complex shoulder structure found in reptiles but not mammals. It has the reptilian cloaca, not the separated system found in mammals. It lays reptilian eggs. It is only partly warm-blooded.

So you're wrong about that. It's transitional between advanced therapsid reptiles and modern mammals.

I wish I had more time to get into evolution in general but I don't.

You would do better if you knew more about it.

What I started this thread for is a living observable intermediate, with proof that it came from another with the A to B discussed above.

And you learned of a number of such.

Darwin admitted when he had no explanation, or a problem. That is the biggest problem with evolution. The slow process should show multiple intermediates not big gaps.

They played you on that one, too:
These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.
Charles Darwin, Chapter XI of the sixth edition on page 342

As you learned, many of the predicted "missing intermediates" of Darwin's time have since been found; this is powerful evidence for the theory.

Mods if the cherry picking, off topic, and character problems continue feel free to just stop the thread, no one has time to waste on these things.

Do not misrepresent what I wrote, and there will be no problems.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Meatball I do understand evolution and it is a slow random process.

Spartakis, its not a random process. Evolutions is the adaptation of organisms to their enviroment through natural selection. That is anything but random. I feel you have confused some of the more complicated processes in the field.

This may be a waste of time for both of us, I am willing to learn but just because someone assumes something does not make it truth. Homology does not prove evolution happened but is only a piece you can use for a theory for common decent. It is still open to other views that the evidence can fit. Maybe you do not understand what I am saying because I am not taking my time explaining myself. I am extremely busy and most of my posting come from my cell phone ( not easy.) I am also not the most elegant writer.

Spartakis, I need you to understand. Homology along side biologists observations of inherited genetics, mutations, phylogeny, and through discoveries in the fossil record all come together and support the theory of evolution. Here is a good video explaining some of this information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08&feature=plcp

I think this video will help you understand how genetics, phylogeny, homology, etc come together.

I am not denying change in species of things like fish, birds, dogs, and etc... But the fact that macroevolution brought them about from one common ancestor.
Natural selection can not add nothing that is not there, we have both agreed on this I believe. So that means mutation is left. Which is a slow random blind process as Jacques Monod put it. I know we inherit our traits from our parents but acquired characteristics does not happen. So once again we are left with mutations to add organs and other body parts.

I think you really need to get yourself a book that covers the field of genetics. How natural selection works is when a mutation that slightly changes a limb or an organ happens, if is beneficial or neutral, the characteristic will pass on. Even if the modification is detrimental, if a coproduct of the modification is beneficial the trait will pass on.

An example of that would be sickle cell anemia in Africa, but along with it Africans get malaria resistance that is greatly beneficial. Or with Homosexuality being tied with high fertility.

I need you to study genetics so you can understand a type of mutation called duplication. That will help you understand how limbs form.

Even though animals can breed and capable of a considerable degree of change, it also produces a distinct limit. And in breeding can not add DNA that was not there.

You are describing the bottleneck effect, which happens with sever inbreeding. This is caused because when you inbreed for to many generations. All living creatures have atavism in their genomes. Inbreeding causes atavisms to resurface because the breeding pool has been limited. In the wild animals breed with each other and as a population grows small mutation help diversify the gene pool. In breeding, the gene pool is not allowed to expand, so eventually the line starts to disintegrate when atavism start popping up.

Now Darwin even had and admitted problems with his theory. He knew problems with intermediates missing was a huge problem, and with perfected organs like the eye having evolved from mutations is staggering to anyone. I have read what scientist think of evolution of the eye from a light sensitive pigment of skin and to me and many others the probability of this process is very doubtful. Same with whale evolution, and just about everything else.

Darwin didn't have doubts about the eye. In his book "The Origin of Species", Darwin presents an argument about how the eye could be a perplexing problem for his theory. This argument is commonly quote mined by creationists. The problem here is that in the very next paragraph of his book Darwin then explains why the eye is not a problem. This is why I asked you what you have read on this topic.

If evolution truly took place with the mechanisms you claim we should see the following. A and B being species and I being mutation. A I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 B
Instead you see big gaps. This should apply back to genus, family,to order.
All classes are divided and not overlapping as you should see.

Watch the video I gave you.

And for the platypus excuse, it has always been just that, no facts of anything else. And you see mammalian features as fully mammalian, and reptilian features fully reptilian, no proof of any transition. I wish I had more time to get into evolution in general but I don't.

What are you talking about with the platypus? The Platypus is one of the last ( along with the echidna) of a line of mamals that are non plecental ( meaning they lay eggs). Its a metronome that is closer related to proto mammals then any other type of mammal we see.

What I started this thread for is a living observable intermediate, with proof that it came from another with the A to B discussed above. Not that I would see it take place but that through the history of man. We should see intermediates without such a huge gap/jump. That is what I am looking for, if no explanation then just say so and lets move on. Darwin admitted when he had no explanation, or a problem. That is the biggest problem with evolution. The slow process should show multiple intermediates not big gaps.

WATCH THE VIDEO I PRESENTED.
Thank you.