Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[barrister]

oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".

here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level.

Sir leomarley is right.

It's confusing, since the word "theory" has one meaning in ordinary usage and another meaning in science.

A scientific theory is an explanation that is well-substantiated and generally accepted.  It's considered true until falsified.

In ordinary usage, a theory is an explanation that may be unsubstantiated; may be personal and not generally accepted; may be considered true by one but not generally considered true.

So it's not correct to say in the scientific viewpoint, ang evolution ay "theory lang" na parang pure speculation without being well-substantiated by evidence and general acceptance by the scientific community.

[dodie]

oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".

here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level.

my claim sir is that i dont believe in it either,  just like the theory of evolution. as long as there are no direct evidence that will prove that these universe was created out of an event just like the evolution process, it will remain a proposition to me........

btw, assuming that we are an evolving species, sa tingin mo sir ano kaya tayo magiging pag dating ng isang milyong taon? makakalipad na kya ang tao? tutubuan na kaya tayo ng hasang para makatira tayo sa dagat?

[leomarley]

my claim sir is that i dont believe in it either,  just like the theory of evolution. as long as there are no direct evidence that will prove that these universe was created out of an event just like the evolution process, it will remain a proposition to me........

btw, assuming that we are an evolving species, sa tingin mo sir ano kaya tayo magiging pag dating ng isang milyong taon? makakalipad na kya ang tao? tutubuan na kaya tayo ng hasang para makatira tayo sa dagat?

depends on your mutation and the environment you're living in. we might even evolve unnaturally and evolve into machines.

[robot.sonic]

Narinig ko lang sa abs cbn news a few minutes ago.

Sabi ni pope di daw salungat sa turo ng simbahan ang big bang at evolution.

Eto pala yung link

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-theory-are-real-n235696

[Verbl Kint]

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'

[dpogs]

now... ano kaya gagawin ng member ng RC .... sa palagay ba eh hindi Bible ang final authority ng doctrine ng RC?

[docelmo]

Put it like this. You had a son. He's an albino. Say his albino trait is dominant. You had another son, he's the same color as you. The albino married another albino with the albino trait also dominant and you had albino grandchildren. Your other son married a "normal" girl and had "normal" kids. So, you spawned 2 kinds of descendants and they flourished at the same time.

Sir,
It still doesn't make your grandchildren older than than you!

The case of the fully aquating whale is it predates its suppsed ancestors, and was already existing when the supposed ancestors was still walking on land!

In the whale evolution they have alrready identified these animals as the succesion from the land animal to the whale! And here's "another difficulty you said that this means whales evolved faster than previously thought", then the changes  from the land mammal to this fully aquatic animal is so radical and would now contradict "gradual" changes expected in natural selection acting on random mutation!

Assuming you still stick to the previously mentioned succesion, then we place the basilosaurus after the Pakicetus. This would mean that in just a few millon years the fully land animal became a fully aquatic animal! From 10 animals in the sucession it is now reduced to 4!

[leomarley]

doc, curious lang ako dun sa study na yan and would very much like to read it. may link ka sir kung san?

[docelmo]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html

Sir, eto dalawa article on the same subject

[bumblebee]

Sir,
It still doesn't make your grandchildren older than than you!

Of course. But my point is, if something evolves from something, it doesn't mean that the ancestor specie should go extinct.

The case of the fully aquating whale is it predates its suppsed ancestors, and was already existing when the supposed ancestors was still walking on land!

In the whale evolution they have alrready identified these animals as the succesion from the land animal to the whale! And here's "another difficulty you said that this means whales evolved faster than previously thought", then the changes  from the land mammal to this fully aquatic animal is so radical and would now contradict "gradual" changes expected in natural selection acting on random mutation!

Assuming you still stick to the previously mentioned succesion, then we place the basilosaurus after the Pakicetus. This would mean that in just a few millon years the fully land animal became a fully aquatic animal! From 10 animals in the sucession it is now reduced to 4!

This doesn't mean anything. They still evolved, just faster than previously thought. Who knows what can of environment there was back then that sped up the process. You see, the theory still holds.

[docelmo]

Of course. But my point is, if something evolves from something, it doesn't mean that the ancestor specie should go extinct.

This doesn't mean anything. They still evolved, just faster than previously thought. Who knows what can of environment there was back then that sped up the process. You see, the theory still holds.

Sir, its either you missed the point or significance of the find or you are denying that this discovery and the limitations posted by population genetics has a significant impact on the darwinian mechanism. At its best it puts in question darwinian mechanism of natural selection on random mutation to achieve such a feat, at its worst it puts in question whether these fully land mammals evolved to fully aquatic mammal in such a SHORT period of time .

I did not say that the ancestor should be extinct. My point is that if this fully aquatic whale is part of the so called whale evolution then it follows this in fact older and predates its sopposed ancestors!

[bumblebee]

I did not say that the ancestor should be extinct. My point is that if this fully aquatic whale is part of the so called whale evolution then it follows this in fact older and predates its sopposed ancestors!

Just because you found an older fossil of a younger specie doesn't mean the specie pre-dates it ancestors. Like I said, we don't know the environment then. There must something that happened that sped up the process. Four million years is not a short time.

[docelmo]

Just because you found an older fossil of a younger specie doesn't mean the specie pre-dates it ancestors. Like I said, we don't know the environment then. There must something that happened that sped up the process. Four million years is not a short time.

4 million is short when put against the population genetics model that you need 43 million years to change just two coordinated changes, you will need lot more time to fully change a land mammal to fully aquatic mammal! That's why they suggest that if whale evulotion is true then its something else and not darwinian mechanism! If its false then evolution from land mammals did not take place.

Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982

[bumblebee]

4 million is short when put against the population genetics model that you need 43 million years to change just two coordinated changes, you will need lot more time to fully change a land mammal to fully aquatic mammal! That's why they suggest that if whale evulotion is true then its something else and not darwinian mechanism! If its false then evolution from land mammals did not take place.

Like I said, was the environment during the time period considered? Did they know what was it like back then? Sorry, but they're talking about models, with specific parameters, hence the 43 million year figure.

Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982

That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?

[docelmo]

Like I said, was the environment during the time period considered? Did they know what was it like back then? Sorry, but they're talking about models, with specific parameters, hence the 43 million year figure.

That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?

In the same manner that evolutionist do not also know the enviroment  and yet insist that darwinian evolution occured. That is why scientist use models, genetics etc to test the veracity of the theory. Wait are you telling me that evolutionist do not use models? What then.....imagination? This kind of thinking highlights the plastic nature of the theory that it bends to accomodate presence of new evidence!

I think the guy has passed away already.
But at least this Scientist  is intelectually honest enough to admit the lack of fossil evidence. Why? Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?

[docelmo]

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.

Authors
Burke MK1, Dunham JP, Shahrestani P, Thornton KR, Rose MR, Long AD.
Author information
Journal
Nature. 2010 Sep 30;467(7315):587-90. doi: 10.1038/nature09352. Epub 2010 Sep 15.
Affiliation
Comment in
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Nov;11(11):746-7.

Abstract
Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster.....  We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.

Scientists do indeed use models and systems....this experiment shows that mutation rarely result in positive outcome like hooves to flippers or forelimbs to wings

[docelmo]

Here is another slightly longer article on mutations...

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution in the darwinian worldview.

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

[leomarley]

Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?

Yes there has been tons of new whale fossils found since 95 to the present that supports whale evolution.

[bumblebee]

In the same manner that evolutionist do not also know the enviroment  and yet insist that darwinian evolution occured. That is why scientist use models, genetics etc to test the veracity of the theory. Wait are you telling me that evolutionist do not use models? What then.....imagination? This kind of thinking highlights the plastic nature of the theory that it bends to accomodate presence of new evidence!

It's a theory and as far as I know, there hasn't been any evidence that invalidates it. If there was, matagal ng tapos 'to, at hindi na natin pinagtatalunan. The models you mentioned does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it strengthens it. If 2 body parts in 43 million years isn't evolution then I don't know what is.

I think the guy has passed away already.
But at least this Scientist  is intelectually honest enough to admit the lack of fossil evidence. Why? Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?

Just because you can't find fossils doesn't mean they aren't there right? Kaya nga buhay pa yung theory e, kasi wala pang evidence that invalidates it. If and when they ever find one evidence that invalidates Darwin, kaming mga evolutionists pa ang unang-unang matutuwa, because we always like to be proven wrong.

[barrister]

Just because you can't find fossils doesn't mean they aren't there right?

That's true.  But calling evolution a fact even before the fossil is found is not scientific.
 

Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982

That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?

You're not familiar with Gould?  He died in 2002 without changing his views.

Gould's statement that the fossil evidence is a problem for "gradualistic" accounts of evolution does not mean that he rejected evolution per se.

To my mind, it only meant that he was merely rejecting the notion of gradualistic evolution, but still believed in evolution itself.

Gould believed that most species show little net evolutionary changes.  Instead, they remain in a state of stasis for long periods of time, before the occurrence of major and rapid evolutionary change.  Gould called this "punctuated equilibrium," which is now a very important model in evolutionary theory. 
     
I disagree with the creationists' implication (not docelmo) that Gould's statement means he doubted the validity of evolutionary theory as a whole. 

I understand that doc's comment was limited to the "gradualistic" aspect, but there are many rabid creationists who point to the Gould quote to imply that a respected evolutionist rejected evolution as a whole.

[bumblebee]

That's true.  But calling evolution a fact even before the fossil is found is not scientific.

Evolution doesn't just depend on fossils.
 

You're not familiar with Gould?  He died in 2002 without changing his views.

Am now. Thanks for the info.

[docelmo]

Correct sir Barisster, i was pointing out that even some evolutionist are having some questions on the power of natural selection  on random mutation when seen against the backdrop of fossil evidence. While some on the basis of genetics and experiments on mutation.

Here's the thing between the fully land mammal and the fully aquatic whale the time period is around 4 million years. Population genetics points limitations on mutations based on population size, generation and time. There is simply  not enough time to change from one animal to the next based on darwinian mechanism.

Just like what the above experiments has concluded:
"They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. "

[docelmo]

The models you mentioned does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it strengthens it. If 2 body parts in 43 million years isn't evolution then I don't what is.

Then let's do some simple calculations...
And take into account the ratio of 2:43 as starting point. These are the ratio for 10, 20, 30 character changes.....,10:210, 20:430, 30:645

So if we are to have only10 mutations to change from a land dwelling mammal to a fully aquatic whale (we know that there are a lot more). It would take a staggering 210 million years to change just 10 characterestics!

Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago. If that is correct, then this suggests that the pakicetus could NOT have evolved to a whale by 2014, it still needs about 160 million to complete the change! Or we need to find a 210 million year old pakicetus fossil!

[dpogs]

Then let's do some simple calculations...
And take into account the ratio of 2:43 as starting point. These are the ratio for 10, 20, 30 character changes.....,10:210, 20:430, 30:645

So if we are to have only10 mutations to change from a land dwelling mammal to a fully aquatic whale (we know that there are a lot more). It would take a staggering 210 million years to change just 10 characterestics!

Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago. If that is correct, then this suggests that the pakicetus could NOT have evolved to a whale by 2014, it still needs about 160 million to complete the change! Or we need to find a 210 million year old pakicetus fossil!

hmm... well... keep on digging

[barrister]

Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago.

Speaking of Pakicetus, what is the scientists' basis for saying that it's the ancestor of whales?

Sasabihin ng mga evolutionists sa ating thread:  Ah, basta ancestor yan.  Sabi ng scientist, e.
 
Ano nga ang reason nila? 
 
Basahin mo na lang.  Bakit ko pa uulitin sa iyo?

Kasi, ang tingin ko, hindi mo rin alam ang reason nila, kunyari ka lang na naintindihan mo.
 
Bakit ko pa uulitin.  Sinabi na nga nila lahat.  Basahin mo na lang.

 

Lakas ng faith, talo pa ako...   

[dpogs]

a group of sceintist vs Bible...

aba eh kung gusto mong magmukhang matalino doon ka na lang sa "group of scientist" maniniwala

[docelmo]

hmm... well... keep on digging

Let them dig sir dpogs.....there is a more plausible reason why there are no transitional animals found in the fossils.......they don't exist.

[RU9]

hmm... well... keep on digging

While people are digging, please share your thoughts on this:

The young Earth creationist belief that the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old conflicts with the actual age of 4.54 billion years measured using independently cross-validated geochronological methods including radiometric dating.

What is wrong with radiometric reading?

Malay mo maniniwala ako sa iyo.

[RU9]

a group of sceintist vs Bible...

aba eh kung gusto mong magmukhang matalino doon ka na lang sa "group of scientist" maniniwala

Now is your chance to prove this "group of scientist" wrong.

Show them what is  wrong with radiometric reading?

Majority of this thread is is about about evolution.

Please educate us about your stand.

[dpogs]

Now is your chance to prove this "group of scientist" wrong.

Show them what is  wrong with radiometric reading?

Majority of this thread is is about about evolution.

Please educate us about your stand.

how i can i educate a group of scientist... i am just an idiot believing that all in this world nagawa lamang sa loob ng 7 days...



but for the sake of conversatin:
-mt.helen erupted 1980 - vulcanic rocks dated million years old
-deep earth diamond contains trace of C-14
-lab diamond contains trace of C-14
-dinosaur fossils contains trace of C-14
-marami pa google na lang


radiometric method - just series of assumption
> test on igneous and metamorphic but never on sedimentray where most of the fossils found
1. decay rate constant - assumption 1
- sigurado ba tayo na walang change on rate of decay 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? million years ago?
2. closed system - assumption 2
- external factor not considered
3. starting point contains only parent element - assumption 3
- what is the initial percentage of parent and daughter element?