-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man
- Thread starter UTEOTW
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is not a test that is simply an exercize of the imagination, what you call a thought experiment.
How can it be in the right order if it is inverted?
The initial basis for placing rock formations in chronological order was their fossil content. The justification for assigning fossils to specific time periods was the assumption of evolution and uniformatiarism. The initial justification for evolution was the fossil record. Circular reasoning at its worst.
You have suggested that I read certain material. If I want to read fiction I read stuff by Tom Clancy and similar authors or perhaps Louis Lamour. If I want to read truth I read Scripture. If I want to read the implications of scientific or engineering inquiry I read books or articles that are not steeped in or biased by the concept of evolution. If I want to read how scientists evaluate their research in light of Divine Creation I read people like Henry Morris.
Incidentally if you want to read something about the errors of evolution try The Modern Creation Triology by Henry and John Morris.
"That is not a test that is simply an exercize of the imagination, what you call a thought experiment."
Once again... I have given you what counts as predictions nad tests in science. You brush this off without ever telling us why and ask the same question again. So, why don't you tell me just what kind of evidence it is that you are looking for that would show that "macroevolution" has occured. Surely you have something in mind and this is not just some vacuous question.
"How can it be in the right order if it is inverted? "
You have yet to show that "observations show that fossil layers are often inverted." If you cannot show this to be the case, just to what I supposed to respond?
"The initial basis for placing rock formations in chronological order was their fossil content. The justification for assigning fossils to specific time periods was the assumption of evolution and uniformatiarism. The initial justification for evolution was the fossil record. Circular reasoning at its worst. "
You really ought to read the material so that you can see that the claim of circular reasoning is baseless.
The logic goes something like this. If you take the fossils and order them by morphology alone, you get some specific order. If you arder them solely by the geologic time in which they were found you get another order. When you compare these two separate ways at arriving at the order, they are statistically the same. How can that be circular?
And with regards to the other part of your claim of circular reasoning... William Smith proposed in 1817 that the layers could be classified according to what fossils were in them based on his observations of the narrow range of fossils each layer contains and that this pattern is repeated at separate locations. Since this is 42 years before the publishing or Origin of the Species, how could such assignment have been based on the assumption of evolution?
You may want to start doing a bit of verification on your sources. Google makes it very easy to do this.
Once again... I have given you what counts as predictions nad tests in science. You brush this off without ever telling us why and ask the same question again. So, why don't you tell me just what kind of evidence it is that you are looking for that would show that "macroevolution" has occured. Surely you have something in mind and this is not just some vacuous question.
"How can it be in the right order if it is inverted? "
You have yet to show that "observations show that fossil layers are often inverted." If you cannot show this to be the case, just to what I supposed to respond?
"The initial basis for placing rock formations in chronological order was their fossil content. The justification for assigning fossils to specific time periods was the assumption of evolution and uniformatiarism. The initial justification for evolution was the fossil record. Circular reasoning at its worst. "
You really ought to read the material so that you can see that the claim of circular reasoning is baseless.
The logic goes something like this. If you take the fossils and order them by morphology alone, you get some specific order. If you arder them solely by the geologic time in which they were found you get another order. When you compare these two separate ways at arriving at the order, they are statistically the same. How can that be circular?
And with regards to the other part of your claim of circular reasoning... William Smith proposed in 1817 that the layers could be classified according to what fossils were in them based on his observations of the narrow range of fossils each layer contains and that this pattern is repeated at separate locations. Since this is 42 years before the publishing or Origin of the Species, how could such assignment have been based on the assumption of evolution?
You may want to start doing a bit of verification on your sources. Google makes it very easy to do this.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
A prediction is not a test. As a coal researcher you should know that.
Volume 2. The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 300ff. You will of course dismiss this reference and the information it contains.
You really need to define the extent of the difference before you state they are statistically the same. However, in my remarks above I should have qualified that by stating that "The initial justification for modern [post Darwin] evolutionary thought was the fossil record. I have argued on other threads that the concept of evolution preceded Darwin by many years as I show below.
The concept of evolution did not start with the Origin of the Species. You might check the following web site for verification.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/index.shtml
To go back a little further ckeck the following web site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#From_ancient_times_to_1850s
which tells us:
From ancient times to 1850s
See also History of creationism and Evolutionism.
The idea of biological evolution was supported in ancient times, notably among Hellenists such as Democritus and his student Epicurus. As early as 400 BC the Greek atomists taught that the sun, earth, life, humans, civilization, and society emerged over aeons without divine intervention. Around 60 BC the Roman atomist Lucretius wrote the poem On the Nature of Things describing the development of the living earth in stages from atoms colliding in the void as swirls of dust, then early plants and animals springing from the early earth's substance, to a succession of animals including a series of progressively less brutish humans.
In 17th century English the word evolution (from the Latin word "evolutio", meaning "unroll like a scroll") began to be used in to refer to an orderly sequence of events, particularly one in which the outcome was somehow contained within it from the start. In 1677 Sir Matthew Hale used the term evolution in attacking the atheistic atomism of Democritus and Epicurus. Hale set out the atomist idea that vibrations and collisions of atoms in the void without divine intervention had formed "Primordial Seeds" (semina) which were the "immediate, primitive, productive Principles of Men, Animals, Birds and Fishes." and called this mechanism an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." Thus in evolutionism theories from 1700 to 1850 the earth, life, and universe developed without divine intervention.
Typically of these theories, Gottfried Leibniz in 1714 postulated "monads" inside objects causing motion by internal forces, and maintained that "the 'germs' of all things have always existed . . . [and] contain within themselves an internal principle of development which drives them on through a vast series of metamorphoses" to become the geological formations, lifeforms, psychologies, and civilizations of the present.
In his "Venus Physique" of 1745, Pierre Louis Maupertuis wrote of "Chance" producing "an innumerable multitude of individuals" a small number of which had "fitness" to satisfy their needs, while "another infinitely greater number... perished... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced...", anticipating in general terms the idea of natural selection.
Charles Bonnet applied "Evolutionism" to biology in 1762, asserting that each feature of the embryo was preformed in the parts; some of which came from the egg and some from the sperm. The preformed parts expanded and rearranged themselves to grow into the adult, and so Bonnet was called a "preformationist."
James Hutton's theory of 1785 said that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed, to allow time for mountains to be eroded and for sediment to form new rocks at the bottom of the sea, which in turn rose to become dry land.
I suspect that if the truth were known evolutionary thought is almost as old as mankind.
"A prediction is not a test."
Let's try again. Certain features of whales allow you to predict that they likely have a land dwelling ancestor and that you should be able to find fossils of creatures from this land dwelling ancestor changing into the marine animals that we have today.
This prediction is tested by going out and digging up transitional whales such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus.
When these fossils were dug up, it was observed that whales can trace their fossil ancestry back to the same group of animals as pigs, hippos, camels, llamas, giraffes, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, antelopes and other such animals. So it can be predicted that genetic testing should show that whales test as most closely related to the above animals than to any other animals. Actual genetic testing then confirms this.
"Volume 2. The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 300ff. You will of course dismiss this reference and the information it contains."
Is ther anything new there? When YEers have made such claims in the past, closer examination has shown them to be folds and overthrusts that do not pose the problem that you seem to suspect.
Could you be a little more clear on what you are suggesting? Maybe a particular location or formation where these inverted fossils occur?
"You really need to define the extent of the difference before you state they are statistically the same."
The authors spell out their findings in great detail.
Here are some juicy quotes from one.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/1998MPEmammals.pdf
"The concept of evolution did not start with the Origin of the Species. You might check the following web site for verification."
I do not care when it got started, it was not widely accepted until after Darwin. The recognition of index fossils well preceeded the popularization of evolutionary thought. You presented nothing to suggest that William Smith considered evolutionary theory at all before he proposed categorizing the geologic layers according to their fossils.
An even more important point to be made is that YE cannot account for the fossils being divided up into the various layers as we observe.
Furthermore, the quoting that you did at the end equivocates "evolution." No where in your history of evolution do you ever come to anything which is even close to Darwinian style evolution.
Let's try again. Certain features of whales allow you to predict that they likely have a land dwelling ancestor and that you should be able to find fossils of creatures from this land dwelling ancestor changing into the marine animals that we have today.
This prediction is tested by going out and digging up transitional whales such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus.
When these fossils were dug up, it was observed that whales can trace their fossil ancestry back to the same group of animals as pigs, hippos, camels, llamas, giraffes, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, antelopes and other such animals. So it can be predicted that genetic testing should show that whales test as most closely related to the above animals than to any other animals. Actual genetic testing then confirms this.
"Volume 2. The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 300ff. You will of course dismiss this reference and the information it contains."
Is ther anything new there? When YEers have made such claims in the past, closer examination has shown them to be folds and overthrusts that do not pose the problem that you seem to suspect.
Could you be a little more clear on what you are suggesting? Maybe a particular location or formation where these inverted fossils occur?
"You really need to define the extent of the difference before you state they are statistically the same."
The authors spell out their findings in great detail.
Here are some juicy quotes from one.
Get that? Geologic order is NOT generally used when trying to construct phylogenies from morphology.
There are definitions of the statistical techniques in the paper. But the last sentence should be sobering to you. 82% of all cladograms passed the statistics test. That number should be very close to zero if your ideas were correct.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/1998MPEmammals.pdf
"The concept of evolution did not start with the Origin of the Species. You might check the following web site for verification."
I do not care when it got started, it was not widely accepted until after Darwin. The recognition of index fossils well preceeded the popularization of evolutionary thought. You presented nothing to suggest that William Smith considered evolutionary theory at all before he proposed categorizing the geologic layers according to their fossils.
An even more important point to be made is that YE cannot account for the fossils being divided up into the various layers as we observe.
Furthermore, the quoting that you did at the end equivocates "evolution." No where in your history of evolution do you ever come to anything which is even close to Darwinian style evolution.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW
It is obvious that you are a committed evolutionist. Do you spend as much time studying the truth?
It is obvious that you are a committed evolutionist. Do you spend as much time studying the truth?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Perhaps if you would follow your own advice and read the opposing viewpoint you might learn something you don't know.
T
Travelsong
Guest
Or perhaps you might demonstrate how creation reveals itself to be very young or that common descent is falsifiable. Wouldn't that be a thoroughly original approach?
Perhaps if you would follow your own advice and read the opposing viewpoint you might learn something you don't know. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you have an answer to the problem?
All the reading I have done previously onthis subject is long on general assertions and analogies and short on specifics. You generally get the hydraulic sorting mentioned, but nothing about why the sorting does not conform to the normal characteristics by which hydraulic sorting is observed to occur.
Sometimes you get the analogy about dumping a truck load of dirt on a pond.
Sometimes you even get the one about how fast moving organisms like sloths and grass are high in the geologic column because they out ran the rising waters for a while during which time slower moving organisms like velocoraptors and conifers were caught by the rising water much more quickly.
But so far nothing that actually has a factual and logical basis.
Maybe one day.
You seem to miss the point that any discussion based on the different "physical traits" or "genetic data" which relegate any of our human ancestors to an inferior human status
borders on racism, even if cloaked in the garb of scientific terminology.
Lubenow's thesis holds that all evolutionist hypotheses about human evolution are racist in one form or another. Looking at artistic recontructions of Sahelanthropus tchadensis proves his theory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4416757.stm
Gup20
Active Member
Well that's not true. Creationist information theory suggests that there was more variability in the past than we see today. Fewer genes had undergone mutational distress (the loss of information) increasing the information content of the gene pools in the past, and decreasing specific expression. Wind forward to the present and we have less information with a greater degree of specificity. As gene pools become isolated (Tower of Babel, for example) specific expression becomes more and more limited.
And none of that has anything to do with the information presented on this thread.
At least the last time you tried to object to the data on the thread you spammed us with something on topic. Unfortunately for you, it was shown that AIG was claiming that references said things that they, in fact, did not.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000095
At least the last time you tried to object to the data on the thread you spammed us with something on topic. Unfortunately for you, it was shown that AIG was claiming that references said things that they, in fact, did not.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000095
The genetic information which you present on this thread is used by evolutionists to further support their contentions that the first people on earth looked like Negroes as is evidenced by the racist reconstruction of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4416757.stm
As Lubenow adequately demonstrates, any "scientific" theory or genetic "information" which purports to associate modern men and women with so-called "primitive" African people or non-human primates for purposes of proving human evolution out of Africa is just another form of scientific racism based on philosophical Darwinism.
Wow! You're right!
They made an ape look like an ape! Devastating!
It is quite a coincidence that on a thread about human genetics, your only response seems to be to drag out the so-called genetic fallacy repeatedly.
I guess when you cannot address the science, you move on to logical fallacies and hope no one notices.
They made an ape look like an ape! Devastating!
It is quite a coincidence that on a thread about human genetics, your only response seems to be to drag out the so-called genetic fallacy repeatedly.
I guess when you cannot address the science, you move on to logical fallacies and hope no one notices.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
"A Genetic Fallacy is a line of 'reasoning' in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing."
"A Genetic Fallacy is a line of 'reasoning' in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing."
QUOTE = Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Wow! You're right! They made an ape look like an ape! Devastating!"
I'm glad you agree that Toumai is an ape that "looks like an ape" and bears no resemblance to any human being that ever lived.
"It is quite a coincidence that on a thread about human genetics, your only response seems to be to drag out the so-called genetic fallacy repeatedly."
Genetics alone cannot prove human evolution from non-humans. We need some paleoanthropological evidence. Since there is none, all genetic information and evolutionary theses which purport to associate modern people with so-called "primitive species" for purposes of "proving" common ancestry and descent are inherently racist.
"I guess when you cannot address the science, you move on to logical fallacies and hope no one notices."
By specifically bringing attention to the racial implications and fallacies inherent in all teachings about human evolution from so-called "primitive" life forms in Africa, creationists hope that everyone will notice that the Declaration of Independence states that all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these rights is the inalienable right to denounce scientific racism in genetics and to reject philosophical Darwinism in U.S. education.
"Wow! You're right! They made an ape look like an ape! Devastating!"
I'm glad you agree that Toumai is an ape that "looks like an ape" and bears no resemblance to any human being that ever lived.
"It is quite a coincidence that on a thread about human genetics, your only response seems to be to drag out the so-called genetic fallacy repeatedly."
Genetics alone cannot prove human evolution from non-humans. We need some paleoanthropological evidence. Since there is none, all genetic information and evolutionary theses which purport to associate modern people with so-called "primitive species" for purposes of "proving" common ancestry and descent are inherently racist.
"I guess when you cannot address the science, you move on to logical fallacies and hope no one notices."
By specifically bringing attention to the racial implications and fallacies inherent in all teachings about human evolution from so-called "primitive" life forms in Africa, creationists hope that everyone will notice that the Declaration of Independence states that all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these rights is the inalienable right to denounce scientific racism in genetics and to reject philosophical Darwinism in U.S. education.
You cannot get away from the logical fallacy even when it is pointed out, can you?
You are attempting to distract from the facts by questioning motive with some strange and unsupportable allegation about racism in the scientists.
In the end, logical fallacies are not valid forms of argument. Your logic is by definition wrong. I suppose that a lack of a means to explain the observations leaves you little choice but to engage in logical fallacies and hope that no one calls you on it. Well, I have.
You are attempting to distract from the facts by questioning motive with some strange and unsupportable allegation about racism in the scientists.
In the end, logical fallacies are not valid forms of argument. Your logic is by definition wrong. I suppose that a lack of a means to explain the observations leaves you little choice but to engage in logical fallacies and hope that no one calls you on it. Well, I have.
QUOTE = Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"You are attempting to distract from the facts by questioning motive with some strange and unsupportable allegation about racism in the scientists."
Lubenow does not accuse any scientists of racism but merely demonstrates that the theory of evolution when applied to human beings is racist.
"In the end, logical fallacies are not valid forms of argument."
Racial fallacies are not a valid form of argument in attempting to prove human evolution from primitive species.
"Your logic is by definition wrong."
Evolutionary racism by definition is wrong.
"I suppose that a lack of a means to explain the observations leaves you little choice but to engage in logical fallacies and hope that no one calls you on it. Well, I have."
You haven't falsified or disproved Lubenow's thesis that any genetic hypotheses or "theories" which contribute to and support ideas and beliefs in human evolution from primitive species in Africa is racist.
"You are attempting to distract from the facts by questioning motive with some strange and unsupportable allegation about racism in the scientists."
Lubenow does not accuse any scientists of racism but merely demonstrates that the theory of evolution when applied to human beings is racist.
"In the end, logical fallacies are not valid forms of argument."
Racial fallacies are not a valid form of argument in attempting to prove human evolution from primitive species.
"Your logic is by definition wrong."
Evolutionary racism by definition is wrong.
"I suppose that a lack of a means to explain the observations leaves you little choice but to engage in logical fallacies and hope that no one calls you on it. Well, I have."
You haven't falsified or disproved Lubenow's thesis that any genetic hypotheses or "theories" which contribute to and support ideas and beliefs in human evolution from primitive species in Africa is racist.