New Record-Setting Living Fossil Flabbergasts Scientists

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 12/5/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[snowballinhell]

Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue, the theory of panspermia does not address the question of life's initial origins from lifeless organic debris. It merely evades the base question.

I think we are arguing the same point here, my point also was it evades the question.

[jennyp]

PMFJI, but do you mind if I introduce you to the concept of <i>italicizing</i> or

<blockquote>blockquoting</blockquote>

the passages you're responding to? It's a confusing chore to read your posts without them.

Thanks.

[snowballinhell]

the passages you're responding to? It's a confusing chore to read your posts without them Like This? Thanks I was wondering about that?! How do you copy and paste pictures?

[donh]

So what it's going to be, in one post you hold up evidence of variation as proof for evolution, in the next post lack of evidence as proof of evolution.

It's going to be both, depending on whether the environment is changing or not. This isn't rocket science, you can get it if you put down the "snappy phrase's for creationists" handbook and think about it for a minute.

[donh]

Yes this is very true if you use the second hole stuffer theory, problem being is WE HAVE fossils from "turbulent period" which show NO change.

Oh, indeed. And we have geological inversions with fish over mammals, and we have dino bones that occasionally show up in silurian debris. However, this is a field of inquiry with a wide amount of potential variation. A fossilized bone has no say about where chance diversions of strata will take it. Fortunately, the science of this stuff doesn't look at one bone, and try to draw a conclusion. It looks at all the data we have available, and groups it statistically, and, statistically, you have no case. It is clear as a bell, looking at the accumulations of evidence, that the trend in fossils, viewed from high above, is a rather orderly, continuous march from small to large, simple to complex, monolithic to segmented, isolated to conglomerated.

I guess I should say, it is clear as a bell, unless they have a theological iron in the fire.

[snowballinhell]

Some quotes for the current scientific thinkers

Required: Miraculous Additions

"I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent...if I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish."

Charles Darwin,
In a letter to the geologist Charles Lyell shortly after publication of 'Origin'

"The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts."

R. Dickerson,
'Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,' Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70.


"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that bio genesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of bio genesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."

G.A. Kerkut,
Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.


"Darwin was embarrassed ...
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.

We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."

Chandra Wickramasinge,
Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution.
The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Stephen J. Gould,
'Cordelia's Dilemma', Natural History, 1993, p. 15

And finally

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."

Charles Darwin,
Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229

[donh]

So why are you so convinced of the theory of evolution, is not really just an idea, which changes constantly in light of new data, moving further and further away from the original concept.

That's exactly what I think it is. Just as I think that's what the theory of gravity is. They just happen to be ideas that seem to currently explain best what we see happening in the physical world.

Is it not the scientists being the current "witch burners" to anyone who disagrees with their entrenched "ideas", ask any scientist who is not working to prove entrenched "ideas", how open minded "the establishment" is.

If any scientist puts up a rigorous and devastating attack on basic evolutionary theory in a formal paper in a biological journal (which, by the way, is where we do science these days), and sees it stand up to rigerous attack because he's done his homework, his career would be made. He'd have a permanent chair in a dozen universities around the world.

Sticking your nose up in the air about some crank theory and refusing to offer your homework for inspection where scientists do their sciencing, which is what ID'ers do, is hardly the same thing. Behe and Denton and their fellow travelers have gained the scientific disrespect they have received in the old fashioned way: they earned it.

[donh]

A string of random quotes from scientists do not the basis of current scientific speculation make. Of course there are doubts and disagreements in science as it progresses from theory to theory.

It is the job of a scientist to struggle with doubts and disagreements--look through any technical scientific journal--that is what they are there for--to disagree and haggle about theories.

[snowballinhell]

It is clear as a bell, looking at the accumulations of evidence, that the trend in fossils, viewed from high above, is a rather orderly, continuous march from small to large, simple to complex, monolithic to segmented, isolated to conglomerated.
Yes and this is proven by the fact that a grain of rice has 50K genes and humans only 25K genes, or a gorillas 48 chromosoms to our 46. And from small to large most fossil data shows our current flora and fauna was once MUCH lager than todays.

[donh]

Hold on if life is so simple to create because of it's "painfully slow responses of increasingly stubbornly persistent pre-DNA congeries of adhering, self-sustaining entities" I think I'll brew me up a batch of life (maybe I can get it to mow the lawn).

Sure. Right after you brew up a c-class star undergoing a phase change in your back yard. Obviously, if they can't do it, those astronomers must just be trying to pull a fast one on us with all this gibberish about steller evolution.

[snowballinhell]

These quotes are not from the fringe but from your "respected scientists" and Darwin himself.

[snowballinhell]

Now brewing up a new star would be impressive, but creating life which is obviously so simple it can happen anywhere, should not be that tough.

[donh]

As far as using lack of gravity between galaxies as an argument for accepting lack of evidence for evolution is a big leap, I could just as well used that analogy of proof of GOD, we can all make that little leap can't we?

Sure. The question is, can I get a doubter to buy it? If you ask that question about the theory of gravity, you can do the calculations for another set of bodies in the heavens you've never looked at, and see if your predictions hold true. Can you predict when the next really outrageous example of God's intervention will occur in similarly metrically predictable manner?

We believe in gravity with high confidence because of these inductive demonstrations. We have not proved the theory of gravity--we just believe it with a high degree of critically verifiable confidence. Same reason we believe in evolutionary theory with a great deal of confidence. We keep predicting the general nature of what we will find if we keep diging, and we keep finding things where we predict we'll find them in greater abundance than we find them where we don't predict we'll find them. That is the basis of graduate educations in paleontology.

[xzins]

You're so sly you might even win some kind of sly award.

/snicker

[donh]

And please the Fido and Fluffy and the kids link?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=138942

http://www.team.ars.usda.gov/symposium/1994/twelve.html

http://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2002/2/bot432-07.html

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:EPOS80CWaRwJ:www.ivis.org/advances/Zhao/zhang3/IVIS.pdf+%22interspecies+crosses%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.patentec.com/data/class/defs/800/269.html

http://www.isleofviewirisgarden.com/catalog_pages/species_isc/species_1.htm

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch17spec.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s11024.htm

So are lions and tigers the same species? How about llamas and camels? Zebras and horses? Is that what you plan to teach in ID class? Can I quote you on this at the next school board meeting?

[snowballinhell]

Same reason we believe in evolutionary theory with a great deal of confidence. We keep predicting the general nature of what we will find if we keep diging, and we keep finding things where we predict we'll find them in greater abundance than we find them where we don't predict we'll find them. That is the basis of graduate educations in paleontology.
Now would that be the changes between species we are not finding that gives you "a great deal of confidence" or is it the actual lack of finding them that gives "great deal of confidence" What we seem to find as we keep digging is that what we thought before, was wrong and here is a new theory to fill the holes of the old one. Well I say keep digging!

[donh]

Yes and this is proven by the fact that a grain of rice has 50K genes and humans only 25K genes, or a gorillas 48 chromosoms to our 46.

No. It is proven by the fact that the world was occupied entirely by prokariotes long before slime mold ever showed up, and occupied by slime mold long before segmented worms, and occupied by segmented worms long before armored species and by armored species long before vertibrates, and by vertibrates long before mammals. Grains of rice and humans are comtemporaries--their differences in chromosome count are a pretty minor question when considered beside the issue of, for example, whether to have multiple distinct chromosomes in physically separated packages with vast regions of untranscribed material between, or not.

And from small to large most fossil data shows our current flora and fauna was once MUCH lager than todays.

That's as between the Cretatious and the current eras, when there was a major change in CO2 levels, and a consequent major reduction in overall productivity.

Again, you are using the microscope, and declaring the apature noise to be data. Humans and dinos are ALL bigger then earthworms, which are ALL bigger than prokariotes, which were the owners of the earth for far, far longer than all the vertebrates put together.

[donh]

Yes and this is proven by the fact that a grain of rice has 50K genes and humans only 25K genes, or a gorillas 48 chromosoms to our 46.

No. It is proven by the fact that the world was occupied entirely by prokariotes long before slime mold ever showed up, and occupied by slime mold long before segmented worms, and occupied by segmented worms long before armored species and by armored species long before vertibrates, and by vertibrates long before mammals. Grains of rice and humans are comtemporaries--their differences in chromosome count are a pretty minor question when considered beside the issue of, for example, whether to have multiple distinct chromosomes in physically separated packages with vast regions of untranscribed material between, or not.

And from small to large most fossil data shows our current flora and fauna was once MUCH lager than todays.

That's as between the Cretatious and the current eras, when there was a major change in CO2 levels, and a consequent major reduction in overall productivity.

Again, you are using the microscope, and declaring the aperture noise to be data. Humans and dinos are ALL bigger then earthworms, which are ALL bigger than prokariotes, which were the owners of the earth for far, far longer than all the vertebrates put together.

[snowballinhell]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=138942 http://www.team.ars.usda.gov/symposium/1994/twelve.html http://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2002/2/bot432-07.html http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:EPOS80CWaRwJ:www.ivis.org/advances/Zhao/zhang3/IVIS.pdf+%22interspecies+crosses%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 http://www.patentec.com/data/class/defs/800/269.html http://www.isleofviewirisgarden.com/catalog_pages/species_isc/species_1.htm http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch17spec.html http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s11024.htm NOT ONE has the dog and cat offspring you cite but the mixing of LILY's in one and a camel to a TYPE of camel in another. Where is fido and fluffy? So are lions and tigers the same species? How about llamas and camels? Zebras and horses?

Yes one would expect a lion and a tiger or a zebra and a horse to breed when forced by humans into an unnatural environment.

[donh]

These quotes are not from the fringe but from your "respected scientists" and Darwin himself.

Indeed they are. Which in no way answers the rebuttal I just offered. Quotes for respected scientists are not where you look to figure out what science currently thinks. For that, you must look at current scientific journals. I offered you a few in the long list of cites above. See if you can detect enormous doubts about Darwinian evolutionary theory at work in the metrics of cross-species fertilization in them. Or in the patent for a technique for cross-species fertilization I cited.