Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false

official school material ^ | 04/05/21 | self

[Physicist]

And will they understand the (most probably ultimate) warning God is giving them ?

Yellow-black-yellow, dangerous fellow,
Black-yellow-black, OK, Jack.

[PatrickHenry]

It's long past time to Abandon Thread!

[longshadow]

It's long past time to Abandon Thread!

Just when it seemed as though someone was about to cite the Timecube as an authoratative source.....

[ZULU]

both the coral and the howea would have had to have developed from scratch during the last 10,000 years.

I guess the author here never heard of plate tectonics and continental drift.

So called "creationists" increasingly appear to be identical to flat earth people.

[Physicist]

Authoritative, yes...but is it official?

[Physicist]

To be fair, Lord Howe Island hasn't moved very far in the last 10,000 years.

[ZULU]

Ferns have been around for millions of years.

[Truth666]

These are three of the dogmas which we are endoctrinated nowadays in school :
#1 - origins of the current forms of life : by evolution from previous forms
#2 - appearance of Homo Sapiens (from encarta): The oldest known fossils that possess skeletal features typical of modern humans date from between 130,000 and 90,000 years ago.
#3 - last ice age (from encarta): the most recent ice age, the Pleistocene Epoch, lasted from about 1.6 million years to 10,000 years before present ... when temperatures were 5° to 7° C cooler than today.
#1 and #2 are part of current evolution theory; #3 is part of current ice age theory.
There can be no doubts that no other theory has had so much impact on modern society as evolution theory. In view of the signs of climate change from the last years, ice age theory is impacting society more by the day.
From these dogmas we immediately can take the following conclusion : homo sapiens has already experienced an ice age.
Now hold on to your seat : relying solely on the assumptions of both theories, there's plenty of evidence that AT LEAST one of these theories is false ! In other words : these theories are incompatible.
Let's take one piece of evidence that any high school student can understand.

Lord Howe Island - living proof

This is not just another coral reef. This is Lord Howe Island, by far the southern-most coral reef in the world. Its existance is only possible due to particular climate conditions that affect an area of the world where no other land rises even remotely near sea level. In fact there's nothing but deep ocean until Port Macquarie, on the NSW coast, 550 kms away.
This wonder of the world consists, as you would expect, considering its unique geographical environment (isolation, unique climate) of a unique ecosystem, with many species at all levels (coral, anemones, coral fish, algae) being endemic, in the sense that they don't exist or were recorded anyhwere else. It would take only one degree Celsius for the yearly ocean temperature to drop, to destroy it.
The reef stretches along the lowlands of Lord Howe, which rise for the most part just a few meters over the ocean. If you use the lowest sum of heating and cooling degrees to measure the mildest climate of the world, then you will find it in this strip of 6 km, at times just narrower than half a mile.
At the southern end of the reef rise abruptly the two towers that dominate the largest ocean of the world, the Southern Pacific : Mt. Gower and Mt.Lidgbird. Another ecosystem with a unique climate in the world, combining the temperature features of Lord Howe's lowlands with an almost permanent cloud cover. It hosts three endemic unmistakable genus of palms, Hedyscepe and Lepidorrhachis and Howea (one of the Howea species, forsteriana, is the most popular indoor palm of the world). They all require full shadow before adults. Lepidorrhachis is the extreme example, its habitat being the sumits of both towers. Very small changes in climate would lead to the extinction of these palms, first of all because of the change in cloud cover.
So, just to take these two examples of ecosystems, both the coral and the howea would have had to have developed the last 10,000 years from scratch, i.e. from some other species that survived (or arrived since) the last ice age. A claim that nobody would dare to make.

[Physicist]

A claim that nobody would dare to make.

But I myself made exactly that claim, earlier in the thread.

May I suggest instead, "A claim only a scientist would dare to make"?

[Truth666]

Thanks for your feedback, some of which I added to the revised version two posts ago. But this one I can't include ... (more)

[Truth666]

This is what I should have done before my #180, which was intended to be my final post for this thread :
- 1 : add the explanation of one more techique to the list I started during this thread, in order to illustrate my replies
- 2 : post the revised version
Step 1 would also explain why you can express, as a physicist on a thread on FreeRepublic that coral species or palm genus might have appeared in the last 10,000 years ... but you would never be able to do it in "serious" conference or article on evolution theory as a "recognised" "evolution scientist".
BTW, before I explain that technique, I'm curious to see if you would tell me what technique I'm talking about ...

[Physicist]

Oh, I get it. If I claim to know something about evolution, I'm out of line, as I'm not in the field, whereas you're entitled to represent the professional opinions of everyone in the field ("nobody would dare"). Got it.

[Truth666]

"If I claim to know something about evolution, I'm out of line, as I'm not in the field, " - this technique is also true, but let me give an example to clarify what technique I mean :
- suppose you are in the field as a recognised "evolution scientist" (i.e. so far you have been not questioning the foundations of official evolution theory). - now suppose that for some reason you change your view and start advocating that significant evolution has taken place not so long ago, say during the last 10,000 years.
The question is : why would you immediately loose your status as a recognised "evolution scientist" ?

[Physicist]

I do not know where you got the idea that "recognized evolution scientists" believe that evolution has not gone on in the last 10,000 years, but it is dead wrong. Any biologist, or indeed any student of biology, can point to numerous examples of recent evolution.

Evolution doesn't just stop. It is going on everywhere, all around us, even as we speak.

[Truth666]

I mentioned "significant evolution" - this is what I asked at #140 and dind't get at the only reply, at #142.

[Truth666]

Hint about the technique : implementing the foundation of the big lie "evolution" relies on three cheap tricks that belongs technically in that category.
Two of those tricks them have been mainly used with human evolution / out of Africa.

One of these is actually the most sucessful trick ever from this category, and has been identified in a previous thread : cheap trick behind the most devasting lie in the history of mankind
(see there #50 by wirestripper for the first freeper to get the right path; see #54 by martian_22 for the precise correct answer.)

The trick I mean concerning what we discuss now, is the third one from that category; it is decisive for people to believe in all aspects of evolution, not only in human evolution.

[Physicist]

I mentioned "significant evolution" - this is what I asked at #140

Actually, this is the first you've mentioned it, but let's pretend that you did. Now define "significant". How genetically different are the corals at Lord Howe Island from corals elsewhere?

Is it "significant" because coral specialists can tell the difference between certain LHI corals and their relatives in other locations? Well, I can tell the difference between a dachshund and a beagle, or between a Granny Smith apple and a winesap. Genetically, though, they're not all that different.

You need to quantify "significance" if you want to claim that 10,000 is insufficient for the observed level of significance. (Once you get done proving that these corals could not have survived the ice age on LHI.)

But even if you can make a strong case that 10,000 years of evolution can't account for the differences, you will still be faced with what I said back in post #97: Furthermore, such diversification is not integral to the explanation, as the "distinctive" species could have arrived from elsewhere in essentially their modern form, with the parent stocks dying out in the interim. This is a very typical pattern of species migration during climate transitions: frequently the range where a species is found during an ice age does not overlap with its range during an interglacial period. Why should coral be any different?

[Truth666]

Why should coral be any different? It's not only coral - it's everything - I didn't even mention so far in this thread the ultimate example : birds. Even I have trouble believing this but :
In the last 400 years Lord Howe Island, a small island located in the Coral Sea between Australia and New Zealand, has had more bird species and subspecies extinctions than Africa, Asia and Europe combined.
(more)

[Truth666]

The science of statistics is the reason I didn't feel the need to mention birds or any other endemic species of Lord Howe.
Let's take the palms :
- what are the chances that their tiny seeds would have survived the journey from New Caledonia or Australia ?
- what are the chances that no similar fossiles have been found there (or anywhere else, for the matter) ?

[Physicist]

It's not only coral - it's everything - I didn't even mention so far in this thread the ultimate example : birds.

Yeah, OK, change the subject. It doesn't help you though. All you're showing is that remote, isolated locations exhibit many species that are "significantly" different from the mainstream populations of their closest relatives. If you think that this runs counter to evolution, guess again: that was exactly the observation that led Darwin to his theory of evolution in the first place. He happened to travel to the Galapagos Islands; he may as easily have come to LHI and reached the same conclusions.

what are the chances that their tiny seeds would have survived the journey from New Caledonia or Australia ?

If they can survive the journey through the alimentary canal of a bird, I would say, "not bad".

what are the chances that no similar fossiles have been found there (or anywhere else, for the matter) ?

Considering that very few species of anything leave any fossils at all, I would say, "excellent".

Those things said, you can't play the probability game in retrospect. The history of life is (and always has been) contingent upon chance occurrences. Very little about the development of life is preordained or inevitable. Maybe it is an incredible stroke of luck that this or that species of palm happened to survive, but if it hadn't, some other would have filled its ecological niche, and that would have seemed like a miracle, too.

Point to any lottery winner and ask yourself, "what were the odds of that person winning"? The answer is, "astronomically small". Does that make it a miracle?