In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)

In Six Days ^ | 02/17/05 | Timothy G. Standish, PHD biology

[antihannityguy]

Actually the Bible is very scietific and referenced science in many passages. There are numerous scientific references to things "discovered" thousands of years later

Such as Ocean Currents

Pslam 8:8 ...and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas

THe earth being suspended in space
Job 26:7 and hangeth the earth upon nothing

These are just a few examples

[VadeRetro]

Actually you are the www.yahoo.com. YOu have no idea what you are talking about. The missing link is a transitional form of a species, a mouse with wings that is turing into a bat for example.

Please provide a source for your claim that evolutionists think bats evolved from mice. The Germans call a bat a "Fliedermaus." That's about as close as it gets and it's not very close.

It is some species that is supposedly mutating into another species.

I have provided you with links to fossil series. You are simply repeating the foaming at the mouth which prompted me to ask in the first place, what is missing and why are the fossil series we do have not it? We have reptiles turning into mammals. We have dinosaurs turing into birds. We have land animals turning into whales. We have apes turning into humans.

None of the fossils in those series were known when Darwin published Origin in 1859 setting out the theory that all the life forms on Earth are connected via gradual evolution in a tree of common descent. That should now be credited as a great prediction, but we have instead this class of wilfull idiots asking "Where are the missing links?"

I'm going to ask you again. I'm going to type slowly so you can read my fingers.

Why is nothing we have this funny missing link thing? What would it take for something to be "it?"

We already both know you're going to claim the above picture is not it. Your job is to say why and how that's not it and say what "it" is.

While bats did not come from mice, birds did come from dinosaurs. Here's a saurian foreclaw in the act of turning into a wing.

That's the dino-bird counterpart to your mouse-bat thing that nobody even thinks happened. But we have the evidence in this case (and lots more where that came from). But we both know you're going to say that's not "it" either.

You're going to say that because nothing we ever have can be allowed to be "it." And what kind of game is it to pretend you would accept something as "the missing link" (were it only to be presented) when you think you'd go to Hell for acknowledging the truth? And what kind of God tells people to act like you?

[jdhighness]

I know what you are saying, but you mis-interpreted my point.

[microgood]

We have reptiles turning into mammals. We have dinosaurs turing into birds. We have land animals turning into whales. We have apes turning into humans.

I am just a curious willful idiot, but why do we not see transitional creatures living today? Is evolution over with? Why are there no creatures with partial arms or halfway between one species and another, with a partial arm(that will be an arm in 2 million years) walking around today. All speciation must be over with.

[VadeRetro]

I am just a curious willful idiot, but why do we not see transitional creatures living today?

Yes.

Is evolution over with?

No.

Why are there no creatures with partial arms or halfway between one species and another, with a partial arm(that will be an arm in 2 million years) walking around today.

Evolution doesn't work like that. Why is all of "creation science" so heavily dependent upon the ignorance of creationists? If you don't know what evolution even is, how it works, what you can expect from it... how do you know it's wrong?

All speciation must be over with.

Google on speciation some time and learn what it is. You have it confused with some kind of handicap.

Learn a little bit about what you're talking about. Then you'll at least know something about what you're talking about.

[VadeRetro]

I am just a curious willful idiot, but why do we not see transitional creatures living today?

OK, this was not a "Yes" or "No" question. You begged the question and you begged it wrong.

[microgood]

Evolution doesn't work like that.

Then explain it to me. Whenever I ask this question, I get the same answer from every evolutionist. They never answer the question, of course, just call me an idiot and that I need to learn more. I've read alot about speciation and species and that is another area where evolutionists talk out of both sides of their mouth.

First you show us a fossil of a something halfway between one species and another.
Then I ask why there are no species living like the fossil you presented.
Then you say evolution does not work like that (like the fossil you just showed).

And you say I am the idiot.

[Tench_Coxe]

I read 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Interesting read. Then again, so was an 80 year old tome on Abnormal Psychology.

[VadeRetro]

I've read alot about speciation and species and that is another area where evolutionists talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Where? At ICR? AiG? Why don't you know the first thing about it?

That funny half-a-claw half-a-wing fossil? There were once lots and lots and lots and lots of those. A whole population over some large area in China. Populations evolve, and it's gradual in the generation-by-generation sense if not always the geological sense.

First you show us a fossil of a something halfway between one species and another.

I was throwing antihannity's dumb-bleeping back in his face. Evolution does not mean one day a dinosaur somewhere in the world turned into a bird. Only a creationist could be this clueless, know it himself, and still be sure he's right.

The worse news is you aren't even doing creation science wrong. You're doing it about average.

And you say I am the idiot.

It's worth repeating. You are the idiot.

[microgood]

I was throwing antihannity's dumb-bleeping back in his face.

So you were lying when you posted all those supposed transitional fossils. That is good to know for future reference that you admit there are not transitional fossils... because evolution does not work that way.

So now if I go along with gradual evolution than you have to see transitional fossils but you have just stated there aren't any so I have to buy into punctuated equilibrium, which is good for you evolutionists because then I would not see any fossils. I guess this means you are a punctuated equilibrium type like Gould.

The worse news is you aren't even doing creation science wrong. You're doing it about average.

I am not a creationist. I just do not believe evolution is correct. Science does well when its theories can be verified empirically, and macroevolution cannot.

It's worth repeating. You are the idiot.

Since you admitted you are a liar, are you sure you are not lying when you call me an idiot?

[antihannityguy]

First of all your picture of the skull has no label no caption so I have no idea what I am supposed to claim what it is not.

Second Why the personal attacks you sound like a liberal just personal attacking instead of having a polite discourse.

Third The way that most Darwinists today claim that species evolve is through mutations. Mutations are too rare to be produce even the necessary traits for just one life form to survive let alone the thousand upon thousands of species in the world today. Mutations are almost always harmful, and they are never beneficial. NOT ONCE has there ever been a truly beneficial mutation documeted out of the hundreds of thousands of experiements done. Sickle Cell Anemia is the "one good" mutation evolutionists point too, but it causes serious anemia, pain and death in those aflicted with it

[DannyTN]

Dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist.

There is some weak evidence that perhaps they did. This includes the Bibical references to a couple of creatures one of which was described as having a tail like a cedar tree. There are the references to dragons in multiple cultures. There is a reference in the Bible to King David having a "dragon pit". Whether this held animals or not, who knows? There is some peruvian pottery that shows drawings of men with dinosaurs that is "supposedly" old. There have been cave drawings found. But we haven't found fossil evidence. At least none that has been independently confirmed. And until that occurs, the evidence is weak at best.

Carbon dating does tell us how old organic material is.

Up to a point. all carbon 14 should deplete by 90,000 years. But no fossils have been found that have been fully depleted. And the levels are higher than what are thought to be due to contamination. Even if it is from contamination, that casts doubt on other radiometric techniques.

Other radiometric techniques date for longer ages than Carbon, but there are problems with all of them. The most common one was Potassium Argon dating. It was assumed that all argon boiled out of lava upon eruption and therefore lava could be dated since the argon ratio would initially be 0. But it has turned out to be a false assumption. 16 different vocanoes of recent eruptions all tested with long dates due to excess argon. What's more argon is a gas that may seep through the ground like Radon contaminating samples.

Light travels at a set speed, and millions of years must have passed for us to see starts that are millions of light years away.

This is the most difficult observation to reconcile to a literal interpretation of the Bible. But there are a couple of possibilities.

1. There is a theory on speed of light changing (dubious but not entirely impossible),
2. there are theories about inflation of the universe and relativistic and temporal effects that may have resulted in the universe aging at a different rate than Earth,
3. There's a theory I have about God and time. God interacts with time differently than we do. This must be true for Him to be able to tell us the future, and yet we have free will. But If He can tell us now about the future because He's been there, then He can also go into the past from here and change things. It's possible that He created the Earth when there were no stars, go to day 4 of the Creation week and created the stars, but created them at a point in time, far enough back to have the light arrive at Day 4. This wouldn't be deceptive. It would just be a demonstration of His power, that we arrogantly took to mean He had lied, because we didn't understand the scope of His power.
4. There is a theory that God created the light from the stars in transit when He created the stars. Again, there are some who say, that He would be lying, but if the purpose was to give light, then He wouldn't really. There's no reason He should wait millions of years just to keep a few arrogant men from assuming He lied.

[DannyTN]

"What data do you feel we have misinterpreted?"

See post 72.

[shubi]

"But once each metaphor was stripped aside, the core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life and the meaningful complexity of organisms."

It is hard to believe that a real PhD in biology doesn't know that ORIGIN OF LIFE IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!!

This whole article is probably a spoof of creationism, but that is only a theory.

[shubi]

Yeah, and certain creationists thought that having the definite article in front of the English "day" meant that yom meant a 24 hour day, until someone pointed out to them that the Hebrew does not contain the definite article in any of the 6 days of creation.

Of course, it is doubtful whether that pertinent piece of information has changed certain creationists "mind" about their particular misinterpretation of God's Word. And for some reason certain creationists disappeared from the thread and never again mentioned the glaring error.

Of course, that is only a theory.

[DannyTN]

"Timothy Standish is onto something. A liberal is someone who happily pretends to believe that all ideas deserve respect even if they aren't true. So is a creationist."

I think you have creationists confused with someone else. Some of your ideas we don't respect at all. We respect your right to be wrong. But not so much that we won't tell you about it.

[SalukiLawyer]

What survival benefit does a half-leg/half-wing give a mutated freak? Why would such a clumsy fellow, who could neither fly nor run on all fours, nor easily seize prey with his forelimbs, survive better than his more ordinary neighbors to live to reproduce and continue on the road to birdhood? Until he has a useful wing (and the musculature and know-how to take advantage of it), the thing is a liability, if anything.

I remember reading that early winged dinosaurs could not truly fly, but climbed up trees and glided down. While that sounds like fun, I'm wondering what the big evolutionary advantage was to such behavior. A few squirrles do that. Are they evolving into birds, too?

Maybe I'm confused about the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing, but even if something is shown to have come about slowly, incrementally, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the product of blind chance. Okay, you've got a picture of something that might be a lizard with some sort of little wing. What does that say about the mechanism by which that turns into a bird?

Also, what do all the skulls prove? It is accepted that there were different hominids that were not ancestors of Homo Sapiens. There are also gross differences even among skulls of modern Homo Sapiens (of different races).

What land animals turned into whales? Darwin thought it was bears. My kid's science book speculated it might have been dogs that hung around the water too long (Labs no doubt). How do these transformations come about? How do mutants, who are not specialized to their environment nonetheless prosper so well they stick with their in-between forms long enough to develop a winning strategy in the evolutionary sweepstakes?

How do you get multiple system components that make no sense individually coming together beautifully at just the right time? Why is complexity favored when simplicity can do the job of blindly transmitting the genes at a heck of a lot less energy expended?

I don't think I'm an idiot, too (although that's never a safe assumption). These are questions that should be easily answered, since they are pretty common-sense ones, really, and I'm sure have been asked many times before.

Bottom line is, once you have proven the regular transformation of one species into a completely different one (and I'm not sure that's been done) you still have to explain why and how that happens. A theory that mutations confer survival benefits even during the transitional period where they would seem to be less useful than the preceeding form is illogical.

[jwalsh07]

Here are some examples from biology textbooks (high school and junior college) that convey to the student in no uncertain terms that the origin of life and its subsequent evolution is understood, and that it is a fact the it occurred by purely natural means.

Miller & Levine Biology Prentice-Hall (1993), pp.342-348:

"From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved." "Although the origin of the first true cells is uncertain, we can identify several of their characteristics with certainty."

"At some point, an ancient form of photosynthesis evolved in early cells"

"Between 1.4 and 1.6 billion years ago, the first eukaryotic cells evolved, fully adapted to an aerobic world."

"A few hundred million years after the evolution of sexual reproduction, evolving life forms crossed another great threshold: the development of multicellular organisms from single-celled organisms. In the blink of an evolutionary eye these first multicellular organisms experienced a great adaptive radiation. Earth's parade of life was well on its way."

The following quotes are from Camp & Arms, Exploring Biology (1984) Saunders College Publishing, which has been used as a textbook in junior colleges in California, and may still be used today:

"Most scientists today believed that chance chemical events, occurring over a time span of more than a billion years, built up increasingly complex and life-like clusters of chemicals; some of these eventually became cells." (293).

"So, unlikely as living systems are, they had so much time to evolve that their origin was probably inevitable!" (296).

"Slowly, over a long timespan, some aggregates evolved coordinated chemical pathways that could carry on the functions of life: metabolism, information transfer, and faithful reproduction." (305). Dr. Lee Spetner

You were saying?

[DannyTN]

"Yeah, and certain creationists thought that having the definite article in front of the English "day" meant that yom meant a 24 hour day, until someone pointed out to them that the Hebrew does not contain the definite article in any of the 6 days of creation. "

Doesn't matter. The Bible reiterates Morning and Night. That article can be missing all it wants, you don't get a super long eon, morning and night.

What's more evolution as it has been presented to us, includes man. The Bible says God created woman from Adam's rib. So how do you reconcile that with evolution?

It says each animal was created from the ground after it's own kind. I suppose that is subject to interpretation, but it's at best an extremely awkward way of saying "each animal was modified from the other animals"?

[shubi]

Yep, the Bible is read gud siance:

These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Le 11:13-19).


“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
(Le 11:20).


There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
The Holy Bible (Le 11:21-22).


That is the bird kind with the bat and let's count the legs on an insect:

Won, too, twee, eight, fifteen FOUR. OK lets check that:

Six, a thousand, won, Four. OK, RAAAAGT

Ahh want all maa childuns to larn siance frum de Baabul,

but that's only a theory and I am not wearing a shubi industries aluminum hat.