The Evolution Conflict

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

Certainly there is a lot wanting ni the evolutionary theory - the whole field seems very embryonic. I suspect that as protein pathways and in particular are more properly studied, we'll see a proper attempt to see these questions addressed ni a more constructive way, rather than the basic "random chance".

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Mohsin!

Originally Posted by Mohsin

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

I think I have shown I am no expert on this subject, and there are questions this subject raises in my mind. In short, I am not sure that the way it is described is quite the way it works. I do like the way Hartman and Gellman described it, science is attempting to explain how God did it, God being the source (or why) things were done.

I am curious about the bird biology myself, having stumbled on it last week.

As for fish/amphib biology, there are a couple of interesting creatures that come to mind. The Betta, or Siamese Fighting Fish, is an aquarium fish that can be kept in a very small bowl because it has lungs and breathes air.
A much more striking example stands out in my mind (dating back to grade school when I learned of it). I believe it is called African Lung Fish. It not only breathes oxygen directly, it crawls using its front fins, and it can survive at least two years encased in a ball of mud (not only not in water, but with no water to drink!).
Whether this is a "transition" form I cannot say. I do think it is a remarkable creature, and another witness to the wonder of God's creation.

Also I noticed, actually concidering the message, you guys try to find errors in the posts. This is wrong. The few things that I would like to say in the end. Firstly, instead of apperitiating(appreciating?) God's artistry with which He had created so many creatures, you say that they are due to evolution. Secondly, believing in something without proof is like accepting it something as a religion. You do not ask many questions in a religion but accept it as it is.

I am confused Mohsin. Believing without proof is "not asking questions." Finding errors in posts is "asking questions." How can somebody not ask questions by asking questions?

I believe in God. I also believe that He is real. Because He is real, He can handle being questioned. If He were not real, those who have a vested interest in continuing the myth would discourage questions. Which is why I have difficulty with some religions, including my own. It is not that God is not real, but that a particular view of Him may not be real.

Religion is not God. Neither is science God. Both are ways that try to explain God, and both have different motivations for doing so. Science doesn't disprove God, and those who use science to try to disprove God are seriously misguided. Religion doesn't really prove God either, it merely provides a set of stories from a point of view that provides a wisdom path. It is not wrong to question religion, more wrong is done by not questioning religion, especially those religions that demand no questions.

[samabudhi]

We can prove that life cannot originate by chance.

I don't believe in chance. Evolution is not about chance. It's perfectly ordered.

Can you prove that God does not exist?

No. I don't believe anything can be proved. Everything we know is based on probability.

The complexity of the very basic elements shows that there is a Creator for it.

Please. What kind of statement is that.

We can resort to our religious scriptures and prove the existance of God.

And if there were no scriptures? Scriptures saying they're the word of God is like the snake that bites it's own tale. You need something else to support it. Science has proven itself over and over, and unfortunately, it's not on God's side.

Can you prove that the universe is an infinite cycle of arising and ceasing phenomena? What evidance do you have to support your claim?

It is the most likely explanation since it is all pervasive. As I said, what does not arise and what does not cease. Name anything. I challenge you.

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians. Evolution is right before you when you look at the life cycle of a frog. It starts out completely dependent in water, and evolves to live partly on land.
Mugskippers in southern asia are another example (though less advanced than frogs) as are salamanders in Florida swamps (more advanced.)
Worms' evolution to insects is also clearly seen in the life cycle of a moth.
The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.
Jees. You can even see it in the embryo of a human. Single-cell, protochordate, worm, fish, vertabrate, something resembling a pig, monkey (you know we're covered with hair and lose it some days before we're born) and eventually we pop out as a human.

The problem with evolution is that it comes hand in hand with extinction. If there are more species competing for the same resources, somethings gotta give. Don't forget about climatic change. It's the intermediary species that die easiliest. I'm not going to go into detail about this, you can look it up if you're interested.
My point is that 65 million years ago most of the worlds reptiles became extinct, and with them went the animals which formed the link between birds and reptiles. There are many obvious features which we can link reptiles to birds with. There's a bird-reptile called Acheopteryx (spelling?) that died with the dinosaurs. More homework.

The answers are all there. Please do some research before engaging in a debate of this nature. This topic should be about heated discussions, sweaty brows, furious typing and damaged egos, not a history lesson.

(just kidding But seriously. It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Everything we know is based on probability.

I hope you will not mind if I return to this from time to time?

Science has proven itself over and over, and unfortunately, it's not on God's side.

What is not on God's side, science? Do you know this "based on probability?" Try again, please.

Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians.

I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature. Of course, this thread has already demonstrated how the scientists can't even keep their own language, lingo and jargon straight. So why should a novice, unfamiliar with the terminology, be expected to remain exact?
FISH, according to evolutionary theory, became REPTILES by passing through AMPHIBIAN forms. Mohsin was not incorrect, neither were you.

Worms' evolution to insects is also clearly seen in the life cycle of a moth.

This is the first I have heard of this, care to expound? The burden of proof is on the presenter, after all...
And if you must use links to other sites, at least provide the highlights, thanks.

The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.

Huh? This is inaccurate.

You can even see it in the embryo of a human. Single-cell, protochordate, worm, fish, vertabrate, something resembling a pig, monkey (you know we're covered with hair and lose it some days before we're born) and eventually we pop out as a human.

OK, I just went through a human biology class, and I have no idea where you got the "covered with hair" thing. Care again to demonstrate?

It's the intermediary species that die easiliest. I'm not going to go into detail about this, you can look it up if you're interested.

??? I'm not going to bother looking it up, because frankly it sounds made up.

My point is that 65 million years ago most of the worlds reptiles became extinct, and with them went the animals which formed the link between birds and reptiles. There are many obvious features which we can link reptiles to birds with. There's a bird-reptile called Acheopteryx (spelling?) that died with the dinosaurs. More homework.

Of which I have done a little, even recently. The only things I can conclude with certainty is that time has passed, and something has happened. Everything else is "based on probability." Might I ask, how does the scientific community "know" that the mass extinction took place 65 million years ago? I hear it a lot, but nobody wants to answer how they came to that conclusion.

(It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

Likewise, I'm sure.

[Mohsin]

(It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

You know what, when I was in the school, I also made up stories as how evolution works, but, I was only a kid then liked to watch a lot of TV. After I went through some facts, I came to know how wrong I was. I may not be an expert in this field, but I can reffer you to someone who really is. Go through the following link and read there book about the evolution deceit.
http://harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php
Just so you know, they are the biggest critics of this theory. Whenever there is a debate about creationism verses evolution, there books are presented. If you believe in evolution so much, I dare you to go through it. The points you posed are assumptions, none as proven to be fact.

Also you spoke about embroyology and stages where a larva turns into a moth. These are perfect systems of reproduction and growth. This does not mean that they originated like this.

[samabudhi]

What is not on God's side, science? Do you know this "based on probability?" Try again, please.

Yes, probability. For the sake of convenience, whenever I say 'for sure' I mean beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is it not enough that disproving one aspect in a religious text will not guarantee it's falsity?
Why is one witness not as good as two?
And why do the majority of people have such faith in science? Because it's proved itself again and again and again. Everything in science is logically connected to everything else. If you disprove that 1=1, you through our entire understanding of things into turmoil.
The same is not the case for religions. You could disprove that the ark was ever made, but it wouldn't convince everyone that the Bible is entirely a lie because the facts in the Bible and most other religious books (particularly those on dogma) are unrelated. I mean, what difference does it make who descended from Adam and Eve, and yet we find pages of geneologies in the Old Testament.

me:Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians.

juantoo3:
I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature. Of course, this thread has already demonstrated how the scientists can't even keep their own language, lingo and jargon straight. So why should a novice, unfamiliar with the terminology, be expected to remain exact?

FISH, according to evolutionary theory, became REPTILES by passing through AMPHIBIAN forms. Mohsin was not incorrect, neither were you.

What the hell???
Mohsin was asking about the apparent lack of evidence, the missing link from fish to reptiles. The fact that he missed out on amphibians is quite unacceptable. Amphibians are the answer to his rather simple question.

I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature.

Strict? Amphibians are a basic and well represented group in our line of evolution. I won't continue on this since I don't think you're too sincere in this question and that you're probably drawing my fire just to make a show of Mohsin's ignorance.

This is the first I have heard of this, care to expound? The burden of proof is on the presenter, after all...
And if you must use links to other sites, at least provide the highlights, thanks.

I won't. As I've said, this thread should (in my opinion anyway) be about discussing what we already know, not teaching it. If you want to know, it's right at your fingertips.

The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.
Huh? This is inaccurate.

Emphasis on 'not been entirely.'

OK, I just went through a human biology class, and I have no idea where you got the "covered with hair" thing. Care again to demonstrate?

It's called Lanugo hair. Here's the link: http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_7.htm

??? I'm not going to bother looking it up, because frankly it sounds made up.

As you wish. No skin of my teeth.

The only things I can conclude with certainty is that time has passed, and something has happened.

Might I ask, how does the scientific community "know" that the mass extinction took place 65 million years ago? I hear it a lot, but nobody wants to answer how they came to that conclusion.

Allow me to be the first then. We know because the fossil record tells us so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

You know what, when I was in the school, I also made up stories as how evolution works, but, I was only a kid then liked to watch a lot of TV.

That explains a lot, like your habit of not doing your homework.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

I may not be an expert in this field, but I can reffer you to someone who really is. Go through the following link and read there book about the evolution deceit.
http://harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php

Namaste Moshin,

thank you for the post.

you know... it would behoove you to actually read a scientists work on this issue... Harun Yahya isn't qualified to refute the subjects that he attempts.

i don't know why he's constantly trotted out to refute real scientists work... nothing he's written has ever been submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, he's not a scientist or, it would seem, even moderately versed on this subject. remember... arguing against Darwinism, though fun, isn't arguming against evolution.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Allow me to be the first then. We know because the fossil record tells us so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

I deserve what you sent my way, bad day, apologies.

However, rather than go on about everything, how about just this one?

The fossil record shows us that sometime in the past a lot of creatures died and became buried and fossilized.

How does science know it took place 65 million years ago? With the certainty you proclaim? Actually, I have done some homework, I'm checking to see if you've really done yours.

[juantoo3]

And thank you for the info on Lanugo hair, I was not aware.

Apparently it exists also in cats, from which I would be inclined to think it is probably found throughout mammalian gestation.

http://www.sanspelo.com/1%20Sphynx/F...ine%20hair.htm
"In addition to these hair types, the feline also illustrates three developmental stages of hair expression: the neonatal stage, the transitional stage and the adult stage. The neonatal stage is characterized by the presence of lanugo hair on the back and limbs for 10 to 14 days after birth as well as the expression of the coat specific for the kitten's breed. After this hair is shed, the transtional stage begins and is characterized by a growth of secondary hair emerging at six to ten weeks and persisting to six months. At this point the adult stage begins and persists for the remainder of the cat's life although the ultimate expression of the coat may not mature until 12-18 months of age depending on secondary growth factors as noted above."

So this phenomenon is not localized to humans.

[lunamoth]

I appreciate it when people post links to pertinent web pages. I also appreciate it when people cut and paste, or paraphrase, snippets key to understanding their position in the debate. Sometimes websites are just too much to wade through to get the point.

[samabudhi]

Water under the bridge. (that is the right expression I hope?)

Originally Posted by juantoo3

How does science know it took place 65 million years ago? With the certainty you proclaim? Actually, I have done some homework, I'm checking to see if you've really done yours.

I'm rusty on this, but this is what I remember. Radio carbon dating. I don't think this works for really old samples like 65 million years. They use a different method for that. They check the levels of a certain isotope to determine the substances age.
All atoms have what is called a half life. They are all slowly dieing, though extremely slowly. Uranium dies faster than most, and as such, releases a lot of energy which we harness. You can see the age of a sample by measuring the levels of a certain isotope (decaying atoms). They choose very particular elements though.

This is just one method however. They can also see at what level in the earth fossils were found. Annual rains deposit sediment in different amounts at the bottom of rivers for example. They can count the number of years the deposit has been building for, and, instead of counting 65 million, extrapolate the age simply by measuring the depth. Like counting rings of a tree.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Water under the bridge. (that is the right expression I hope?)

It is, and thank you.

I'm rusty on this, but this is what I remember. Radio carbon dating. I don't think this works for really old samples like 65 million years. They use a different method for that. They check the levels of a certain isotope to determine the substances age.

I am very pleased to see you did not ascribe carbon dating to fossils, for the reason you mentioned.

All atoms have what is called a half life. They are all slowly dieing, though extremely slowly. Uranium dies faster than most, and as such, releases a lot of energy which we harness. You can see the age of a sample by measuring the levels of a certain isotope (decaying atoms). They choose very particular elements though.

I also understand measuring isotopes and radioactive decay.

This is just one method however. They can also see at what level in the earth fossils were found. Annual rains deposit sediment in different amounts at the bottom of rivers for example. They can count the number of years the deposit has been building for, and, instead of counting 65 million, extrapolate the age simply by measuring the depth. Like counting rings of a tree.

This sounds plausible, except I have heard that fossils can be found in unusual places. For instance, the footprints I mentioned earlier are in a creek bed. Other fossils I have heard are found on mountains. In both cases, very little digging was required to get to them.

The problem I see with isotopes is that fossils are buried in sedimentary rock. By definition, sedimentary rock is composed of other rock that has degraded to silt, been redeposited and formed (under pressure?) into a new form of rock. The isotopes may well be from the original rock the silt was formed from.

While I am in no way saying the "young earth" position of 6-10 thousand years is accurate, I am attempting to say that a great deal of the things we class as extremely ancient may not be as old as we commonly believe them to be.

Even concerning fossils in sedimentary stratification, I am inclined to believe that sediments can be deposited at much greater rates than we commonly give credit. I have heard of fossilized trees that extend through several layers of strata. That does not seem reasonably possible if those same strata are presumed to span several million years.

Any thoughts?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i believe that carbon dating can only go back 50,000 years or so... don't they use Argon isotope decay for measuring things older than that?

i'll have to check on it... it's been awhile since i've cracked open the old archeology material

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Any thoughts?

Sorry, but this is not my field.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Certainly there is a lot wanting ni the evolutionary theory - the whole field seems very embryonic. I suspect that as protein pathways and in particular are more properly studied, we'll see a proper attempt to see these questions addressed ni a more constructive way, rather than the basic "random chance".

Actually, Brian, you are referring again to the study of abiogenesis, not the study of evolution.

Evolution assumes that life already exists.

Abiogenesis is quite a new field of biological study aimed at determining whether and how non-living matter could develop replicative powers and acquire the properties of a living cell.

Because it is so new, there is no established theory yet that takes one all the way from an ordinary crystal to a cell. There are still a lot of gaps, a lot of alternative theories, a lot of new discoveries answering some questions, but not all.

But progress is being made rapidly and I wouldn't be surprised to see a theory coalescing around a key idea like the RNA world within a few decades.

However, it doesn't matter at all to the theory of evolution what the science of abiogenesis eventually comes up with. Because the theory of evolution picks up where abiogenesis ends---with living cells already in existence. No matter how those cells originated, they evolved. And it is what happens to living cells AFTER they come into existence that the theory of evolution concerns itself with.

Oh, and neither abiogenesis nor evolution occurs by random chance. Why people fixate on that I do not know. Just the media presence of creationists, I suppose. Scientists know that chemistry is a consequence of the properties of matter. Put two chemicals together and the result is entirely predictable because of their properties. Nothing random about it. And abiogenesis is a chemical process.

Scientists also know that evolution is a consequence of natural selection. And natural selection is a process of weeding out the randomness of mutations. It is exactly the opposite of chance.