tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.comments2023-11-03T02:13:39.320-08:00Evolution PlanetDavid Boardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-19979875754688427132016-04-12T10:42:46.533-08:002016-04-12T10:42:46.533-08:00I'd*** not If like... And uranium HAS not had....I'd*** not If like... And uranium HAS not had. Sorry, typing from my phone. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11357189171789847454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-89544624754604569642016-04-12T10:34:30.567-08:002016-04-12T10:34:30.567-08:00If like to further the article here by asking thos...If like to further the article here by asking those on the comment section a question: What is the point of a YEC belief? How does it change or further applicable scientific discovery? Does it change the speed of light by being a YEC? Does it change the fact that Uranium had a half life of 4.5 billion years (est)? Will admitting to a young earth change the way scientists think, or make calculations based on the principle of uniformitarianism? We have medical and technological advances based on the very notion of this process, do you expect to discount all of it? To stop and do what? How does evolution hurt you, and how does YEC advance science? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11357189171789847454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-75991989077910123572016-04-09T10:25:26.150-08:002016-04-09T10:25:26.150-08:00@David D: As mentioned in the article, you can thi...@David D: As mentioned in the article, you can think of the layers of the earth like a cake. The first/older layers are at the bottom, but if you eat part off the top, the lower layers will be visible. Why would this happen on Earth? Because when mountains form, they push the layers upwards. But ice, snow, wind and rain erode the mountains, revealing what is underneath. Mountains around the world tend to be made of some of the oldest rocks whereas large valley basins tend to have the most recent layers. Scientists have taken core samples all over the Earth and that makes it easy (because of all their hard work) to see how the layers relate.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-56680623950209980252016-04-09T08:59:11.441-08:002016-04-09T08:59:11.441-08:00Ok so why are dinosaur fossils always found in the...Ok so why are dinosaur fossils always found in the wrong layers? The first dino bone was found because it was sticking up through the top soil.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303447339370025964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-5151956285412889022016-03-23T14:30:08.247-08:002016-03-23T14:30:08.247-08:00"Nothing seems intelligent about evolution? R..."Nothing seems intelligent about evolution? Really?"<br /><br />Actually, what I said was "Nothing seems 'intelligent' about the way all the animals on the planet share the same basic bones and organs yet in so many odd twisted shapes serving different duties."<br /><br />Please read my post on <a href="http://www.evolutionplanet.com/2009/07/common-design-doesnt-explain-homologous.html" rel="nofollow">How Common design doesn't explain homologous structures</a>. The point is creationists (young and old earth alike) point to things in the animal world and say it proves intelligent design. My post refutes that. The creationist idea of design is there is an intelligent engineer at work. Instead, the evidence points to non-engineered hereditary changes.<br /><br />I completely agree there are amazing and even awe-inspiring adaptations in the natural world, and I even think it's fine to "believe everything has a purpose and meaning" as you do. However, I'm merely saying that if humans want to make the case that the natural world shows signs of engineering and intelligent design, the evidence must fit that assertion. In fact, the opposite is true.<br /><br />Believe me I didn't come to this conclusion overnight. But since I have, so much of the natural world makes more sense than it did before. Why would a bird with wings and a dinosaur with arms have nearly the same bones? Why would a whale have tiny hind leg bones inside its body? These and a million other questions don't point to an intelligent designer, but to a system of evolutionary change over time. It's fine to think this was directed, but I'm making a scientific, not philosophical case here.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-19742559507324386412016-03-22T06:02:09.179-08:002016-03-22T06:02:09.179-08:00I think you meant to say, "this is NOT how a ...I think you meant to say, "this is NOT how a designer creates." But I like your mistake better. Nothing seems intelligent about evolution? Really? That's very depressing, especially coming from someone who has read the Bible. I respect you for your pursuit of knowledge, but have you ever stopped and considered the possibility that God has directed evolution by external factors such as environment and catastrophes? You may not find it intelligent by your personal standards, but who are you to conclude such with your limited knowledge? For one, look how beautiful Stegosaurus is! It's plates are alternating! Alternating! That's awesome! Tuojiangosaurus, Kentrosaurus, or Dacentrurus didn't have that honor. Or what about Regaliceratops!? It's frill beautifully adapted into a crown! A Chasmosaur with seeming retrograde centrosaur adaptations. These adaptations served their functions for the animals, but they also translate into something awe inspiring for us who were meant to discover them. Absolutely fascinating. And the slow progression of Tyrannosaurs from animals like the small, furry Guanlong to the monstrously huge, scaly Tyrannosaurus Rex is extremely interesting to me. Why? Because I believe that everything has a purpose and meaning, and their eventual ascension to the apex predator throne speaks volumes of the first ways of God and his providence. I dare say we can learn something deep about the late rise of the Tyrannosaurs. <br /><br />Please do remember reading the book of Job. In chapter 42, what was Job's conclusion after the Lord spoke to him? And let's not forget that there is freedom to interpret Genesis creation days differently than our 24 hour days, and that the Lord Himself rebuked Job in chapter 38, saying, "You know because you were there, and the number of your days is great!" If God Himself says that Job would have to be really, really old to know about the history of earth and uses an exclamation in that statement, then that must indeed be a long time ago, longer than 6000 years (even YEC must admit that God could have created the earth billions of years ago before He created life). It saddens me that you don't seem to make any real effort to understand evolution in light of Scripture. At what point did you give up? As I've increased my knowledge, God has always provided a way for me to understand discoveries from a Biblical foundation, so that my views are always changing, getting closer to the truth. In this light, I describe myself as having an open mind, but one that is tenaciously glued to Scripture. Why? Because of Yeshua the Meshua. His supernatural life actually affects me in personal ways, again and again, even when it comes to dinosaurs, my favorite animals.Thanksgivingspirithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11827265260701294715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-46869063693757643262015-10-24T19:49:58.145-08:002015-10-24T19:49:58.145-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.joeyt56https://www.blogger.com/profile/02648029632028548973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-21063553764691573712013-03-12T15:15:26.811-08:002013-03-12T15:15:26.811-08:00True, the first edition didn't use the word &q...True, the first edition didn't use the word "Creator," but it said basically the same, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-54122532640759136722012-07-19T01:01:40.742-08:002012-07-19T01:01:40.742-08:00Hi Tyler,
Thanks for the comments and the kind wo...Hi Tyler,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments and the kind words. I definitely appreciate the points you make. However, I have a slightly different take on both issues.<br /><br />Regarding the "evolved from," this isn't so much my language as the creationist's. And as a layman's simplification, I think it's ok to say humans and great apes evolved from something like an ape. Still, you are technically right here.<br /><br />The bigger disagreement I have is with your second point regarding the "advanced" language. While I've heard your argument many times (including from distinguished scientists), I don't agree with it--at least not entirely.<br /><br />True, evolution "merely" helps living things adapt, but I don't think we can really say that there are no objective differences between various living things. You mention tigers and fish, but what about bacteria? Are humans no more advanced? Again, you raise a valid point about evolution, but I think it's fair for reasonable people to cry foul when evolutionists (also known simply as "biologists") make this claim. It may be valid, but it requires qualifications and extra explanation, and as such is not a strong argument, in my opinion.<br /><br />It's a valid point that humans shouldn't be seen as standing at the top of a pyramid of life. But it's also apparent that the human brain (for example) is far more complex than the brains of other animals. I think evolutionists sound like they are grasping at straws when they try to diminish this fact.<br /><br />Another way to state the argument about adaptation is that animals (including humans) are adapted to their mode of life. Fine, but you would have to say the human mode of life is far more complex than that of other animals. What other creature can live, work, socialize, play, etc in so many very diverse and complex ways? Or what other creature can adapt itself (by will!) to so many diverse environments? There is an obvious complexity here, call it "adaptation" or "advanced" or whatever you will. It's fair to say humans are the most notable of living creatures (on Earth, that way know of, at least).<br /><br />Having said all that, I like to point out to creationists that complex living things (e.g. vertebrates) are really just collections of individual cells. In that sense, we truly are very similar to bacteria! There are simply more cells and many more specialized cells in the human body. This arrangement is hard to explain from an "ex nihilo" worldview.<br /><br />Further, you can quite easily say that most of the "specialized" cells in humans can also be found in other animals (not only the apes). So we may have MORE brain cells, but apes have them all the same--just not in the same quantity. Again, this is a curious state of affairs for the creationist as they must explain why so much of life seems to be shared/related. As I've mentioned before, designers don't design in this way (at least not when they are seeking to be efficient and practical).David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-6944614974014808292012-07-15T17:53:23.693-08:002012-07-15T17:53:23.693-08:00Hi,
Nice site and nice post. I came across this ...Hi, <br /><br />Nice site and nice post. I came across this doing some online research for a teaching unit on evolution. I want to just make you aware of some ideas and terminology that have some big implications. <br />The first is using the phrase "evolved from." This is usually not correct, as two branches on a tree (take humans and apes) did not evolve from one or the other but rather from a common ancestor that may have been neither (human nor ape). This is important because many creationists take umbrage at the fact that we "came from" apes (and then they think of what they see today) when in fact we both have evolved since diverging long. long ago from an ancestor who was very, very different from either of us. <br />The second point is more or less related to the first, and it is on the matter of "advanced." You clearly demonstrate correct understanding of evolutionary theory by your description of how certain organisms are better *adapted to their environments. However, adaptation does not always look like our anthropocentric idea of "advanced." Every organism that exists today is just as advanced as the next by the simple fact that it exists: it is a form that is adapted to survive in its environment. By this measure, we are no more advanced than tigers, or even the slimy fish in the sea! Using the term adapted rather than advanced seems like a semantic quibble, but the implications again bear serious consequences for creationism because of the place it relegates the human race in the tree of life: not at the top, but on one branch among millions.<br />your fellow student, <br />Tyler FoxAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11368972828968954097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-36638589974162814152011-04-06T15:03:35.330-08:002011-04-06T15:03:35.330-08:00FYI, there was no reference to a Creator in the or...FYI, there was no reference to a Creator in the original First Edition of the Origin of Species. It was a line added later, likely to get religious types to actually read it without so much hand-wringing and offence-taking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387162787327985943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-40204413242468880712010-08-21T21:16:19.632-08:002010-08-21T21:16:19.632-08:00Hi Cosmos,
Well once again it's possible tha...Hi Cosmos, <br /><br />Well once again it's possible that a designer would work this way, but this is not the way designers usually work. My post points out the inaccuracy of the creationist claim that homologous structures point to design.<br /><br />Think of it this way: You say you build your creations by starting with similar-looking features and structures and you change them. That's fine. You've chosen to limit yourself to working this way. But imagine I held a contest to design the best possible airplane, bicycle, and car. You submit your designs along with many other designers. While it's possible you might start with the same metal frame and simply bend it to shape for each one, the winning designs would almost certainly be unique for each vehicle. Most designers would not use the identical layouts to build the frames of each one of these vehicles. <br /><br />Again, this is what we see in designs all around us. There are exceptions, but by and large designers (unlike nature) can imagine ways to create customized structures for any given design. They don't base their designs on what other designs look like. They specialize them to come up with the best possible structure for a given application.<br /><br />As I said in an earlier comment, if animals in nature had totally different skeletons, it would be VERY hard for scientists to claim they were related. The argument for design would be strong. However, the reverse is the case in nature as we know it. What we find with biological structures (that they share basic forms) suggests they are related, not that they are unrelated.<br /><br />And to your second point: I agree that it's more logical to believe in a Creator than it is to believe that everything just made itself randomly. But this is not what evolution claims. If it was just random I wouldn't believe it myself, but it's not. It's so much more than randomness.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-29520413949158968582010-08-21T17:00:38.000-08:002010-08-21T17:00:38.000-08:00I'm an artist and today, after I read your ent...I'm an artist and today, after I read your entry, I realized something. I start my creations all the same ways. I build them the same, beginning with similar-looking features and structures, then change them as I finish the piece.<br /><br />Who's to say God didn't do the same? <br /><br />These creatures are all related because the same Creator made them, not because they evolved from a single organism.<br /><br />By the way, it is far more logical to believe in a Creator than it is to believe that everything just made itself randomly.Cosmoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905969097455268936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-2906154403045817112010-05-03T23:07:47.676-08:002010-05-03T23:07:47.676-08:00"60 million yrs ago you still have a penguin,..."60 million yrs ago you still have a penguin, not some different half penguin half albatross animal."<br /><br />Again with the straw-man arguments. Evolution does not suggest there was ever a half penguin, half albatross. Yes, they may be related because they actually (believe it or not) share some common features, but you oversimplify to say the one came from the other.<br /><br />On the other hand, the oldest penguin fossils we know of (from around the end of the dinosaur age) show many non-penguin features. They had long beaks and long (for a penguin) wings. This makes sense if they evolved from a flying bird, but is hard to explain otherwise.<br /><br />And then there's the whole notion of why a designer would create a bird that doesn't fly, uses it's stubby wings to swim, etc. Evolution can explain this, ID can't. Nothing seems "intelligent" about the way all the animals on the planet share the same basic bones and organs yet in so many odd twisted shapes serving different duties. As I say in my post about homologies, this is now how a designer creates.<br /><br />"mutations does happen, but macroevolution, sorry, I don't buy that one."<br /><br />Sorry, but this is not a sound argument, just opinion. I understand where you are coming from (as I say, I was in disbelief once), but all you're really saying is you have trouble believing it, and that's not an argument.<br /><br />There's so much great info out there and every day more facts support evolution, but if you just say, "I can't believe it" and don't look at the facts then you'll never change your opinion.<br /><br />In regards to feathers, I believe we do have transitions from scales to feathers. A Google search will turn up many references to primitive downy feathers on theropod dinosaurs, for example. Whether or not birds were direct descendants of dinosaurs, the very existence of dinosaur feathers illustrates the possibility of scales-to-feathers evolution.<br /><br />Why don't we have more fossils of early birds? Same reason we don't have many fossils of modern birds. Birds as a rule don't live in the water and so they are not as commonly preserved. Their skeletons are small and fragile, in general, and their remains are typically destroyed before they can be preserved.<br /><br />But again, lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen-- especially considering that the overwhelming evidence we do have points to a reptile-to-bird line of ancestry. For example, the birds you mention are very primitive and dinosaur-like in many ways, so I'm not sure I see your point.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-56695061383639238822010-05-03T21:18:44.822-08:002010-05-03T21:18:44.822-08:00Yes it is hard to believe :)
60 million yrs ago y...Yes it is hard to believe :) <br />60 million yrs ago you still have a penguin, not some different half penguin half albatross animal. <br />I'm not saying that microevolution is impossible, mutations does happen, but macroevolution, sorry, I don't buy that one. <br />Take a feather, on first birds you already have modern feathers (the birds themselves looked quite modern too), so please think about the lack of evidence for your theory. No transitions from scales to feathers. There should be numerous fossils of these transitional animals with half developed feathers and numerous other features that make birds fly. But we just have Iberomesornis, Ichthyornis and Confuciusornis. No mutants with half developed scale-feathers... <br />PeaceMihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278480159023080315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-68878660649583028762010-05-03T18:52:22.162-08:002010-05-03T18:52:22.162-08:00You have genetics that tells us that every animal ...You have genetics that tells us that every animal or plant on the planet comes from some other animal or plant. This is huge! Every living in thing on the planet is created by reproduction from some other living thing. Evolution fits perfectly with a system in which all life on earth comes by reproduction when animals pass on a code called DNA--a code sometimes changes slightly (about 1 mutation in every human, for example). These are just some of the facts of genetics, but they point us to evolution.<br /><br />And there's biogeography wherein animals of certain types are typically found in places around the earth with animals of that same type. Again, this makes sense in light of evolution just as it makes sense than most blacks live in Africa and most Chinese live in China: ethnic distribution is mostly a result of lineage. So too, animal distribution is mostly a result of lineage. So we have marsupials largely in Australia, monkeys with grasping tails are found only in the Americas, whereas African/Asian monkeys have limp tails. All of the species of penguins are found in Antarctica, and none in the Arctic. These facts point to evolution.<br /><br />And so many other fields of science make sense in light of evolution, but not otherwise.<br /><br />So again, yes, it's hard to believe, but it's not as hard to believe when you learn more about the natural world and how animals relate in terms of their anatomy, genes, chemistry, etc.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-6061165781823527072010-05-03T18:52:05.590-08:002010-05-03T18:52:05.590-08:00"Just imagine (it takes a lot of it).... one ..."Just imagine (it takes a lot of it).... one day a doglike animal that really loves to swim produces the offspring with a sonar... Sorry friend, to[o] stretchy."<br /><br />Yes, I agree, but this is called a straw-man argument. Evolution doesn't say that one day a dog-like animal that loved to swim produced offspring with sonar. It's easy to attack stories like this--even laugh at them--but you are just making yourself feel better because this is not a claim of evolutionary theory. All you are undermining is your own invented wacky version of evolution.<br /><br />I don't agree it takes a lot of faith to believe evolution. What it takes is a lot of knowledge. I hate to say that but it's true. As much as evolution makes so much sense to me now, I remember when it seemed like the most idiotic concept to me. But I didn't actually know very much about biology, geology, anatomy, genetics, or any of the other fields of science that relate to evolution.<br /><br />The reason I hate that evolution takes knowledge to understand is because knowledge about science is just what so many people lack. I'm not saying they're dumb. You don't have to be a genius to understand evolution. You don't have to be a scientist (I am not). But you do need to have a relatively good understanding of a relatively large range of scientific facts.<br /><br />Again, like you I was once completely blown away that people could believe "mutations" could produce complex change in organisms. Only after I began to truly study fossils and anatomy and geology for myself did I begin to understand that this was in fact possible, and not only possible but probable. And not only probable, but the only truly valid theory.<br /><br />The problem is (and again, the thing I hate) is that I can't give you or anyone that knowledge. You have to study it for yourself and be willing to consider new ideas based on the facts you uncover. The facts (fossils, in this case) point to land mammals similar to hippos (but not hippos), followed by sea animals with the same kinds of teeth, very similar skulls, but toes that look more like paddles. And those creatures (again, we see this in the fossil record) are followed by more whale-like animals with tiny hind legs, front legs shaped like big fins (with mostly the same bones, but stretched out), and unusually shaped ear bones, but still mostly the same teeth and skull bones, etc.<br /><br />Are there gaps? Yes! But gaps are not an argument for or against a theory--they are gaps in our knowledge. The quality of the fossil record is a bit like this number sequence:<br /><br />2 4 6 - 10 - 14 - - 20 - 24 26...<br /><br />There are some definite gaps there, but there is still more than enough data to guess that we are dealing with a string of even numbers spaced in 2s. Also, it would be crazy for me to claim that these gaps in the number sequence mean there is no sequence at all: that some designer picked out numbers totally unrelated to the other numbers. Now, is that possible? Sure! Maybe the designer just happened to like those numbers above but his other favs are 13 17 and 101. <br /><br />But "possible" doesn't mean "likely" and the evidence for evolution is far more likely than even my number sequence above suggests. Why? Because in the case of evolution you have more than just a fossil record full of plant and animal forms apparently transitioning to other forms.<br /><br />continued below...David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-1351197801028870572010-05-03T12:15:49.038-08:002010-05-03T12:15:49.038-08:00OK, I see your point but please see mine. You are ...OK, I see your point but please see mine. You are pointing out to similarities of whale with land mammals but still it is a completely functioning fully developed whale. You are giving too much credit to mutation I think. Just imagine (it takes a lot of it).... one day a doglike animal that really loves to swim produces the offspring with a sonar... Sorry friend, to stretchy. It is like saying that brits didn't invent radar, it just appear on the cliffs of Dower :)<br />Anyways, bottom line, since there is a lot of faith involved in evolution (even the production of one single feather from would take a LOT of time and mutations ant those would be shoved in Velociraptor ancestry) I choose to believe in ID just as I would choose to believe that your blog have actually a author and is not randomly typed by a group of happy typing chimps.<br />Designing stuff today by man can be seen around us, a submarine could have a diesel motor inside it but it is designed, not evolved. <br />But I guess you know already all of this, and believe me, I was raised in communist evolutionist environment, and most part of my education I am somewhat familiar to evolution side.Mihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278480159023080315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-48529215581229093182010-05-02T23:34:18.391-08:002010-05-02T23:34:18.391-08:00I think your questions may come from a misundersta...I think your questions may come from a misunderstanding of evolution, or from anatomy, or both. <br /><br />In regards to evolution, it doesn't predict (or require) party-formed organs. All you need is for one fully-formed organ (a scale is an organ) to change in form (say to a feather) that provides some unique benefit. And yes, a partly-changed scale could easily provide an intermediate benefit (insulation, for example).<br /><br />In regards to anatomy, I've alluded to the fact above that items such as scales and feathers are in fact organs. If you don't accept that dinosaurs with fuzzy scale-feathers show intermediate organs, I think you are being disingenuous or maybe don't understand the definition of an organ.<br /><br />Further, in the case of whales, for example, did you know they share nearly all their organs in common with other mammals, including humans? There skeleton is nearly the same (albeit the bones of the skull are stretched out so the nostril is near the top of the skull) and even some living whales have tiny non-functioning hind leg bones! Some fossil whales have complete hind legs. <br /><br />Whale internal organs are mostly the same as other mammals: brain, heart, lungs, stomach, etc. Their blood, nervous, muscles are almost the same as land-living mammals, and on and on it goes.<br /><br />What is different about whales from other mammals is not so much the presence of new organs, but the change in morphology (shape) and function of existing organs. Whales use their front legs as flippers (the bones are mostly the same but changed in shape and function). As I said, the skull is mostly the same bones, but twisted into a new shape that allows the nose (same organ as in other mammals) to point up. The lungs are the same, but changed to allow holding their breath for long periods. The tail is a tail, but a new shape and function as well. And so on.<br /><br />I'm glad you are not supporting YEC and I understand your question about transitional forms, but the problem is not so much in the answer as in the question. In a sense, all fossil animals are transitional in form to some other animal. Not since the Cambrian has there been many truly "new" organs. Instead, organs that existed in the first fish have slowly changed over time to serve new functions to suit animals to new environments. This is evolution.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-63221972393970781132010-05-02T20:48:15.935-08:002010-05-02T20:48:15.935-08:00Hi, thanks for quick answer.
Let me first answer y...Hi, thanks for quick answer.<br />Let me first answer your question. It is true that there are no cows and Iguanodon sharing the same layer. As you said, I can't provide all the answers myself. But what you call "primitive" I just can't accept as such. If by "transitional" you mean Velociraptor with feathers and similar examples (archaeopteryx) I would propose you find another examples because those are completely functional and highly developed organs those and other species like them possess. <br />As for my question, I'm sorry you couldn't get even a rough estimate. I would like to know on what rate half developed whale organs would appear in such model. I think that it is a matter of belief to say evolution happened. Please notice that I'm not talking YEC now. I just think it is strange that fossil record offers fully developed life forms appearing in explosion of species that's all.<br />Peace :)Mihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278480159023080315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-38892082762916815702010-05-02T16:49:06.590-08:002010-05-02T16:49:06.590-08:00Actually, I don't believe any of these questio...Actually, I don't believe any of these questions are relevant to determining whether evolution happened. As I describe in my article, we know evolution happened because we have a clear progression of fossils in the rock layers of our planet. Near the bottom we find bacteria fossils, above those, we find worm-like creatures (I'm using simple terminology, of course), and then above those layers we find primitive fish, then more advanced fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, birds, mammals and eventually humans.<br /><br />The question of whether evolution happened is not a mystery. It is a model (a scientific "theory") that perfectly explains how modern species exist, and fits the evidence.<br /><br />Your questions relate to HOW evolution happened. And it's true we don't have all the answers or all the evidence. But we don't need ALL the evidence to know things happened in such a way. <br /><br />Consider human history: we don't have a record of every single human that ever lived. We don't have artifacts from every single human population. There are huge gaps in our knowledge of even historical figures, but we don't need every human skeleton and every human artifact to know that ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, and after them came the Greeks, and then Romans, and so on. We know enough to answer the big questions and certainly enough to know which civilizations preceded which and gave rise to others.<br /><br />So maybe you can indulge me: how do you explain the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the fossil record? Why is it that the deeper you dig into the earth's rock layers, the more and more primitive fossils you find? Why is this also true for plants?<br /><br />I may not be able to give you a "transitional fossil" for every living species (though I can give you MANY), but I can at least point to the fossil record and show that animals and plants all over the Earth were buried in a purely evolutionary order.<br /><br />On the other hand, you can't begin to explain this evolutionary order in a non-evolutionary framework so you pick around the details instead of facing the brutal truth of the whole.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-83700211782552577122010-05-02T13:29:04.699-08:002010-05-02T13:29:04.699-08:00Hi, here is the question. How many transitional sp...Hi, here is the question. How many transitional species would take from completely land animal to hippo-kind animal to completely adopted to sea whale? Please indulge me. Are there any transitional fossils (with just one ore few organs developed)? Also could you roughly imagine how many positive mutations would it take for such transition and in what amount of time? And please include the chance factor of that positive mutation to catch on (not to be eaten/killed without procreation). Thanks.Mihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278480159023080315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-64395442662447234492010-03-09T02:31:10.545-09:002010-03-09T02:31:10.545-09:00You sound like me when I was a creationist:
http:...You sound like me when I was a creationist:<br /><br />http://www.evolutionplanet.com/2009/07/how-truth-of-fossil-record-lead-me-away.html<br /><br />I do not agree with your definition of scientific theory, nor do I agree no one has witnessed evolution.<br /><br />But let's cut to the chase: If I could give you evidence of evolution, would you change your mind about it? Would you believe it was a sound theory? If not, then maybe you should reconsider why it is you think it's not true.<br /><br />I find most creationist use scientific-sounding arguments but when I rebut their science they don't change their views--they just move on to some other argument. So I'm really not much interested in arguing with you unless you are willing to change your mind about evolution.<br /><br />Let's start there: what would it take (in terms of evidence) for you to change your mind about evolution?David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-33813888959820941912010-03-05T06:19:04.456-09:002010-03-05T06:19:04.456-09:00I was noticing your page, and it seems that you ar...I was noticing your page, and it seems that you are a Darwinian evolutionist. I was just wondering. Let’s start with the term the “theory of evolution.” A scientific theory is In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.4 Notice I emphasized observable phenomena, because for something to be a scientific theory there has to be observable proof that verifies the scientific theory itself. There has to be physical evidence of evolution occurring (remember from now on when I mention evolution I am talking about macro-evolution. The belief that our ancient ancestor was pond scum). So what am I saying, for something to be a scientific theory there has to be evidence that you can look at of the theory occurring. Here is where the first problem lies no one has ever witnessed the occurrence of evolution. NO ONE! Also there is no proof that verifies evolution ever occurred, so to say in its most basic form that evolution is a theory, according to the definition of a scientific theory is wrong. So evolution is not even a theory because there is no observable evidence that it ever occurred. <br /><br />I would love to hear you regarding this issue, also check out my blog at. http://designedbymeansofintelligence.blogspot.com/<br />until we go to the ends of the earth...<br /><br />Acts 1:8 <br /><br />商宣中<br /><br />Chris Sanford<br />louisvchr@aol.comabandonedtoJesus24-7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08709228751351462650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-448980739770003398.post-16508399271634437012010-02-27T19:46:21.168-09:002010-02-27T19:46:21.168-09:00Imagine if things were turned around. Imagine if i...Imagine if things were turned around. Imagine if instead of similar-looking skeletons, animals had highly unique skeletons that were nothing alike. Imagine if every kind of vertebrate animal had highly specialized bones that didn't compare to other kinds of animals.<br /><br />Then I come along and say, "Actually, this proves animals evolved because a smart creator would restrict themselves to a single template."<br /><br />You would call me crazy! No intelligent designer arbitrarily restricts themselves to an inferior and limiting design framework.David Boardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200260948279778582noreply@blogger.com