Evidence for Evolution

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:49 pm

the evolutionary "theory" is commonly touted by science as a proven fact!!! is it? what evidence is there?

bob_2 · 01-24-09 6:39 pm

Note this quote: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:After citing evolutionists who confess that evolution is not scientifically provable, Dr. Randy L. Wysong observes, “…evolution is not a formulation of the true scientific method. They [these scientists] realize [that, in effect] evolution means the initial formation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an atmosphere or ocean of unknown composition under unknown conditions, which organisms have then climbed an unknown evolutionary ladder by an unknown process leaving unknown evidence.” - R. L. Wysong, The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 40-41<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Hardly a ringing endorsement for the science behind evolution!!! Even though the statement appears to have a 1976 vintage, is it not the same observation we have today????

bob_2 · 01-24-09 7:03 pm

Note this summary on the back cover of Michael Denton's book, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis". <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/091756152X/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link" target=_top>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/091756152X/ref=sib _dp_ptu#reader-link</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:A reader of the Michael Denton's book says, "Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinuous." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm" target=_top>http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 01-25-09 7:02 pm

from a quick read of your link, Bob: Mankind has left behind the Great Pyramids of Egypt (4,500 years ago), the Great Wall of China extending 3,400 miles in length (started 2,700 years ago), Silbury Hill of England (4,600 years ago) and Stonehenge of England (5,000 years ago). These and other structures were made by man and date back 4,500 years or so. Our complex languages like Greek are dated back 4,000 years with little change from the modern language. There are locations all over of the Earth where civilizations would typically choose to live that date back 4,000 years according to archaeological diggings. Yet, we cannot find any human settlements dating back 10,000 years. Where are the pictures of the structures they built 10,000 years ago? There aren't any because no structures existed. They simply do not exist because humans did not exist at that time and the paintings inside the Cosquer Cave? dating from 15 -30 thousand years ago? former SDA president of La Sierra University was an expert on the archeology of Jericho...and he still maintains that there is good evidence of human habitation there dating back 10,000 yrs!!! wouldn't either of those two things render your linked authors claims quoted above a bit exaggerated if not "fundamentally" false?

john8verse32 · 01-26-09 1:10 am

Bob....your Biblelife link appears to be trying too hard to prove its point to have done the research to verify its claims. a two minute search and read of the literature on the net disproves their claim about no civilizations being known older than 4000yrs. Shouldn't this type of mistake , whether out of ignorance or deliberate, warn us about putting too much trust in their other claims? here's their easily disproven claim as their "scientific fact" #12 from <a href="http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm" target=_top>http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm</a> There are locations all over of the Earth where civilizations would typically choose to live that date back 4,000 years according to archaeological diggings. Yet, we cannot find any human settlements dating back 10,000 years. Where are the pictures of the structures they built 10,000 years ago? There aren't any because no structures existed. They simply do not exist because humans did not exist at that time here are the first two links I found (and there were plenty more to check out) which should raise suspicions about the linked biblelife.org's claims if not their motivation and resulting veracity. <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/jericho.html" target=_top>http://www.crystalinks.com/jericho.html</a> Jericho is one of the most ancient human habitations. The most ancient human remains were found in it, some of which go back to 5000 years B.C. Others believe that these remains go back to 7000 years B.C. The most recent opinion on this subject is that they date back to 8000 years B.C. The site of ancient Jericho is half a kilometre away from modern Jericho at a depth of 820 feet ( 250 metres) below sea level. It lies at latitude 31 52 degrees north and longitude 35 39 degrees east. The evidence indicating that it is one of the most ancient cities in the world is borne up by a series of excavations made at " Tall as-Sultan ", which is oval in shape, formed by the successive accumulation of ruins with the passing of time. Excavations have been continuing successively since the middle of the nineteenth century up till now. <a href="http://archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/qt/jericho.htm" target=_top>http://archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/qt/jericho. htm</a> Jericho (also called Tell es-Sultan) is the name of a tell situated on an ancient lake bed plain in what is known as the West Bank, Palestine. The oval tell has between 8 and 12 meters of occupation fill, and it covers an area of about 2.5 hectares. The city that the tell represents is one of oldest continuously occupied (more or less) locations on the planet. The most widely known occupation at Jericho is of course, the Judeo-Christian Bronze Age one--Jericho is mentioned in both old and new testaments of the bible. However, the oldest occupations at Jericho in fact much earlier than that, dating to the Natufian period (ca. 10,500-9,300 years before the present), and it has a substantial Pre-Pottery Neolithic (8300-7300 BC) occupation as well.

bob_2 · 01-26-09 1:51 am

With the flaws in all dating methods, and the complexity to the point of not being able to understand what the scientist is doing, I would say, dating has a problem.

john8verse32 · 01-26-09 6:40 pm

not being able to understand what the scientist is doing,I would say, dating has a problem. thats more a problem for the education of those who don't understand, than it is for the multiple techniques of "dating" which some do not want to learn about (because they disagree with new concepts which may disprove cherished dogma?) Larry Garrity was Pres of AUC, then later LaSierra U... and a well known archeologist who studied jericho....and came to the same conclusion that almost everybody else does... there is evidence of human habitation there going back close to 10,000 yrs. Sorry if that is a fact which completely renders incorrect if not obsolete the web site you linked to.

john8verse32 · 03-11-09 9:42 pm

top 10 extinct beasts... why did Noah not take them on the ark? not enuf room? they couldn't schlep up the gang plank? God didn't want them saved? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/772.gif" alt=""> or is there another possible explanation? <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/10-extinct-beasts/top-10-extinct-beasts.html" target=_top>http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/10-extinct-beasts/top-10-extinct-beasts.html</a>

neal · 04-23-09 7:30 am

Time to add another transitional fossil to the growing mountain of evidence for evolution. This one proves Darwin's theory that land mammals would evolve into fresh water, then ocean mammals so they named it after him.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:'Missing link' fossil seal walked Page last updated at 19:27 GMT, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 20:27 UK By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website It may look like a cross between a seal and an otter; but an Arctic fossil could, scientists say, hold the secret of seal evolution in its feet. A skeleton unearthed in northern Canada shows a creature with feet that were probably webbed, but were not flippers. Writing in the journal Nature, scientists suggest the 23 million-year-old proto-seal would have walked on land and swum in fresh water. It is the oldest seal ancestor found so far and has been named Puijila darwini. Pujilla is the term for "young sea mammal" in the Inuktitut language, spoken by Inuit groups in Devon Island where the fossil was found. <blockquote>"Puijila is the evolutionary evidence we have been lacking for so long" Mary Dawson Carnegie Museum of Natural History</blockquote> And the reference to Charles Darwin honours the famous biologist's contention that land mammals would naturally move into the marine environment via a fresh water stage, just as pinnipeds - seals, sealions and walruses - have apparently done. "The find suggests that pinnipeds went through a fresh water phase in their evolution," said Natalia Rybczynski from the Canadian Museum of Nature (CMN) in Ottawa, who led the fieldwork. "It also provides us with a glimpse of what pinnipeds looked like before they had flippers." Flip side The skeleton was about 65% complete, which enabled the researchers to reconstruct what the animal would have looked like in remarkable detail. The legs suggest it would have walked upright on land; but the foot bones hint strongly at webbed feet. The fact that the remains were found in a former crater lake that has also yielded fossil fish from the same period was additional evidence for a semi-aquatic past. "The remarkably preserved skeleton of Puijila had heavy limbs, indicative of well developed muscles, and flattened phalanges (finger or toe bones) which suggest that the feet were webbed - but not flippers," said Mary Dawson from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, US, another of the scientists involved. "This animal was likely adept at both swimming and walking on land. Puijila is the evolutionary evidence we have been lacking for so long." Until now, the most primitive fossil pinniped was a creature called Enaliarctos that dates from about the same period and appears to have lived in the sea along the northwestern coasts of North America. Enaliarctos had flippers, but may have had to bring its prey to the shore for eating, whereas modern pinnipeds manage it at sea. Intriguingly, different species of present-day seal swim in different ways - either rotating their flippers, or waving their hind-quarters from side to side, using the hind limbs for propulsion. Enaliarctos appears to have been capable of both modes of swimming - and as a four-legged animal with four webbed feet, Puijila is a logical fore-runner of this creature which could swim with all four limbs. The new discovery also shows, the scientists say, that seals, sealions and walruses very likely had their origins in the Arctic. Darwin forecast the transition from land to sea via fresh water in his seminal work On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago this year. "A strictly terrestrial animal, by occasionally hunting for food in shallow water, then in streams or lakes, might at last be converted in an animal so thoroughly aquatic as to brace the open ocean," he wrote.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8012322.stm" target=_top>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8012322. stm</a> A theory that works has the capability of having predictive power and robustness. A theory that doesn't work, well, it is falsified at every turn (like Genesis) and is discarded because IT DOESN'T WORK.

bob_2 · 04-23-09 9:07 am

I love these, rush to judgement stories. The assumptions made as soon as the bones are found. Only to find out, sometimes the bones were a mixture of critters. I think I'll wait to see how this thing fits into the WHOLE picture, eh???

neal · 04-23-09 10:08 am

I love these, rush to judgement stories. The assumptions made as soon as the bones are found. If they rushed to judgment 10,000 scientists would be on their case immediately. You just provided a nice example of rush to judgment yourself. Twice actually. First, you claim the Freddie Mac suicide was because of his job at Freddie Mac. Now, without even digging into the background, you rush to judgment with the assertion that they announced their find as soon as they found the bones. Uh, is 2 years "as soon as the bones are found"? No. They found most of it at the end of the 2007 season and the rest early in the 2008 season. They have been studying it for over 1 1/2 years. Your process for reaching conclusions needs some work. <blockquote>The Story of the Discovery</blockquote> <a href="http://nature.ca/puijila/fi_e.cfm" target=_top>http://nature.ca/puijila/fi_e.cfm</a>

neal · 04-23-09 10:09 am

I think I'll wait to see how this thing fits into the WHOLE picture, eh??? I know ONE picture it does not fit into- the genocidal maniac Bible picture.

bob_2 · 04-23-09 11:04 pm

Better than being a slime pond tender. Genodide and Abuse are both very overworked words in your vocabulary and in the vocabulary of today's era. IMO.

neal · 04-24-09 7:15 am

Genodide and Abuse are both very overworked words in your vocabulary.... They are very 'overworked' actions of the Bible characters. If there weren't so much eager genocide in you holy book it wouldn't make sense to give them the moniker of genocidal maniacs. Everything the West is now appalled at from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran & Iraq concerning the tribalism, desire to annihilate their neighboring countries or muslim sect, the death sentences for young lovers, adulterers, blasphemers, and apostates, the denial of education to women, the forced marriages, the denial of a woman's right to go outside the home, the legal beatings, the lack of women's right to divorce, etc are all everyday Desires of God in the OT.

bob_2 · 04-24-09 5:06 pm

Some cultures have advanced some have stayed behind, and your slime pond tenders help perpetuate it. staying behind that is.

elaine · 04-24-09 7:12 pm

Bob, you're beginning to sound like a frustrated kid: having learned a new word, it is constantly used. Why not enlarge your sobriquets?

bob_2 · 04-24-09 10:07 pm

You don't like the discriptive slime tender. How about any opposition to the use of certain individuals use of "Goat-herders"? EH?? To be fair and balanced??? Hit you the same way???

bob_2 · 04-24-09 10:09 pm

All I was doing was hunting for label that was meaningful of a certain group on this forum. How'd I do??? BTW, let me know when you are ready for a serious conversation. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/kiss.gif" border=0>

neal · 04-25-09 9:23 am

You don't like the discriptive slime tender. How about any opposition to the use of certain individuals use of "Goat-herders"? EH?? To be fair and balanced??? Hit you the same way??? "Slime tender". Would that be defined as someone that tended to slime? As in back at the beginning of evolution? The difference would be that during early evolution there were no humans, but goat herders actually did exist and actually DID write the Bible.

bob_2 · 04-25-09 3:18 pm

TTTHTFAL, ole sublime slime pond tender.

neal · 04-25-09 3:44 pm

sublime slime pond tender. You are a Liar for Jesus. Its a fact that goat herders and their genocidal maniac cohorts wrote the hebrew Bible. Just puts your ignorance of history on full display for all to see. As if we needed more evidence of your ignorance.

neal · 04-25-09 9:33 pm

By Bob: I love these, rush to judgement stories. The assumptions made as soon as the bones are found. Only to find out, sometimes the bones were a mixture of critters. I think I'll wait to see how this thing fits into the WHOLE picture, eh??? PZ Myers is talking about you Bob! <blockquote>Puijila darwini Category: Evolution • Fossils • Organisms • Science Posted on: April 23, 2009 1:58 PM, by PZ Myers It's yet another transitional fossil, everyone! Oooh and aaah over it, and laugh when the creationists scramble to pave it over with excuses. What we have is a 23 million year old mammal from the Canadian arctic that would have looked rather like a seal in life…with a prominent exception. No flippers, instead having very large feet that were probably webbed. This is a walking seal.</blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/puijila_darwini.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/puijila _darwini.php</a> Notice comment #4... by our own Glen Davidson. He posts quite a bit on PZ's blog and has received a Molly Award from him. If you want to learn some good science read PZ. He is an evolutionary biologist. If you want the best goat herder thought from the bronze age then read the Bible. Edit: He also gets regular death threats from Jesus' followers. He posts them on his blog with all the headers. Normally only takes a few hours for the computer geeks on his site to track down who the idiot is. He has 2.5 million visitors a month on his site, one of the top science writers in the world. Writes a monthly article for the Guardian in the UK, and was tricked into the scam interview for the faux documentary EXPELLED. He went to the preview of it in Minnesota and they kicked him out but didn't recognize Dawkins that was with him. What a bunch of christian liar goofballs. As I have said before, when I bought him a beer last summer we talked about debating fundamentalist such as yourself. He doesn't do it because (and you have proven this to be true) they are not open to reason or evidence, preferring the safety of what their mommy taught them. He's correct, I just enjoy it too much from time to time. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/kiss.gif" border=0> (Message edited by neal on April 25, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-25-09 11:10 pm

So you can vouch for PZ being present millions of years ago when this animal existed and died, eh, Neal. I love the definitive statements about Millions of years ago. Talk about faith. PZ must have as much as any Christian in his own topic.

neal · 04-25-09 11:17 pm

I love the definitive statements about Millions of years ago. I have no reason to doubt the science of dating objects. I base belief on authority, coherence, and evidence. The Bible has no authority as it is evidentially false in so many places it would make being credulous respectable to say I believed a word it says.

bob_2 · 04-25-09 11:26 pm

And Uniformitarianism too,eh???<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 01-24-09 4:49 pm

Evidence for Evolution

#2 01-24-09 6:39 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#3 01-24-09 7:03 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#4 01-25-09 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#5 01-26-09 1:10 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#6 01-26-09 1:51 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#7 01-26-09 6:40 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#8 03-11-09 9:42 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#9 04-23-09 7:30 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#10 04-23-09 9:07 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#11 04-23-09 10:08 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#12 04-23-09 10:09 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#13 04-23-09 11:04 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#14 04-24-09 7:15 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#15 04-24-09 5:06 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#16 04-24-09 7:12 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#17 04-24-09 10:07 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#18 04-24-09 10:09 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#19 04-25-09 9:23 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#20 04-25-09 3:18 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#21 04-25-09 3:44 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#22 04-25-09 9:33 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#23 04-25-09 11:10 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#24 04-25-09 11:17 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

#25 04-25-09 11:26 pm

Re: Evidence for Evolution

Board footer