Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

[Millerlite]

There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

There is a mathematical inference that species evolve in the macro level.

Reverse engineer the ascertion that species gone extinct, did not otherwise give rise to whooly new forms.

So, the fossil record, millions of years or just a few thousand, either way contains tens of thousands of large species of animals, at least 1 kilo.

If all created spontanously at once, and some 80% now extinct, where did they all live? Does spontaneouse creation happen in episodes?, such that when species inventory gets low, a new suite of animals is created?

Birds are dinosaurs, but just one small group, from a much larger diversity of animals that were/are dinosaurs.

The age of the earth is certainly no younger than the oldest living things, some bacteria are over 500,000 years old, some trees over 80,000.

Emergent properties, that's what makes life, alive and dynamic. There are emergent properties is culture too, one is called religion. Life was here before religion. One begat the other in chronological order. Relgion is an artifact of cultural and social needs.

It's a great thing, and has advanced culture and socity in harmony with other great cultural and social mechanisms like war and agriculture.

But some animals practice war, and agriculture. I'm reasonable sure humans are the only animal to practice religion.

Makes it a truly purely human thing.

 

[BeeBee*BeeLeaves]

Nope. My tortoises think I am the food goddess and worship me. I rule. : )

 

[diamondbp]

So,to sum, your assumptions are as follows:
1). I've never read creationist books or
2). Researched creationism
3). I have a poorly paid job
4). Your 'following the debate' is on equal footing with formal education
5). I'm neither busy or lazy

You're actually incorrect across the board (that's the trouble with assumptions), but item 5 is going to preclude a substantial response in the immediate future. Despite my assumption that a minivan full of archaeopteryx wouldnt sway you in the least, in the interest of returning this thread to chelonian relevance, I will respond. But I'm on my way out of town, so you'll have to wait.

I don't doubt that you may have browsed creation material, but yes I doubt that you have read some in depth creation literature. Any creation books or articles that stand out in your mind? Or did they all fall incredibly short to you?

I also wasn't stating that all "biology" type jobs are poor paying jobs, but most people don't go into the field of biology because the pay is so good.

The rest of what your saying I'm assuming in just incorrect and doesn't need to be addressed.

---

Also archaeopteryx isn't proof of anything other than that archaeopteryx existed. Do you have DNA from archaeopteryx? Nope. Behavorial data? Nope. Therefore your conclusions on that type of animal is more limited than you will admit.

Modern sugar gliders and flying squirrels are remarkably similar yet we would never link them together because of observational data, genetic data, etc.

---

I've put plenty of thought into creationism and read plenty of material over the years. I am also not, as you claim, an evolutionist. I'm not a scientist, either. But I believe in facts, and rational, data-driven evidence. Leave everything else in the realm of fiction (which I also love, mind you). Creationism has yet to produce one tangible piece of evidence; when this changes, please, please, let me know. I'll be the first to research it.

And to your own admission, you are no more qualified than I. We are laymen. Did you know Will is one of those biologists you speak so fondly of? Did you know that there are people who've spent their whole adult life learning, studying, and researching - past college - while you were off getting married and having a family? Yes, that was a bit condescending, but I don't mean any disrespect. But when you talk about evolution as if you're on the same level of someone who has spent 20+ years in the scientific field studying biology, while really all you've done is pick up factoids from easily-digestible books with a subjective slant toward creationism, you're not doing anything to further your cause.

I like facts to. I just don't like false evolution driven interpretation of facts. I respsect Will. I'm not trying to say I don't like biologist lol.

How do you know the books I have read and am reading are easily digestible?

I'm curious about the books you may have read on creation science. Was nothing that was presented in those books at all of value? Did they not draw into question any aspect about evolutio?

Also I am not claiming to be more qualified than anyone else. I would never ever claim such a thing. But I do know that I've put a ton of thought into these issues and think I raise some reasonable objections to evolution when it comes to turtles. I have only presented a few of my points. Topics of this nature can be discussed in much greaterefficiency and detail in person. I simply don't care to type out all that I could say on this subject. I like you guys........ just not enough to exhaust my fingers that way lol.

---

"Heck, I'll let you pick any species on this planet"

I'll take you up on this generous offer and for the sake of expediency rely on my botany roots. (Pun intended).

By definition, macroevolution is the differentiation into different species than the ancestral species. Observed examples include:

de Vries (1905) found an unusual genetic variant among a formerly homogeneous population of Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. This variant was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana (thus indicative of a new species).

Digby (1912) crossed Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. However, polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring , incapable of reproduction with either parent strain. It was noted that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three separate occasions.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

These examples are observed, documented and old enough to be public access. Check away

Since it's apparent this (or any other information) will be insufficient for the faithful and I am getting tired of presenting remedial biology, I suggest again separate threads. One for those who want to discuss Vishnu, genesis, Norse myths or whatever and one for an actual discussion of chelonian science, including evolution, natural history and ecology.

Zeno this is macro evolution? They start with Primerose annnnnnd ended with Primerose. That is amazing.

Now if they did that same experiment 10,000 times would they end up with a cypress tree? I think not. It would still be a primerose, just a VARIANT of the original kind of plant. Which is exactly what a creationist would expect.

If you would like to show me another example please do so. And don't attempt to say that I simply don't understand your examples. I've had that same sad story presented to me numerous times and have read plenty of articles about it. In the end.................. it's still a primerose.

---

There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?

Well these points will bring us into the topic of dating methods and the accuracy of them. I will just say this, there is LOTS of information and objections on the different types of dating methods by creationist that go into great detail. All dating methods have built in assumptions in the equations used to determine dates. If you change these ASSUMPTIONS you consequently change the outcome of the dating methods.
http://www.icr.org/rate/

That's one link that may help on that topic.

Young earth Biblical creationist believe all creatures were created in the days of creation described in the Bible. That is all whole other topic that we could dive into but religion will come up repeatedly and we've been asked to not have that happen. I don't mind if you PM me with a question.

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

I got a few things wrong, by the thin slice of word meaning. It's important to tease these things out.

Random mutations, selected results. So not quite so 100% random as I have put forward here.

The mutations are random, but the results selection is governed by adaptations that result in higher cohort success.

 

[Yvonne G]

Like so many other things in the bible, interpretations are everything. Who's to say that when the bible says something happened in a day, exactly how long a day is? It may be they're referring to a period of time and not to a 24 hour day....like a jurassic period, an eon, etc.

 

[diamondbp]

There is a mathematical inference that species evolve in the macro level.

Reverse engineer the ascertion that species gone extinct, did not otherwise give rise to whooly new forms.

So, the fossil record, millions of years or just a few thousand, either way contains tens of thousands of large species of animals, at least 1 kilo.

If all created spontanously at once, and some 80% now extinct, where did they all live? Does spontaneouse creation happen in episodes?, such that when species inventory gets low, a new suite of animals is created?

Birds are dinosaurs, but just one small group, from a much larger diversity of animals that were/are dinosaurs.

The age of the earth is certainly no younger than the oldest living things, some bacteria are over 500,000 years old, some trees over 80,000.

Emergent properties, that's what makes life, alive and dynamic. There are emergent properties is culture too, one is called religion. Life was here before religion. One begat the other in chronological order. Relgion is an artifact of cultural and social needs.

It's a great thing, and has advanced culture and socity in harmony with other great cultural and social mechanisms like war and agriculture.

But some animals practice war, and agriculture. I'm reasonable sure humans are the only animal to practice religion.

Makes it a truly purely human thing.

Birds ARE dinosaurs? Can you produce the genetic data to prove that? These are the types of statements that really make me shake my head. Please provide any info you can to confirm 100% that birds are dinosaurs. And please don't try the "dinosaurs with feathers" tactics. Most evolutionist haven't noticed that there is intense debate WITHIN the scientific community on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs are from another lineage. I've read information from both sides and neither are compelling.

Bacteria over 500,000 years old? Can you provide that info? Trees 80,000 years old? Can you provide that info. I've heard some outrageous ages to living organisms but never that outlandish. I'm interested on seeing that material.

As far as your argument to the sheer mass of animals that are now extinct and fossilized you have to take a few things into account before drawing the conclusions you are drawing.
I will try to answer this objection without bringing to much religion into it.
Young-earth Creationist believe that the Earth before Noah's flood was MUCH MUCH different. Scripture tells us that there was only one great sea and that God created the Earth to be inhabited by man and FOR man to have dominion over the WHOLE EARTH. This(along with other scriptures) indicates a radically different pre-flood world.

Only about 5% of the current Earth's surface in able to be inhabited by man in a completely naturalist manner (naked lol). Which doesn't correspond to how scripture says God originally created the Earth.

Most creationist believe that there was probably 80-90% or more of land surface compared to water, which gives a MUCH LARGER area for God's creatures to dwell in comparison to todays surface. Scripture indicates that the mountain ranges were MUCH LESS extreme and would have provide more liveable landscape for both Man and beast. Also before the flood there was harmony amongst the creatures in creation which would allow more creatures to inhabit the same areas without fear of one another. Only after the flood did animals begin to fear man and each other.
Also there is strong evidence that the atmosphere before the flood was much different than today's atmosphere and would have provided better conditions for larger plants and animals than we have today.

I can't stress how much I had to abbreviate these points. And if you have never read any creation material this will all sound quite outlandish to you.

I just want to make it known that the creation we observe today is vastly different than the creation before the flood ACCORDING to sacred scripture.

I will ignore the comments on religion from Will to keep us from diving to far into a religious debate.

---

Like so many other things in the bible, interpretations are everything. Who's to say that when the bible says something happened in a day, exactly how long a day is? It may be they're referring to a period of time and not to a 24 hour day....like a jurassic period, an eon, etc.

I can answer your objection if you like Yvonne. But it will require some religious comments. That is up to you if you would allow me to do that.

---

Nope. My tortoises think I am the food goddess and worship me. I rule. : )

I think you rule to BeeBee

---

I would like to provide two very strong indicators of a young earth also. If I need to provide others I can.

1. Very Little sediment on the seafloor-- If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for 3 BILLION yeasr, the seafloor should be CHOKED with sediments many miles deep. Think about it. And NO Tectonic plate movements would no absorb enough sediment to counter this giant problem.

2: Bent Rock Layers -- In MANY MANY MOUNTAINOUS areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down seperately over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and ALREADY HARDENED?

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Will,

Did you happen to catch this? If implications are correct and consistent within the order(a) then environmental (including thermoregulation) would not be a driver to gigantism. Could be significant given the commonality of this trend, particularly in isolation .

“New pelomedusoid turtles from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia and their implications for phylogeny and body size evolution”

Authors: Edwin Cadena, Dan Ksepka, North Carolina State University; Carlos Jaramillo, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama; Jonathan Bloch, Florida Museum of Natural History

Published: In the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Abstract:
Pelomedusoides comprises five moderate-sized extant genera with an entirely southern hemisphere distribution, but the fossil record of these turtles reveals a great diversity of extinct taxa, documents several instances of gigantism, and indicates a complex palaeobiogeographical history for the clade. Here, we report new pelomedusoid turtle fossils from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia. The most complete of these is represented by a large skull (condylobasal length ´ = 16 cm) and is described as Carbonemys cofrinii gen. et sp. nov. (Podocnemididae). Carbonemys is incorporated into a parsimony analysis utilizing a modified morphological character matrix designed to test relationships within Panpelomedusoides, with the addition of molecular data from seven genes (12S RNA, cytochrome b, ND4, NT3, R35, RAG-1 and RAG-2) drawn from previous studies of extant Podocnemididae. C. cofrinii is recovered within Podocnemididae in the results of both morphology-only and combined morphological and molecular (total evidence) analyses. However, molecular data strongly impact the inferred relationships of C. cofrinii and several other fossil taxa by altering the relative positions of the extant taxa Peltocephalus and Erymnochelys. This resulted in C. cofrinii being recovered within the crown clade Podocnemididae in the morphology-only analysis, but outside of Podocnemididae in the combined analysis. Two panpodocnemidid turtle taxa of uncertain affinities are represented by new diagnostic shell material from the Cerrejon Formation, though we refrain from naming them pending discovery of associated cranial material. One of these shells potentially belongs to C. cofrinii and represents the second largest pleurodiran turtle yet discovered. Analysis of pelomedusoid body size evolution suggests that climatic variation is not the primary driver of major body size changes. Cerrejon turtles also demonstrate that at least two major subclades of Podocnemididae were already in place in the neotropics by the Early Cenozoic.

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".

Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.

I can't imagine what it is like to lift 300 pounds over my head in a press and jerk, I'm not strong enough. Doing it with 100 pounds is not the same. Sooo, if you are not able to lift heavy thoughts, or do your own work to build up to that on your own, I'll not offer any more simple based points for consideration to facilitate your strength.

The ages of trees and bacteria are easy google searches. Do them yourself. Learn to read scientific literature on your own time.

Fish for a day or fish for life. My bad to have fed you each day.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".

Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.

I can't imagine what it is like to lift 300 pounds over my head in a press and jerk, I'm not strong enough. Doing it with 100 pounds is not the same. Sooo, if you are not able to lift heavy thoughts, or do your own work to build up to that on your own, I'll not offer any more simple based points for consideration to facilitate your strength.

The ages of trees and bacteria are easy google searches. Do them yourself. Learn to read scientific literature on your own time.

Fish for a day or fish for life. My bad to have fed you each day.

I concur. Hence my attempt to return it to relevance.

 

[diamondbp]

The grand story Evolution requires....

Something coming from nothing

Life from non life

Intelligence from non intelligence

Organization by random chance

That your (Zeno and Will) greatggggggggggggggggggggreat grandfather is a ROCK. Yes a rock. Or stardust. Whichever seems more poetic to you.

Yet those silly creationist believe....

A creation requires a creator

Intelligence comes from a higher intelligence

Organization comes from an organizer

Life comes from life

That the greatgggggggggggggggreat grandfather of a human....is a human

How dare creationist question evolution *facepalm*

God help us

 

[Levi the Leopard]

Re: RE: Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

The grand story Evolution requires....

Something coming from nothing

Life from non life

Intelligence from non intelligence

Organization by random chance

That your (Zeno and Will) greatggggggggggggggggggggreat grandfather is a ROCK. Yes a rock. Or stardust. Whichever seems more poetic to you.

Yet those silly creationist believe....

A creation requires a creator

Intelligence comes from a higher intelligence

Organization comes from an organizer

Life comes from life

That the greatgggggggggggggggreat grandfather of a human....is a human

How dare creationist question evolution *facepalm*

God help us

This is blunt and well said. I just decided to tune into this thread but didn't read all the previous posts. Just a few...

---

There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?

Some living animals have been carbon dated to be a few thousand years old.
Different parts of the same animal have dated to be thousands and millions years apart in age.

Carbon dating is a rubber ruler. It assumes certain levels are a constant but that assumption is just that...a guess. You can't make the "estimated age" a fact when the formula is a guess to begin with.

 

[Millerlite]

The grand story Evolution requires....

Something coming from nothing

Life from non life

Intelligence from non intelligence

Organization by random chance

That your (Zeno and Will) greatggggggggggggggggggggreat grandfather is a ROCK. Yes a rock. Or stardust. Whichever seems more poetic to you.

Yet those silly creationist believe....

A creation requires a creator

Intelligence comes from a higher intelligence

Organization comes from an organizer

Life comes from life

That the greatgggggggggggggggreat grandfather of a human....is a human

How dare creationist question evolution *facepalm*

God help us

This is blunt and well said. I just decided to tune into this thread but didn't read all the previous posts. Just a few...

---

There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?

Some living animals have been carbon dated to be a few thousand years old.
Different parts of the same animal have dated to be thousands and millions years apart in age.

Carbon dating is a rubber ruler. It assumes certain levels are a constant but that assumption is just that...a guess. You can't make the "estimated age" a fact when the formula is a guess to begin with.

---

They found a piece of radioactive plutonium in Canada I believe, it was tested and eatimated to be million of years old. This is pretty accurate tho because of the properties of radioactive decay it might be off a percent but still way pass the 10,000 year mark

 

[Levi the Leopard]

Did they use the same method of testing that said a freshly killed sea lion was 1,300 years old?

---

Here are some wrong assumptions with carbon dating.
1, Atmospheric C14 is in equilibrium
2, Decay rate remains constant
3, Initial amounts of C14 can be known
4, The sample being tested is contaminated
5, The geologic column can be used as a base to calibrate C14 dates.

 

[ascott]

Will Wrote:
this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".

Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.

I can't imagine what it is like to lift 300 pounds over my head in a press and jerk, I'm not strong enough. Doing it with 100 pounds is not the same. Sooo, if you are not able to lift heavy thoughts, or do your own work to build up to that on your own, I'll not offer any more simple based points for consideration to facilitate your strength.

The ages of trees and bacteria are easy google searches. Do them yourself. Learn to read scientific literature on your own time.

Fish for a day or fish for life. My bad to have fed you each day.

I concur. Hence my attempt to return it to relevance.

pomp·ous
ˈpämpəs/Submit
adjective
1.
affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.
"a pompous *** who pretends he knows everything"
synonyms: self-important, imperious, overbearing, domineering, magisterial, pontifical, sententious, grandiose, affected, pretentious, puffed up, arrogant, vain, haughty, proud, conceited, egotistic, supercilious, condescending, patronizing; informalsnooty, uppity, uppish

Just thought I would add the thought that first came to mind after these two posts....

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Well I was clearly mistaken in thinking this could be a topic for a serious discussion. Instead, every attempt to add clarity has been met with metaphysical rambling, explanations dismissed out of hand and an overt belief that the musings of the self - righteous are some how on par with scientific discourse is presented as a valid point.

Me and my silly optimism.

Hey moderators- any chance you can kill this thread before the Sunday schoolers hijack it again ?

 

[Yvonne G]

You're right, Steve...it was good while it lasted.